Ben McNeil is a Senior Research Fellow at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW. He holds a Masters of Economics in addition to his scientific training, and he is on the executive of the prestigious Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS). In 2007, he was chosen as an expert reviewer for the United Nations Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report and was invited to present his research to the Prime Minister and Cabinet at Parliament House in Canberra. He speaks regularly at corporate and scientific events and to media.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd i
26/2/09 10:18:43 PM
This page intentionally left blank
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd ii
26/2/09 10:18:46 PM
J>; 9B;7D ?D:KIJH?7B H;LEBKJ?ED =HEM?D=7KIJH7B?7DFHEIF;H?JO ?D7=H;;D>EKI;7=;
8;DC9D;?B
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd iii
26/2/09 10:18:46 PM
First published in 2009 Copyright © Ben McNeil 2009 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. The Australian Copyright Act 1968 (the Act) allows a maximum of one chapter or 10 per cent of this book, whichever is the greater, to be photocopied by any educational institution for its educational purposes provided that the educational institution (or body that administers it) has given a remuneration notice to Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) under the Act. Allen & Unwin 83 Alexander Street Crows Nest NSW 2065 Australia Phone: (61 2) 8425 0100 Fax: (61 2) 9906 2218 Email:
[email protected] Web: www.allenandunwin.com Cataloguing-in-publication details are available from the National Library of Australia www.librariesaustralia.nla.gov.au ISBN 978 1 74175 722 4 Index by Trevor Matthews Set in 11/14.8 pt Chaparral Pro by Bookhouse, Sydney Printed and bound in Australia by Griffin Press 10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
This book is printed on FSC-certified paper. The printer holds FSC chain of custody SGS-COC-005088. The FSC promotes environmentally responsible, socially beneficial and economically viable management of the worlds forests.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd iv
5/3/09 3:42:57 PM
Contents
Introduction
1
Part I The Case for a Carbon Pre-emptive Strike 1 2 3 4 5
The Blind Threat Climate Battlers Australia’s Carbon Obesity The Future Shock Beyond Polar Bears
15 27 43 52 70
Part II How Do We Cut Carbon? 6 7 8 9 10
Becoming the New Saudi Arabia How Science Must Save Us Breaking Our Coal Addiction The Crude Truth Fitting Carbon Shock-absorbers
85 103 126 142 157
Part III The New Low-carbon Economy 11 Carbon Economics 12 The Accidental Environmentalist 13 More Jobs in Clean than Dirty
177 195 209
Notes Index Acknowledgments
229 256 265
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd v
26/2/09 10:18:46 PM
For Henry and all those born in the new millennium, in the hope that we can leave them a cleaner and more prosperous world.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd vi
26/2/09 10:18:46 PM
Introduction Introduction
Y
ellowknife must be one of the most isolated capital cities on Earth. With a population of 20,000, it’s the capital of Canada’s rugged Northwest Territories. Beyond the capital another 20,000 people are spread out over an area greater than the size of New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania combined. It’s easy to imagine how sparsely settled the Northwest Territories are when the official number of people per square kilometre is nearing zero (0.037). Cutting through the Arctic Circle, this expansive region has a spectacularly unique landscape. The thousands of lakes and ponds were formed by a massive ice sheet, which covered the region during Earth’s last glacial period. Wildlife riches include polar bears, beluga whales and the barren-ground caribou. There are other riches too: it turns out that the thousands of little islands scattered throughout this remote region are worth tens of billions of dollars. In the early 1990s, diamonds were discovered in abundance throughout this ancient landscape. Since then, a swag of resource companies have swarmed into the province—BHP, Rio Tinto and the famous Tiffany’s & Co. among them—to get their own piece of the action. Diamonds, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of 1
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 1
26/2/09 10:18:46 PM
2 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
carats, lie locked away here, allowing at least a 20-year windfall for each company. There is a slight problem, however—actually physically getting to the diamondmining areas. Thousands of small lakes along the 600-kilometre stretch between Yellowknife and the mines make conventional transport access impossible. Supplies could be transported by air, but supplying hundreds of thousands of litres of diesel fuel and heavy machinery for mining operations would be prohibitively expensive. It turns out that a window of opportunity presents itself each year for the not-so-faint-hearted truck driver. In the depths of winter, temperatures plummet to –20°C and the water in the lakes starts to freeze over. If it’s cold enough for a period of just six weeks, a 1-metre thick ice bridge forms over the lakes and ponds. This is just thick enough to support 70-tonne trucks and presents a perfect opportunity for the resource companies to supply their multibillion-dollar diamond operations. Since 2001, over a short six-week period during the depths of winter, some 9000 trucks typically make the 24-hour journey over the winter ice to supply the mines with equipment and fuel for the year. Each truck driver’s life depends on a mere 1-metre slab of ice, extending hundreds of kilometres. The truckies’ livelihoods, along with the mines’ economic viability, is totally dependent on having long, cold winters. Every day that the ice bridge remains open reduces the mines’ operating costs and ensures profits. The Canadian winter of 2006 changed everything. In that year, northern Canada’s temperatures soared and the winter was the warmest on record. Instead of solid ice, after a few short winter weeks
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 2
26/2/09 10:18:46 PM
Introduction • 3
the ice bridge was like a 7-Eleven slurpee. The diamond companies had to close the ice bridge early, resulting in a 70 per cent decline in the usual truck supply. To make up for it, the companies had to fly in the leftover supplies at massive cost. One company, the Harry Winston Diamond Corporation, which has a minority stake in just one of the mines, was hit with an additional $20 million bill from the early closure.1 Rio Tinto and BHP, with much bigger stakes, must have had a much bigger bill. The thing is, these warm winters aren’t exactly unexpected. Climate change is raising temperatures all over the world—particularly near the Arctic which has already warmed at a rate that is double the global average.This is mainly because of a physical effect whereby ice-melting speeds up the human-induced warming. Winters could be anywhere between 8°C and 13°C warmer in the Arctic region by the end of this century without a rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.2 Investing billions of dollars in these mines in the late 1990s, companies such as BHP and Rio Tinto must have had a lot of faith in the persistence of long, cold winters in the region. Ironically, the year before, in 2005, global diamond giant De Beers invested $1 billion in a new diamond mine in the territory, including the infrastructure to construct another ice bridge.3 The companies must also have had confidence in oil, the only energy resource that can power the trucks towards the diamond mines. But by 2006, the oil price had doubled in two years, reaching US$70 a barrel, and then further surging to $140 a barrel by 2008. The cost of business skyrocketed from climate and energy shocks, which must have been a rude awakening for these companies—melting away the profitability of their multibillion-dollar diamond
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 3
26/2/09 10:18:46 PM
4 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
assets. Ironically, oil, the fossil fuel that caused global economic hardship through surging prices, is also one of the creators of our increasingly warmer world. Continuing our dependence on finite and polluting fossil fuels will certainly invoke future climate and energy shocks that will cut into the prosperity of the entire world’s population, not just of rich mining corporations. Melting icecaps aren’t just about polar bears—and climate change is definitely not just about the environment, it’s about economics. Our modern society was built on a stable climate. If we allow a supercharged climate to occur, it will alter the economic fabric of our society. Australia is deeply climate sensitive. As Australia is the driest inhabitable continent, with 86 per cent of the population living near the coastline, any climate shifts this century pose a threat to long-term prosperity. Declining crop yields, more intense droughts and water constraints, an exacerbation of infrastructure damages from stronger storms and rising seas, and the potential destruction of national wonders like the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu National Park are environmental crises—but just as much economic crises. You may be someone who lives far away from coastlines or ice sheets, but we all have a hippocket stake in slowing climate change: the low- to middleclass grocery shoppers who will see food price hikes; the millionaires who will see their ski lodges or coastal real estate assets vanish; the multi-generational farming family who will face uncertain climate extremes; the businesspeople who will pay more for insurance premiums; and the taxpayers who will pay to build desalination plants and replace infrastructure damaged by climate extremes. Stabilising climate is critical to ensuring Australia’s continued prosperity.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 4
26/2/09 10:18:46 PM
Introduction • 5
• Whether it’s travelling to work, going to school or visiting your mother, people need to move around. Transport, along with the computer I am using to write this book, the refrigerator, or the lights guiding a surgeon’s scalpel, all need power. There’s no way around it, access to energy is deeply embedded in virtually everything we do. Even a United Nations meeting, held in an attempt to solve climate change, involves spewing out copious amounts of greenhouse gases. This is because from the time English engineer Thomas Newcomen invented the first steam engine in the 18th century our global society has generated, and continues to generate, the bulk of its energy by burning carbon: burning oil to move people around and burning coal to power our buildings, factories and appliances. The first industrial revolution was indeed a transformative period in history, boosting prosperity to a growing population. But it wasn’t just one invention that led to the enormous prosperity boom, but the molding together of different concepts which gave way to millions of new technologies that, simply put, did things better than before. But better is a subjective word; what was good for the 20th century is not necessarily good for the 21st. Access to energy is needed for growing prosperity, not carbon emissions—the unwanted by-product. Growing prosperity in the 21st century must therefore take carbon out of the equation and, with 9 billion people predicted to be on the planet by 2050, it can only occur on the scale required via a clean technological revolution. Eventually this transition will have to occur, particularly for oil given
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 5
26/2/09 10:18:47 PM
6 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
its dwindling supplies. But climate change has given all fossil fuels the knockout blow, forcing us to more quickly de-carbonise our entire economy. The clean industrial revolution this century is one where the fuel is free and infinite, and the materials grown or recycled. Forseeably it could be the last revolution, since the power of sun, wind, ocean and earth is virtually infinite. The technological advancements in information technology, communications, the internet, bio-technology and nano-technology will only accelerate the global transition towards this clean industrial revolution that will transform how our cars, planes and buildings are designed and fuelled, the materials we use for our homes and infrastructure, our agriculture and water practices, and the way we generate and distribute energy. Fostering clean technological innovation and a lowcarbon economy cannot be initiated from market forces alone because, for the time being, the market doesn’t account for the cost of carbon emissions or the inevitable longerterm transition beyond fossil fuels. Slashing greenhouse gas emissions by governments is needed to kick-start the revolution, since this essentially puts a price on carbon. Cutting Australian greenhouse gas emissions isn’t just a feel good exercise—it will actually transition our economy towards low-carbon production, which will in turn spur innovation and all sorts of new clean technologies, from new ways to trap emissions from power plants, to more efficient building materials and commercialising advanced non-food biofuels. One person, one lab or one country can develop a new technology that the rest of the world will embrace, which can be thought of as a ‘prosperity domino’ that spreads around the world. Hundreds of thousands
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 6
26/2/09 10:18:47 PM
Introduction • 7
of women worldwide will be saved by the first cervical cancer vaccine that was developed by Professor Ian Frazer of the University of Queensland. Australia’s proportion of medical research is small in comparison to other developed nations—but the quality, excellence and ability of Australian science to fundamentally change the world is not. In 2004, the then British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said: ‘Just as science and technology has given us the evidence to measure the danger of climate change, so it can help us find safety from it. The potential for innovation, for scientific discovery, is enormous.’ In the scientific race to save our climate, Australia is well placed to take great advantage of the world’s future need for clean technologies. Australia, like many developed nations, has massive potential for low-carbon innovation and production that can’t easily be transported, traded or outsourced to other countries and no one can recreate decades of human capital in just a few years. Market economies like Australia’s need new markets to grow. The new global market in low-carbon technologies will be worth trillions of dollars and making our economy carbon trim rather than obese will not only benefit the environment, but is imperative for our longterm prosperity. • Many of our political leaders are locked into the ‘growth versus environment’ argument when responding to climate change. They still define their responses through a zero net gain logic where any cuts in greenhouse gas emissions take away from economic growth. And furthermore, moving
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 7
26/2/09 10:18:47 PM
8 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
towards a low-carbon economy will initially cost more, which will mean that other nations who fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will gain a competitive trading edge through lower energy costs. This is the single biggest reason why combating climate change has failed to progress over the past decade, particularly in Australia and the United States. In rejecting the United Nations Kyoto Protocol, the then US President, George W. Bush, stated that cutting carbon emissions would ‘wreck the economy’ while former Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, repeatedly said that Kyoto would ‘send jobs to China’.4 Even the modest carbon emission cuts imposed by the federal Labor government in 2008 induced a flurry of heated calls from commentators, businesses and politicians that this would devastate the Australian economy. The famous economist John Maynard Keynes eloquently once said ‘It’s better to be roughly right than precisely wrong’. The argument of ‘emissions versus the economy’ is precisely wrong. So won’t reducing carbon emissions hurt Australia’s economy? In the long term it’s quite the opposite, in fact. Reducing emissions will invoke structural changes within the economy, just like lowering trade tariffs did twenty years ago. But a low-carbon economy will be a positive for the overall economy, not a negative. The reason is that as the world inevitably starts to put a price on carbon pollution, conserve energy and look for non-oil transport fuels, it will be nations who make a rapid transition towards a lowcarbon economy that will prosper through booming clean technology exports and increased foreign investment. In 2008, the CEOs of the big American car-makers General Motors, Ford and Chrysler flew to Washington DC
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 8
26/2/09 10:18:47 PM
Introduction • 9
and begged for a massive tax-payer bailout to save them from bankruptcy. The financial crisis wasn’t the catalyst for this imminent insolvency, it was long in the making due to a history of short-sightedness by CEOs and weak American politicians. I can’t help but think how the short-sighted ‘emissions versus growth’ view espoused by many Australian commentators and politicians is eerily similar to those views from US car-makers and politicians during the 1990s that ultimately led to their economic self-destruction. In the 1990s, oil was sloshing around the global economy at historically low prices; anyone with short-term eyes would have thought oil would remain cheap and plentiful for decades. However, with high government fuel-efficiency standards in place and government support, the big Japanese car-makers Toyota and Honda invested massively in research and development into fuel-efficient vehicle technology in the 1990s, despite the record low global oil price. The American car-makers (General Motors, Ford and Chrysler) did the exact opposite during that period, rejecting every environmental measure to achieve better fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The American carmakers, led by General Motors, continually pushed the line that imposing better environmental standards would devastate their industry. The American car-makers banked on continuing sales growth in the polluting, inefficient vehicles of the 20th century, developing the hideously inefficient Hummer, for example. Because of the weak environmental legislation, the American car-makers had the worst fuel economy of any vehicle fleet in the world. With dwindling supplies of oil, massive price hikes and a world starting to constrain carbon emissions, the world
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 9
26/2/09 10:18:47 PM
10 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
has heavily shifted their purchasing habits to fuel-efficient vehicles over the last five years. Because of this, General Motors, the worlds largest car-maker, moved from one of America’s largest assets and employers to becoming America’s biggest liability, recording massive billion-dollar profit losses for a number of years, well before the global financial crisis. Today, along with the other big American car-makers, General Motors would be bankrupt if not for a government bailout. Meanwhile, Japanese car-makers, Toyota and Honda, rapidly boosted sales, market share, exports and growth given the inevitable global transition to low-carbon, highly efficient vehicles this century. As it happens, less pollution means more profit. I wonder how the executives of the American car-makers and the weak American politicians now view the ‘environment versus the economy’ debate given that their economic competitiveness was directly eroded because they didn’t have tight environmental standards? Australia is currently in a similar position to the one General Motors was in during the 1990s. We are one of the most carbon-intensive nations on earth due to our over-reliance on coal for our domestic energy supply and being by far the world’s largest coal exporter. Think about it: old coal is equivalent to the General Motors petrolguzzling Hummer and renewable energy technology is equivalent to Toyota’s ultra-efficient Prius. Aside from the environment, which product do you really think has better economic prospects this century? If Australia doesn’t pursue a strategy like the Japanese car-makers, as opposed to the American recalcitrants, our biggest export commodity could become our biggest liability.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 10
26/2/09 10:18:47 PM
Introduction • 11
Prosperity doesn’t come about through what has worked in the past, it’s about logically foreseeing what lies ahead. Albert Einstein said: ‘We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.’ Australia’s future prosperity won’t be determined by using the cheapest and dirtiest finite resource today, but ultimately by what the world will be craving this century: infinitely clean technologies that harness the abundant natural energy on earth. Protecting high-carbon interests in Australia is the equivalent to protecting the typewriter industry at the start of the personal computer age, or protecting VHS cassettes after the first DVD was produced, or protecting the asbestos industry at the outset of mesothelioma and asbestosis. It boggles my mind to think that some politicians and commentators can honestly think that it would be better for the Australian economy and jobs in the long term to continue our carbon obesity in a world that will move away from carbon. • For the last decade I have been a typical scientist; presenting, debating and publishing in journals, and teaching undergraduates the science of climate change. But having a scientific understanding of our likely future puts me in a unique, yet unsettling, position. Climate change really is a transformative issue for the earth and for humanity this century. But diagnosing a disease is not very helpful without finding an effective cure, and scientific resources must move from diagnosing to curing. This book has one overarching theme: that climate change and our over-reliance on fossil fuels will put
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 11
26/2/09 10:18:47 PM
12 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
Australia’s economic prosperity, not just the environment, at great risk. The only way to boost the prospects of stabilising our climate, and grow Australia’s economy in a world that will move away from carbon, coal and oil, is to slash carbon emissions and foster a new, clean, low-carbon industrial revolution. These new Australian products and technologies will be craved in a world short on oil and high on carbon and would position Australia as a leading cleantech hub for a growing Asia. This won’t happen spontaneously or organically. It will need bold, long-term political vision, carbon-reduction legislation and a massive upscaling of research and development to foster the building of the new, clean-energy economy, one that is critically needed for Australia and the world this century.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 12
26/2/09 10:18:47 PM
Part I The Case for a Carbon Pre-emptive Strike
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 13
26/2/09 10:18:47 PM
This page intentionally left blank
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 14
26/2/09 10:18:47 PM
1 The Blind Threat The Blind Threat
N
aucratis was a bustling seventh-century BC Greek trading colony near the mouth of the River Nile. Up until the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great a few centuries later, the massive river was the trading lifeblood of the ancient Greeks. In their daily travels along the river, the merchants would puzzle over something. While sailing upstream towards the equator, they could feel the temperature getting hotter and hotter. They thought this was due to the gods sloping the Earth towards the sun and dividing the world into regions, or klima (the origin of the word climate). The gods may have had an important role in setting up Earth’s climate, but the potential changes for our future climate are entirely a human creation. Picture a box 120 metres high covering the area of Australia. Now fill it full of greenhouse gases. That’s how much climate-warming gases humans have spewed into our paper-thin atmosphere since the fossil-fuel-based industrial revolution. That pure high-rise of carbon dioxide (CO2) is now growing by 3 metres each year, and it will double the atmosphere’s concentration by the middle part of this century. On current projections, that CO2 high-rise will be over 800 metres high 15
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 15
26/2/09 10:18:47 PM
16 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
by the end of this century. If we don’t make any changes to our future greenhouse gas emissions, the Earth could warm on average by 6°C this century.1 This magnitude of climate change is enormous. It is roughly 50 million years since the Earth was that hot. The Antarctic and Greenland icecaps didn’t exist and the sea level was up to 200 metres higher than today; the Sydney Harbour Bridge would have been completely submerged. Throughout tens of millions of years, hot and cold ages have shown to be intimately linked with the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Climate scientists know exactly how dramatic only slight changes in Earth’s temperature can be by simply studying the past. Twenty thousand years ago, a massive ice sheet in the northern hemisphere reached as far south as the present location of New York City and over much of northern Europe. The ice sheet was roughly two kilometres thick. This was the last really cold period on Earth, when atmospheric greenhouse gas levels were at record lows. To invoke such a massive build-up of ice you would probably assume temperatures must have plummeted to below freezing. Well actually, the average temperature was about 10°C, and this massive climate shift occurred by cooling global temperatures by only 4° to 6°C lower than today’s average.2 With the enormous amount of frozen fresh water on top of the land rather than as a liquid in the ocean, the sea level was a staggering 120 metres lower than today’s. Sea level was so low that Aborigines could wander across Cape York to Papua New Guinea or from Victoria to Tasmania.3 The question then is: if a 4° to 6°C drop in global temperatures over tens of thousands of years caused half of North America to be
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 16
26/2/09 10:18:47 PM
The Blind Threat • 17
under two kilometres of ice, what will a 4° to 6°C warming in 100 years cause? The scale and speed of this humaninduced climate change would be unprecedented. Dangerous levels of global warming would involve irreversible changes to rainfall patterns, ice sheet disintegration, increasingly intensive storms, rising sea levels and the destruction of current ecosystems. Slow changes over hundreds of years would be manageable, but rapid changes over decades would not. With recent evidence showing global greenhouse gas emissions, global temperatures and sea-level rise4 to be tracking close to the worst-case scenario predicted by the scientific report handed down by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,5 there are some worrying signs that we may push the climate into a new runaway state that is completely beyond our control. Albert Einstein once said, ‘The only source of knowledge is experience.’ Terrorism is real; we saw the Twin Towers collapse. Cancer is real; we see friends and family around us get sick. Toxic pollution spewing into a creek is pretty obvious. How is climate change real? Is there something that demonstrates how important CO2 is for Earth’s climate? We only have to look at our solar system. Extending from the sun, the three inner planets of our solar system are Mercury, Venus and then Earth. Of these planets, Earth is farthest from the sun, with a perfect life-forming temperature of about 15°C. As you would expect, the closer each planet is to the sun, the warmer it is. Mercury, the small planet closest to the sun, has an average temperature of about 167°C.6 Being in-between Mercury and Earth, you would probably expect Venus to have an average temperature somewhere between 15° and 167°C. Although Venus is much farther
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 17
26/2/09 10:18:47 PM
18 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
away from the sun, its temperature is nearly three times that of Mercury, coming in at 464°C.7 How is that possible? The Venusian atmosphere is nearly all composed of CO2, while on Mercury there is virtually none. The thick CO2 atmosphere on Venus acts like a heat trap and is a real demonstration of the runaway greenhouse effect, in which permanent hurricanes with winds of over 300 kilometres per hour engulf the entire planet. Venus illustrates our challenge on Earth. Currently, CO2 concentrations are 37 per cent higher than before industrialisation and could reach three times the natural concentration in the atmosphere by the end of this century if we continue our current trajectory. Earth’s climate has been observed to have warmed by about 0.8°C in the past century.8 All the signs of this warming have been observed, from an acceleration in Arctic sea-ice melt, widespread glacier melting, sea-level rise and ocean warming.9 Changes in the sun’s intensity, orbital wobbles of Earth’s path around the sun or volcanic activity are all important natural factors that could contribute to the recent warming on Earth. However, if left to those natural factors alone, Earth would have likely cooled over the past 50 years based on the observations of the sun’s activity and volcanism. This means that climate scientists are 90% confident that global warming over the past 50 years has been caused by human-induced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases.10 Continually pumping tens of billions of tonnes of CO2 into Earth’s thin atmosphere has and will continue to alter the fabric of Earth’s climate. Scientific projections can never be 100 per cent certain. The nature of science involves managing a level of uncertainty. But is the small level of uncertainty a reasonable
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 18
26/2/09 10:18:47 PM
The Blind Threat • 19
case for inaction on climate change? A friend’s grandmother smoked two packets of cigarettes a day since she was twenty years old and lived until she was 90. Does that mean the scientific link between smoking and cancer is wrong? Of course not, since there are other natural genetic factors that can lower the risk of lung cancer. For global warming there may indeed be some natural factors that could partially offset the well-known evidence demonstrating greenhouse gases warm the planet. There is a very small chance these factors may play out. Yet from the weight of scientific evidence and observation, we are currently smoking two packets a day, seeing the first signs of cancer, and hoping that the future planet will be healthy. It doesn’t really seem like a wise bet to make. The other problem with taking the small uncertainty as a reason not to act is that we won’t know for sure that the climate will warm by 6°C until we get there—at which point there is no turning back. As former US Central Intelligence Agency director James Woolsey points out, ‘Waiting for absolute confirmation of the threat—for a climatological September 11, 2001—may push us past a tipping point from which there is no recovery.’11 Given that climate change is informed by hard science, I thought the case for a pre-emptive strike on carbon emissions was pretty clear. How wrong I was. In 2007, I was in Canberra as a young scientist pushing the scientific case for action and learning very quickly that the government was completely blind to the gravity of potential threats to Australia beyond just the environment. At a high-level meeting in the Cabinet room, as I looked in awe around me, all I could see was a sea of grey hair and suits clustered around the biggest table I had ever seen. I
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 19
26/2/09 10:18:47 PM
20 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
stood at one end of the table, which was shaped like an elongated zero. The room was immaculately cleaned and had a clinical smell to it. Sitting to my right was the Prime Minster, John Howard, the Minister for Education and Science, Julie Bishop, the Environment Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and the Minister for Industry, Ian Macfarlane. Scattered among the rest of the Cabinet were the heads of every science, research, technology and education body in Australia. Before my presentation, three of Australia’s most influential climate scientists presented an exhaustive report of recommendations on how Australia could actively respond to the emerging climate of change. As I stared down the Cabinet room I wondered why the two most senior government ministers responsible for the economy and foreign policy were not in the room. Where were the Treasurer and the Foreign Minister? It seems for many years the Australian government reflected a broad and dangerous public misconception about combating climate change: that is it has nothing to do with Australia’s longterm economic prosperity or national security.
The Myth of ‘Environment Versus the Economy’ New York City has fantastic jazz clubs and wine bars, made famous through television shows such as Sex and the City. My friends and I would frequent them after work when I was living there. The things we all hated about bars, however, were the smoke-filled rooms, red, sore eyes and our houses smelling like an ashtray the next morning. Not to mention the health impact of passively breathing a carcinogen throughout the night. We would happily exit bars that were
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 20
26/2/09 10:18:47 PM
The Blind Threat • 21
too smoky, to find another. Then we got word that the city was going to ban smoking in bars and restaurants in 2003, to our delight. It was widely praised as a much-needed policy, given the health effects of second-hand smoke, particularly for bar workers who sucked in this polluted air eight hours a day. The hotel and bar industry started a fear campaign in opposition to the proposed ban, declaring that their industry would collapse if the law were passed. From the industry point of view, it was OK for the 80 per cent of nonsmokers and all workers to inhale second-hand smoke from the 20 per cent of customers who did smoke. Apparently, the smoking minority were the ones that brought in all the revenue. But smokers don’t go to bars to smoke; they go to bars to eat, drink and socialise. In the end, logic prevailed and the law came into effect in 2003. I kept thinking to myself that the law would probably increase patronage, since many nonsmokers and families avoided bars and some restaurants because of the filthy air. After one year the law was reviewed and the results tabulated. New York City tax receipts for restaurants and bars had increased by 9 per cent from the previous year (without any change in the tax rates), with employment growing by 10,600 jobs (about 6 per cent). Meanwhile, 150,000 fewer workers are exposed to second-hand smoke on the job, not to mention millions of patrons.12 Instead of using the law to their advantage, the hotel and bar industry had opposed it all the way up until its passage. Embracing the new economic opportunities of better health or environmental standards would have been far more beneficial, particularly as these new smoking laws were inevitable—even the smoky cafés of France have enacted
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 21
26/2/09 10:18:47 PM
22 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
a smoking ban.13 Some industry spokespeople have turned around their previous opposition to the New York smoking bans, suggesting customers are actually liking it.14 Who knows, if the industry had promoted the law to bring clean air to New York bars and restaurants, growth in their industry could have doubled. There’s an age-old myth that doing good for the environment is bad for the economy. The twin goals of cutting pollution and growing the economy are dominated by this zero-sum game, in which environmental gain must take away from the economy. In Australian cities in the decade between 1991 and 2001, average levels of nongreenhouse pollution from cars, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide, were reduced by up to 50 per cent.15 This cut in pollution occurred despite one-quarter more cars being on the road and Australians driving 30 billion more kilometres each year.16 Meanwhile, the Australian economy expanded over 40 per cent.17 There are many examples of net economic benefits as a result of cleaning up the environment. Do you remember the debate about the ozone layer? Ozone scientists in the 1980s focused world attention on the issue by measuring a widening hole in the ozone layer. Through more diagnostic research it was found that ozonedepleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used as refrigerant were the cause. In 1987, the United Nations put forward the Montreal Protocol (that was ratified by nearly all nations),18 which phased out the use of CFCs in order to repair the damage to the ozone layer. Prior to the Montreal Protocol, no replacement was considered possible for CFCs and the processes like refrigeration and air-conditioning
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 22
26/2/09 10:18:48 PM
The Blind Threat • 23
in which they were used. At the time when each country was considering ratification, influential voices injected fear into the debate. Some politicians, commentators and industry groups predicted massive job losses and economic damage because of the Montreal Protocol, claims that continued after ratification.19 Somehow, they believed, phasing out CFCs would cause massive economic damage. So what actually eventuated when the world embraced the Montreal Protocol and banned CFC production? The chemical industry quickly found an alternative compound to CFCs for use in refrigerators and air-conditioners that imposed much less damage to the ozone layer. It’s been estimated that by the year 2060, the CFC ban will result in avoiding 1.5 million melanomas, 19 million non-melanoma skin cancers and 130 million cataracts.20 Many of those lives saved from skin cancer will be Australian. Avoided ultraviolet radiation damage to agriculture, fisheries and materials is estimated to amount to US$460 billion.19 The direct cost of phasing out CFCs was US$235 billion between 1987 and 2006. So if you count just the financial costs of implementing the Montreal Protocol, it sounds like a lot. But even not allowing for the massive health and productivity benefits, there was a net $US230 billion saving to the global economy by introducing the Protocol. The cost of inaction exceeded the cost of action.
The Costs of Climate Inaction The climate change debate has fallen into territory familiar from the phasing out of smoking in New York City bars and restaurants or prior to eradicating CFCs: that cutting
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 23
26/2/09 10:18:48 PM
24 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
emissions to the extent the scientific community deems necessary will export jobs, lower incomes and devastate our prosperity. Since 2001, the new breed of Australian conservative leaders has sung the age-old myth that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will ‘wreck’ or have a ‘devastating impact’ on the economy.22 But what is the counter-factual to this assertion? That is: what’s the economic impact of allowing dangerous climate change? Nicholas Stern, a former World Bank chief economist, warned of the massive economic risk of failing to combat climate change in his 2006 report to the British Parliament.23 Stern concluded that failing to limit climate change could cost the world economy between 5 and 20 per cent of gross global income this century—a figure equivalent to the combined effect of the past two world wars and the Great Depression.24 Water scarcity would impact up to one billion people in Asia due to hundreds of Himalayan glaciers melting, and 200 million people could be displaced by 2050 by rising sea levels, drought and storms.25 This goes well beyond a typical environmental crisis. High-level national security reports by US and UK defence analysts warn that unleashing climate change will become a ‘threat multiplier’, amplifying the potential for nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting in defending and securing dwindling food, water and energy resources.26 The question that is only just starting to be discussed in Australia is: what are the economic consequences for Australia if we don’t slow climate change? How important to us is it for Kakadu and the Great Barrier Reef to exist in 50 years time? What are the economic implications of running the Murray–Darling basin completely dry and
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 24
26/2/09 10:18:48 PM
The Blind Threat • 25
fitting every city with billion-dollar desalination plants? What are the climate impacts for our agriculture and exports? Some of these questions can be estimated through economic models. For example, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) has modelled the potential impact on Australian agriculture from temperature rises, rainfall changes and weather extremes associated with climate change. ABARE found that, in terms of agricultural production, Australia will be one of the worst affected regions by climate change. Australian wheat, beef, dairy and sugar production could decline by up to 20 per cent by mid-century. It also estimated that Australian agricultural exports could plummet by up to 80 per cent.27 The CSIRO predicts rapidly declining snowfall in the Alpine region,28 while the risk to the Great Barrier Reef through warming-induced coral bleaching and/or ocean acidification is very real.29 Along with a sea-level rise eating away Kakadu National Park, there is a great economic risk to the $22 billion a year Australian tourism market so dependent on these national treasures. Professor Ross Garnaut, the well-respected Australian economist, estimates that climate change could cost the Australian economy up to 5 per cent of GDP this century, with an associated cut in real wages of up to 8 per cent.30 The Garnaut Climate Change Review, commissioned by the Labor government, has finally broadened the scope of climate change and energy policy to be at the heart of Australia’s long-term economic prosperity—where it should be. Other nations have long understood the importance of environmental sustainability for economic prosperity. In 2005, the situation was captured eloquently in a speech
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 25
26/2/09 10:18:48 PM
26 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
by Gordon Brown, when he was Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer (he later became Prime Minister): Environmental issues—including climate change—have traditionally been placed in a category separate from the economy and from economic policy. But this is no longer tenable. Across a range of environmental issues—from soil erosion to the depletion of marine stocks, from water scarcity to air pollution—it is clear now not just that economic activity is their cause, but that these problems in themselves threaten future economic activity and growth.31
There is a strong moral and intergenerational imperative to combat climate change. But even the driest of economic conservatives can’t neglect the economic risks associated with climate change. After my Canberra experience I realised that compelling scientific, environmental or moral arguments aren’t strong enough to invoke the change needed to solve this problem. Without an economic awakening, the changes needed to cushion the blow to Australia’s future prosperity will never be realised.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 26
26/2/09 10:18:48 PM
2 Climate Battlers Climate Battlers
M
y wife and I were excited to buy our first home in 2004. It was a modest brick semi-detached in inner Sydney. Built at the turn of the twentieth century, it blended in with the other Federation-style houses in the area. A building inspection showed the house to be in perfect structural order. One lazy morning in 2006, on my way to make a pot of coffee, I noticed some brick shavings on the floor in the hallway. I looked up and, to my amazement, saw a massive crack in the joint of the ceiling. I kept trying to convince myself that somehow it was already there when we bought the house—but it wasn’t. Over the following months the crack turned into a huge gaping wound extending the entire length of our hallway. What was happening? Why was our house splitting in two after 100 years of stability? In 2006, Australia was gripped by a devastating drought. After 18 months of only a sprinkle of rain and higher than normal temperatures, most Australian cities were turning into brown dust bowls. Regional Australia was hit the hardest, but virtually every city in Australia seemed to be on ever-tightening water restrictions, which continue today. It hadn’t rained in Sydney for many months and the 27
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 27
26/2/09 10:18:48 PM
28 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
foundations of our house were slipping as the soil dried up. A changing climate was literally breaking up our house. Eventually we had to pay for a band-aid solution, a patchjob. Luckily the foundations didn’t need rebuilding . . . just yet. Many in Sydney weren’t so lucky. A friend of mine had to pay tens of thousands of dollars to build new foundations. Homes all around Australia have been damaged from extreme climate events such as droughts, floods, strong winds and hailstorms. I could understand rain, wind and hail damaging houses, but I never thought drought would do such damage. It illustrated to me how blissfully unaware we are of the climate challenges of this century. Stable climate patterns have shaped human development and prosperity over thousands of years. Pre-existing climatic conditions are why some vast areas of Earth have no human civilisation (such as Antarctica or the Sahara Desert) and why large urban centres were built around what were, at the time, secure water supplies. Climate stability dictates the food we eat, the water we drink, the air we breathe and how modern society was built. In his best-selling book Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond explores human progress among different ancient societies.1 Diamond eloquently explains how geography and climate were the pre-existing factors needed for historical human progress because of the importance of agriculture and food production. Hundreds of years ago agriculture was the driver for technological progress, and much of Eurasia and the Americas were geographically at the perfect latitudes to benefit from long growing seasons, good soils and secure rainfall that promoted early agricultural development.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 28
26/2/09 10:18:48 PM
Climate Battlers • 29
We are just as climate dependent today as we were at the beginning of civilisation. Australia, with its vast, dry interior and dense coastal population, is particularly vulnerable to changing climate patterns. The movement of air masses around the Earth decides whether a region is fertile for farming, a desert or a rainforest. These air masses are partly controlled by changes in temperature patterns around the world. This century, expanding or contracting climate zones may gobble up once-livable cities. Changing climate ultimately means redistributing human civilisation and prosperity. Rapid changes will shake the socio-economic fabric of the world. The greenhouse age will bring climate change to every kitchen table. All of us will become climate battlers if the Earth’s temperature is not stabilised.
Sea Level, Storms and Premiums A cyclone is a destructive weather system that only forms in summer in warm, tropical oceans. It acts like a pressurerelease valve. When there is enough pent-up energy added to the climate system, cyclones unleash their destruction. Hotter oceans in the greenhouse age are projected to fuel more powerful cyclones. Hurricane Katrina, which partly demolished New Orleans in 2005, was stoked by temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico that were 6°C warmer than usual. Many parts of the world are more vulnerable than Australia or the United States. Tens of millions of people live in the low-lying coastlines of Asia, from Pakistan to Indonesia. In November 2007, Cyclone Sidr killed up to 5000 people in Bangladesh, while in May 2008, Cyclone
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 29
26/2/09 10:18:48 PM
30 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
Nargis, and the resulting tsunami-like storm surge, killed upwards of 100,000 people and wiped out the livelihood of many coastal communities in Burma. The storm surge resulting from the cyclone was 4 metres high and reported to infiltrate 40 kilometres inland along the very low-lying and densely populated Irrawaddy Delta.2 Global sea levels have already risen about 20 centimetres this century due to climate change.3 Without this sea-level rise, Cyclone Nargis’s storm surge would have stopped about 2 kilometres short of where it actually penetrated, saving lives, communities and devastation in some areas. Every centimetre of sealevel rise counts when these massive storms hit low-lying coastlines. A warmer climate causes sea water to thermally expand. This ocean swelling pushes water towards the land, contributing to sea-level rise. Depending on our future greenhouse gas emissions, the CSIRO predicts world sea levels to rise up to 59 centimetres by the end of this century4—but that is assuming the Greenland ice sheet remains intact (where metres of global sea level reside). If the ocean were like a lake, this steadily rising sea level would be costly but manageable. The real threats are the more intense storm surges that occur on top of the rising sea levels, just like those that followed Cyclone Nargis. A warmer Earth fuels stronger storms and floods, along with rising seas, putting our coastal infrastructure and real estate at great risk. With 86 per cent of Australia’s population living near the coast this is a massive concern. The Insurance Council of Australia estimates that about 425,000 homes and buildings are vulnerable to sea-level rise.5 Waterfront properties are in high demand today,
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 30
26/2/09 10:18:48 PM
Climate Battlers • 31
fetching tens of millions of dollars at auctions all over Australia. Insurance companies don’t cover sea-level rise and there are signs overseas that they are already refusing to insure the most risky beachfront properties because of the climate risk. What will happen if that prized beachfront property becomes worthless in twenty years? Will governments pay for expensive sea walls to try to protect coastal properties? Is it fair for the taxpayer who lives far away from the coast to pick up the bill to save these properties? These are just some of the questions governments will have to grapple with if the worst outcomes of climate change are realised. Places currently protected from climate extremes will become exposed in a hotter climate. In 2005, a hurricane formed in abnormally warm waters near Madeira, off the coast of Portugal. It was the first hurricane ever to have formed in the area, and it went on to hit Europe (Spain)— also a first.6 In the Mediterranean Sea, warming has occurred so rapidly that researchers in Spain believe hurricanes or near-hurricanes will soon form within this almost landlocked sea.7 Given the surrounding population density, damage from a hurricane in the Mediterranean would be catastrophic, since buildings and resorts haven’t been constructed to withstand such storms. Christmas Eve 1974 is etched in Australian history. Cyclone Tracy, with winds raging at more than 200 kilometres per hour, demolished Darwin, killing more than 60 and leaving over half the population homeless. Amazingly, Darwin building standards were not cycloneproof in the early 1970s. It was only after Cyclone Tracy hit that governments mandated cyclone-proof building codes.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 31
26/2/09 10:18:48 PM
32 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
In Australia, the southward movement of warmer ocean currents (due to climate change) will expose areas to cyclones that have previously been unaffected. The old timber ‘Queenslanders’ in Brisbane would be particularly exposed to a southward-moving cyclone belt in a supercharged future climate. Aside from the human devastation, extreme storms, floods and droughts are hideously costly. One of the world’s biggest insurers, Munich Re, has released estimates of the damage bill if cyclones started to occur in southeast Queensland. If a ‘moderate’ Category 3 cyclone (Category 5 is the strongest) were to hit Brisbane directly, damage to infrastructure and buildings alone would total $100 to $125 billion. Even more scary, if the storm track passed through the Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast as well, damage would be over $200 billion.8 Not even including the loss from long-term business closures, that perfect storm would cost nearly 20 per cent of Australia’s gross national income based on today’s figures. The CSIRO also predicts rising temperatures to exacerbate cyclones, droughts, floods and bushfires in many regions around Australia.9 This is because the water cycle is more energised in a warmer climate. Northern Australia, which already has wet conditions, is projected to become wetter—while southern and inland Australia are expected to become drier and more vulnerable to flooding over their parched hard ground. With a hotter planet fuelling more intense weather, the US$3.2 trillion insurance industry has much to worry about.10 In 2006, Cyclone Larry, with winds up to 290 kilometres per hour, battered Innisfail in northern Queensland, causing an estimated $1.5 billion worth of damage.11 Over the past
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 32
5/3/09 3:43:06 PM
Climate Battlers • 33
40 years all but one of the top twenty Australian-insured losses were climate related: cyclones, floods, hailstorms, bushfires and winds.12 The average annual global weatherrelated economic damage in the decade of the 1990s of US$60 billion was three times higher than the previous decade.13 The general insurance industry covers threequarters of households and businesses for damage and fire. Insurance damages have been increasing by about 2 per cent per year above the expected rate of population growth and economic activity.14 The New South Wales Central Coast was hit by a winter storm in mid-2007. While news crews converged on a stranded 40,000-tonne tanker, the Pasha Bulka, in Newcastle, the real story was that those storms cost insurance companies over $3 billion, because they hit population centres and high-value assets.15 Cyclones may get all the attention, but storms can cause just as much damage if they occur in population centres. Three separate storms later in 2007 swiped $380 million from Australia’s biggest insurers.16 Higher damage costs mean higher premiums. Insurance companies will raise their premiums to pay for these events. Since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, insurers in coastal American states such as South Carolina, Florida and Mississippi have raised premiums by up to 100 per cent.17 But sometimes even hiking premiums can’t adequately cover some areas. In the United States, weather-related economic losses are growing ten times faster than insurance premiums, the economy and the population.18 Some insurers in the United States are packing up and leaving exposed coastal areas because the risk of sea-level rise, flooding and
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 33
26/2/09 10:18:48 PM
34 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
hurricanes is too great.19 Without adequate insurance for homes and businesses, who would invest in a local economy? The other consequence is that the government (and therefore taxpayers) would have to pay for any future storm-related damages if the insurance industry is forced to leave a specific area. To have an adequate kitty, the government would have to raise revenue through taxes, levies or charges. Sounding the economic alarm bells to the government, the Insurance Council of Australia stated: ‘Increased frequency of significant natural disasters with climate change will inevitably increase pressure on the pricing of premiums, the affordability of commercial and personal risk mitigation and in due course the resilience of the whole economy.’20
Leaks, Kinks and Costs Infrastructure is the conduit to a productive and prosperous Australian economy. It provides the means for goods to travel from our agriculture belt to dense coastal populations. It also gives us the ability to access water, move from place to place and export our products to the global market. Australia has hundreds of thousands of kilometres of roads, railways, ports, footpaths, electricity lines, and water and sewerage pipes.21 Building and maintaining them is a massive cost to us all. Australia’s total infrastructure assets are valued at many trillions of dollars.22 But most of them were built in the twentieth century and are ill-equipped for rapid climate change, just like my 100-year-old house was. Increasing heat extremes, floods and droughts make building and maintaining roads, bridges, pipes, and energy and communications networks much more costly.23
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 34
26/2/09 10:18:48 PM
Climate Battlers • 35
The Victorian government conducted the first infrastructure risk assessment for climate change in 2007. Among the most prominent findings for the Australian climate battler were ‘Higher water, energy and telecommunications bills to cover the growing damage to infrastructure’.24 The biggest infrastructure liability under worst-case global warming was the damage to Victorian ports due to sea-level rise coupled with more intense storms. Victoria also has some 10,000 road bridges that connect important arterial motorways. These bridges, some built decades ago, were also highlighted as highly vulnerable to the effects of higher temperatures: more heatwaves heighten structural degradation of the steel material and distorts the sealants supporting the structures. Australia’s infrastructure is not automatically thought of when thinking of climate-change impacts, but the fact is that increasing weather extremes will require higher government revenue to maintain these assets at a safe level. Railways worldwide sometimes need to suspend operations in summer when extreme heatwaves buckle the steel in railway tracks. This phenomenon, called ‘sun kink’, is potentially lethal, because it causes train derailments.25 Although new technology reduces the likelihood of this occurring, future climate change-induced heat extremes represent a huge challenge to those managing Australia’s 40,000 kilometres of railtrack.26 Australia’s water pipes have an even greater reach than the rail networks. Underground, out of sight, are tens of thousands of kilometres of pipes in complex networks supplying our most precious resource: water. Sydney alone has water mains measuring 21,000 kilometres, further than
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 35
5/3/09 3:43:15 PM
36 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
the distance from Sydney to London.27 Billions of litres of water are wasted in all of Australia’s urban water-pipe networks—typically 10 per cent of our water is wasted through leakage.28 Leaks mostly occur at the millions of joints connecting the water pipes, and there are high losses in extended hot periods when the surrounding soil shifts as it dries. The potential for changing weather patterns and water supply is one thing, but even maintaining the water supply will be an added challenge. Increasing exposure of water-pipe networks to climate extremes will make water less secure and more costly, with higher bills for all of us. Water pipes are only useful if there is water running through them from full catchments upstream. It seems we have taken our water supply for granted for too long. Despite being the driest inhabitable continent, we have one of the lowest water recycling rates in the world. With the threat of rising temperatures and shifting rainfall patterns, recycling water from our storm-water drains and waste water will become a necessity. Anyone from the Perth–Fremantle area of Western Australia will tell you with marked clarity of the rapid weather changes since 1980. The massive rainstorms that used to come in from the Indian Ocean have ceased to come. The storm track has shifted southwards over the past twenty years.29 Instead of the storms dumping rain in and around Perth, they dump it in the Southern Ocean. Southwest WA has seen a 60 per cent decline in natural inflows into dams since 1980 and has experienced a climate shift.30 Luckily, Perth and most Australian cities are on the coastline, so at least governments can build desalination plants in order to
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 36
26/2/09 10:18:48 PM
Climate Battlers • 37
‘climate-proof’ their cities’ water supplies. Although very costly and energy intensive, desalination plants will become more of a necessity for Australian coastal cities. With population growth, the Water Services Association of Australia estimates $30 billion will be needed to climateproof our major urban water supplies over the next five years.31 What about the inland rural towns that don’t have access to sea water? Climate-proofing these towns may be prohibitively expensive. Back in the 1970s and ’80s, southeast Queensland was expanding rapidly, its warm climate attracting many families from both overseas and interstate. To cope with this growth, Brisbane built two extra dams which supplied water and provided flood irrigation for the Brisbane River. Wivenhoe dam, built in 1986, was by far the largest, having twice the capacity of Sydney Harbour. The state politicians were so sure of the dams’ long-term water supply, they built three massive water-sapping coal-fired power stations, which rely entirely on water taken directly from Brisbane’s dams for cooling purposes. These power stations suck nearly 40 billion litres of water from the city’s water supply each year.32 The prolonged drought of 2006–07, coupled with inordinate use of water by three coal-fired power stations, brought Brisbane’s water supply to a near standstill. The dams hit a critically low 15 per cent capacity. Harsh water restrictions were imposed in early 2007, cutting supplies to Swanbank and Tarong North power stations by up to 40 per cent. Energy production was suspended and wholesale electricity prices more than doubled,33 resulting in 160 job cuts at just one Rio Tinto coal mine. 34 So southeast Queenslanders got hit with higher electricity and water
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 37
26/2/09 10:18:48 PM
38 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
prices because of the protracted drought. The Queensland government is now spending $2.4 billion on the western corridor recycled water project to supply recycled water to these power stations. A further $9 billion has been comitted to southeast Queensland water supply projects.35 Despite this huge investment in water, water costs in Queensland are set to skyrocket. The Queensland Water Commissioner estimates that a typical household’s annual water bill will increase by up to $880 by 2012—an increase of 147 per cent.36 The lack of foresight by some Queensland politicians in the 1970s and ’80s is breathtaking. Taxpayers today are now footing the massive bill. It’s symptomatic of the timid nature of many political leaders all over the country to invest in longer-term energy and water projects. Let’s hope that our children in twenty years’ time aren’t complaining of similar costly mistakes about today’s decisions. A lack of water security is not just the fault of problematic government planners. As the Earth warms, the added heat sucks water out of the ground and catchments more quickly—so in a greenhouse age we actually need more rainfall to achieve the same result. Permanent shifts in our weather patterns, along with this heightened evaporation, could turn into a crisis. More evaporation comes with the added risk of wild bushfires in a warmer climate. Bushfires wipe out all vegetation along their destructive path and turn trees into charred stumps. Australia’s dry-land ecosystems are generally well adapted to bushfires. As soon as the fire passes through, seedlings spawn and rejuvenation begins to bring the forest back. The juvenile plants and trees require a lot more water than mature ones because of their rapid growth. In effect, in the years following a bushfire the
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 38
26/2/09 10:18:48 PM
Climate Battlers • 39
land acts like a sponge, taking up a lot more water than previously. This means that our water catchments deliver less water to the dams after bushfires—as much as 20 per cent less is predicted for the next decade.37 With bushfires likely to increase in frequency and intensity in a warmer climate, there will be direct consequences for those living in risky forestland, but also indirect consequences due to the reduction of the already tight local water supply.
The Climate Food Crisis The Australian economy is deeply climate-sensitive. In 2005, agriculture and farm exports contributed $32 billion to national income and employed 366,000 people.38 The 2002–03 drought wiped nearly $6 billion off our GDP and 100,000 jobs were lost.39 This is a staggering figure considering the entire coal industry employs about 28,000 people.40 Only four years later, we had an even worse drought with similar ramifications. Higher temperatures suck the water from the ground through evaporation, exacerbating dryness. Drought severity is likely to be intensified in a hotter climate. Water availability has already hit crisis levels, with many regional areas unable to access normal allocations of water. As agriculture is affected by water shortages, so is the price and quality of our food. A drier southern Australia will make food prices rise across the board, with not even the most price-conscious Australian able to escape. Between 2002 and 2006, food prices surged. Vegetables went up by over one-third, while fruit went up by nearly two-thirds, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.41 The
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 39
26/2/09 10:18:48 PM
40 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
Consumer Price Index rose only 12 per cent, meaning that prices for fruit and vegetables rose three to five times more than other products in the economy. The Murray–Darling basin provides over 40 per cent of Australia’s food and has been without good rain for years. Australia is the world’s largest exporter of beef, livestock, wool and barley, and the second largest exporter of wheat and canola. Drought damage to Australian agriculture causes shudders around the world. The three main winter crops, wheat, barley and canola, lost 60 per cent of production in the most recent drought, pushing up prices worldwide. Australian wheat exports make up 15 per cent of global trade, but with the drought-induced cut in exports, wheat prices doubled in 2007.42 That’s good news for growers who manage to squeeze out a crop, but not so good for everyone else who eats bread, flour, pasta, biscuits or crackers. All over the world, climate patterns are realigning food production. Although prices may fluctuate, climate pressures on food prices are just a signal of things to come. It’s worrying that the cost of our Vegemite on toast will increase because of climate pressure. But there is something even more economically damaging to all of us. Food makes up nearly 16 per cent of the basket of goods used to calculate the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and is the second most important item for the CPI after housing prices.43 Any underlying knock-on effects from food to other sectors, such as wages, would accelerate inflation. As any mortgage holder would know, the Reserve Bank dampens inflation by raising interest rates. Between 2002 and early 2008, there were twelve interest rate rises. Have we seen the first climate change induced interest rate hikes? If you believe
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 40
26/2/09 10:18:48 PM
Climate Battlers • 41
the rhetoric from the Australian government during the 2007 election campaign, drought-induced food inflation was an ‘unavoidable’ consequence which played its part in driving up interest rates. During the campaign, the incumbent PM John Howard said: Another cause [of inflation] is the pressure coming from the drought with its impact on food prices, which is ongoing, and that drought has been with us for a very long time and it is obviously feeding into the underlying inflation rate.44
In 2008, food riots broke out in over a dozen countries, from Haiti45 to Egypt, because of the surging price of food. Global food prices have risen by 83 per cent since 2005, with some estimates suggesting that at least 100 million people could be tipped into poverty as a result.46 From rice to wheat, world food price rises have caused much pain. In Bangladesh, over 10,000 rioted when the price of rice rose by one-third in less than a year,47 while in Mexico the government was forced to cap corn prices in an attempt to stem civil unrest. Coupled with population growth, climate change is undoubtedly set to add to food productivity and price pressures, which in turn threatens the growth and prosperity of not just Australia, but the whole world. Combating climate change is, among other things, a way to moderate future food pressures on the global economy. You may be someone who lives far away from the coast, who doesn’t work in agriculture and thinks climate change will only really impact those coastal millionaire properties vulnerable to sea-level rise. Unfortunately, climate pervades every part of our society, from food production, water
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 41
26/2/09 10:18:49 PM
42 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
availability and infrastructure to income tax and home insurance costs. Our society was built on a stable climate; future changes have the potential to alter society’s economic foundation. Climate change permeates our future way of life and will affect how much we pay for things and are taxed. Whether it’s higher prices for basic commodities like water, or higher taxes when Australia needs to replace multibillion-dollar public infrastructure projects, climate change will hit the hip pocket of every Australian. We are all deeply embedded in this climate battle.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 42
26/2/09 10:18:49 PM
3 Australia’s Carbon Obesity Australia’s Carbon Obesity
A
ustralia’s net greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2006 were 545 million tonnes, excluding the contribution from forestry and land-use change, another 40 million tonnes.1 That’s equivalent to a box 3 metres high covering Victoria, full of pure greenhouse gas going into the atmosphere each year. The burning of fossil fuels for energy generation and transport contributes threequarters of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. Industrial processes and landfills, along with burping and farting cows, account for much of the remainder. Since 1990, Australia’s emissions from energy have shot up by over 50 per cent.2 The growth in fossil-fuel emissions within Australia since 1980 has been double that of the global average and five times the growth in Europe.3 With only 0.3 per cent of the world’s population, Australia contributes about 1.5 per cent of the world’s emissions.4 For a man whose height is 1.9 metres, a weight of 90 kilograms puts him in the normal body mass index range. But for a woman who is 1.6 metres tall, the same weight would indicate she was clinically obese. In the same way that weight alone can be misleading, total greenhouse emissions 43
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 43
26/2/09 10:18:49 PM
44 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
produced in Australia do not tell us the complete story. Solely focusing on the total level of greenhouse gas emissions produced overlooks how truly carbon obese Australia is and the type of economic exposure it has in the future. Carbon intensity is a measure of the level of carbon emissions for every unit of economic output (typically measured by Gross Domestic Product). Carbon intensity is determined in the same way that we can measure a nation’s oil dependency, debt dependency or energy intensity by comparing oil use, foreign debt and energy use as a function of gross national income. As an example, take the oil intensity of Saudi Arabia compared to that of the United Kingdom. Saudi Arabian energy generation and the economy in general are utterly dependent on oil. Funded by booming oil revenues and government subsidies, Saudis pay just 5 cents per litre for petrol, while their income is derived mostly from oil revenue. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, derives little of its economy from oil production and encourages conservation of domestic oil use through high taxes on petrol. As a result, the oil intensity of each economy is vastly different. The Saudi economy consumes 1.7 million barrels of oil each day—roughly the same amount as the United Kingdom. That information by itself is nothing too unusual. However, the UK economy is nearly ten times larger than Saudi Arabia’s. That means the Saudi Arabian economy is nearly ten times as oil dependent as the United Kingdom’s. As the world oil price rises and falls so does the Saudi economy, because it’s so dependent on oil. Carbon intensity defines how dependent an economy is on carbon use—via coal, oil and natural gas—and is an important indicator for understanding how future cuts in carbon
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 44
26/2/09 10:18:49 PM
Australia’s Carbon Obesity • 45
emissions will impact different economies. The higher a nation’s carbon intensity, the higher the potential financial carbon liability as the world starts to rapidly reduce greenhouse emissions.
The Most Obese Developed Nation Australia has a carbon obesity epidemic. When accounting for different levels of economic output, Australia is the most carbon obese nation in the developed world (see Figure 1). We are even more carbon obese than the United States or big emerging economies like India, Mexico and Brazil. This means that producing goods within Australia inherently produces high carbon emissions relative to other nations, irrespective of whether shoes or steel are being produced.
China Saudi Arabia Australia Canada World Average India United States Indonesia New Zealand Germany Spain Japan Mexico Iceland Italy Denmark United Kingdom Ireland Brazil France Sweden Norway Switzerland
0
Figure 1
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 45
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Carbon intensity for the year 2005 (kilograms of carbon dioxide emitted per US$1000 of economic output).5
26/2/09 10:18:49 PM
46 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
Does being carbon intensive make us richer? No. Although Australia’s economy is far more carbon intensive than those of other developed nations, there are many nations richer per person than Australia.6 For example, Ireland’s economy has had the fastest growth rate of any developed economy over the past ten years. According to the International Monetary Fund, Ireland become the second richest nation in the world, averaging nearly $45,000 per person in 2006, surpassing even the United States.7 Australia, averaging $33,000 per person, is down the list and ranked eighteenth.8 At the same time, the Irish have half the greenhouse intensity of Australia. That is, for every US$1 of GDP in Ireland, only half of the CO2 emissions are generated in comparison to Australia. So Ireland has become ultra-wealthy, surpassing virtually all developed nations in wealth while having lower greenhouse intensity than the majority of other developed countries (see Figure 1). Isn’t Australia a resource- and energy-intensive economy in comparison to the world? No. Australia’s service sector (which includes finance, banking, insurance, hospitality, tourism, etc.) provides nearly three-quarters of the nation’s total income,9 while manufacturing and resources provide about 20 per cent. The proportion of manufacturing and heavy industry is no different than in other developed economies and far less than emerging economies. For example, Mexico has an economy larger than Australia’s and has been growing at a particularly fast rate since the late 1990s. Much of Mexico’s economy runs on pharmaceutical production, car manufacturing and oil exports, yet the country has lowered its carbon intensity at a rate greater than Australia with similar economic growth expansion
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 46
26/2/09 10:18:49 PM
Australia’s Carbon Obesity • 47
over the past decade. Australia’s carbon intensity reduced by a mere 2.7 per cent between 1996 and 2004 (see Figure 2). All developed nations, and many developing nations, have reduced their carbon intensity over the past 25 years much faster than Australia.11 If the Australian economy ‘de-carbonised’ at the world average rate, for the same level of economic growth, Australia’s total emissions would have been cut by 13 per cent between 1995 and 2005.12 Hummers, those massive four-wheel drives developed for the United States army, embody the excess of American fuel consumption. It’s the type of vehicle that says ‘because we can’, rather than ‘do we really need to?’ With this type
1000
900
800
700 Australia 600 World average United States
500
400
Japan Mexico United Kingdom Ireland
300
1980
Figure 2
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 47
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Carbon intensity (kilograms of carbon dioxide emitted per US$1000) for selected countries over the past 25 years.13
26/2/09 10:18:49 PM
48 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
of upsizing and outsizing you would think the United States had the most carbon-intensive economy in the world. Yet, as Figure 1 shows, in 2005, even with all those Hummers, US$1000 of goods produced in Australia emitted 25 per cent more carbon than US$1000 produced in the US.14 To put it another way, if the US economy was as carbon intensive as Australia’s, the United States would be emitting an additional 1 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year (about twice Australia’s absolute emissions). The world’s average carbon intensity is about 560 kilograms emitted per US$1000 of economic activity. Australia is way above the world average at 680 kilograms of CO2 and well above most of the emerging developing economies, including India, Mexico, Brazil and Indonesia. All developed nations have considerably lower carbon intensity than Australia. Australian factories, on average, while making the same product, produce up to three times more carbon dioxide than factories in Europe, nearly double those in Japan, 70 per cent more than New Zealand factories and 25 per cent more than US factories (see Figure 1).15 Not even accounting for coal exports, it means Australia has one of the largest carbon exposures in the world. If the structure of Australia’s economy isn’t the cause of the high carbon intensity, then what is?
It’s All King Faisal’s Fault Carbon intensity varies dramatically depending on the dominant energy supply, and historical reasons have helped make Australia one of the most carbon obese nations in the world. After the Second World War, Australia
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 48
26/2/09 10:18:49 PM
Australia’s Carbon Obesity • 49
underwent a massive economic expansion, experiencing uninterrupted economic growth of 4 to 5 per cent for over twenty years during the 1950s and ’60s.16 Population increases and government-led investment in large infrastructure and manufacturing increased prosperity and caused unemployment to drop to historically low figures (around 2 per cent).17 This industrial economic expansion was very energy intensive. In the post-Second World War period up until more recently, the decision on the type and source of fuel for Australia’s electricity demands was made purely on the basis of direct cost. Coal (both brown and black forms) is abundant in Australia, cheap to extract and independent of foreign control. Coal is also the most carbon-intensive fuel. Every unit of power (megawatt-hour) produced using coal emits between 1 and 1.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide, a figure that’s more than double that of natural gas and about one-third more than oil. The energy choices for Australia in the past were simple, as carbon emissions were yet to be on the radar at this time. Supplying the energy needs for the postwar boom in Australia was left to two primary fuel sources: coal and oil. Growing wealthier in the postwar boom inherently meant emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere. With one swift action in 1973, Saudi Arabia’s King Faisal unknowingly sent a shock wave throughout the world’s energy economy and gave an unexpected boost to coal-based energy generation in Australia. The Yom Kippur War in October of that year between Arab states (mainly Egypt and Syria) and Israel was a catalyst for large Arab oil producers to flex their muscles on the world stage. King Faisal
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 49
26/2/09 10:18:49 PM
50 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
stopped oil exports to the United States and those Western countries supporting Israel in the war. This Arab government geopolitical intervention sent the oil price rocketing upwards, quadrupling in 1974 from US$10 to $40 a barrel in a matter of months. The economic reverberations of this first oil shock extended across the world, and particularly in those industrialised oil-intensive Western nations. Oil was cheap before 1973, so many Western nations used it as fuel in power stations—not just for cars, trucks and planes. With the sharp oil price rise, energy investment moved heavily away from oil, while industry and individuals were forced to take a crash course in energy efficiency to cut down on energy costs. Oil as the basis for electricity generation was about to become extinct. In replacing its oil-fired power stations, Australia moved in a different direction to most developed nations. Kwinana power station in Western Australia was a microcosm of that shift to an Australia that became carbon obese after the oil shocks. Kwinana power station near Perth was built in 1970 to supply much of southwest Western Australia’s electricity and was originally fuelled by oil.18 When oil prices jumped fourfold during 1974 and then tripled again in 1979, oil-fired power stations like Kwinana became too expensive to run. Other nations invested in gas, wind, solar, hydro and nuclear power in order to move away from oil-fired power stations. Kwinana, however, was rebuilt to run on coal, a much higher CO2 emitter than oil. This was indicative of a much wider Australian shift towards coal after King Faisal’s oil shocks. Today, nearly 30 coal-fired power stations have been built and are operating (see Figure 4 on page 135), supplying 78 per cent of Australia’s electricity
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 50
26/2/09 10:18:49 PM
Australia’s Carbon Obesity • 51
needs. Coupled with the low-density urban sprawl that has dominated Australian town planning, Australia’s economy has become much more carbon intensive in comparison to all other developed nations. Our historical energy choices are the biggest contributors to Australia’s carbon obesity. Globally, only South Africa and Poland have higher coal dependencies than Australia. The United States, with vastly more coal than Australia, depends on coal for 50 per cent of its electricity. Just like other countries, the United States has reduced its carbon intensity by changing its fuel mix to be more dominated by natural gas, nuclear power, wind and hydropower. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) predicts Australia, without policy changes, will still generate 67 per cent of its electricity from coal in the year 2030.19 Australia’s carbon intensity in comparison to the rest of the world isn’t just a moral or environmental problem because of climate change. Without pursuing a carbon diet, the future prospects of Australia’s trade, foreign investment and economy is in for a large shock.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 51
26/2/09 10:18:50 PM
4 The Future Shock The Future Shock
A
ustralia is in a perilous economic situation. There is virtually no other developed nation on Earth that is more economically vulnerable to the emerging energy and climate change threat over the coming decades, because we are both climate sensitive and carbon intensive. I’ve already talked about the climate sensitivity of the Australian economy to future sea-level rise, rainfall changes, storms and a decrease in food production. But as the world starts to combat climate change, Australia’s high-carbon economy and high-carbon exports are set for a big shock over the coming decades without rapid structural change to the economy.
The End of Cheap Coal Coal is the least vulnerable fossil fuel to supply shocks, since there are vast untapped reserves in many countries. But supply of a resource doesn’t mean its economic outlook is secure. The global reserves of uranium are large, yet since nuclear power accidents such as Three Mile Island in the United States in 1979 and Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986, the Western world has largely avoided nuclear power. In 52
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 52
26/2/09 10:18:50 PM
The Future Shock • 53
the United States and Europe, for example, not a single new nuclear power reactor has been built since the 1980s. Only recently has there been any Western interest in nuclear power. By the same token, the mineral asbestos was used in many countries in building materials and insulation in homes, but despite the large mineral reserves available, Australia has banned the mining, production and use of asbestos because it is a known carcinogen. The coal age will not end from lack of coal. As the world moves to cut carbon emissions, coal will be the first energy source ousted, given its carbon intensity. Even without a global carbon price in effect, a ‘shadow’ carbon price is already devaluing coal assets. Three of the world’s biggest investment banks in New York have sounded alarm bells over coal’s future. Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley concluded in 2007 that a carbon price will be imposed within the domestic economy of the United States some time in the next few years.1 The banks now require investors seeking finance for coal-fired power plants to prove that the plants will be economically viable under future carbon prices and any new greenhouse gas reduction schemes.2 The banks don’t want to finance a 50-year investment that goes bad because of future carbon emission caps and cost blowouts through higher than expected carbon costs. These Wall Street banks are now requiring energy companies to source renewable options, cost carbon into their finance projections and assess whether nearby geology allows carbon capture and storage and prove that it would be affordable.3 Forty-five coal-fired power stations in the United States were either cancelled or put on hold during 2007 because
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 53
26/2/09 10:18:50 PM
54 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
of carbon concerns.4 ‘What you’re seeing is a de facto moratorium on coal power right now,’ says Robert Linden, a senior oil and gas analyst at Pace Global in New York.5 Jeffrey Holzschuh, vice-chairman of institutional securities at investment bank Morgan Stanley said, ‘We have to wake up some people who are asleep’.6 Investment is heavily shifting away from coal, and for the first time natural gas and renewables each show more power projects under development than coal in the United States.7 A large US energy company, PacifiCorp, has rejected the development of coal-fired power stations and now emphasises natural gas and wind. A spokesperson for the company suggests that because of the potential future carbon costs, ‘coal projects are no longer viable’.8 In the United States, TXU is an energy company that had eleven coal-fired power stations on the drawing board in 2007. A consortium of investors offered the biggest corporate buyout in history (US$45 billion)—although with some very important caveats.9 In order for the buyers of TXU to see the purchase as a long-term asset, they required the company to cease building eight of the eleven coal-fired power stations. An intense public backlash over the planned expansion of coal-fired power contributed to the decision to scrap the coal plans—but the banks say the main reason for cutting coal was financial.10 TXU also agreed to cut its overall greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and to double its investment in clean, renewable energy to sweeten the deal—all done in order to limit the future carbon liabilities that climate change legislation will impose. The market is shifting, even without a federal carbon price imposed on the economy.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 54
26/2/09 10:18:50 PM
The Future Shock • 55
Australia will impose a carbon price via an emissions trading scheme by the year 2010—well ahead of the United States. Even more so than in the United States, financing and investing in Australian coal-fired power will be a very risky financial proposition given a power plant is typically a 50-year investment. In 1997, the New South Wales government sought to privatise its energy assets, which were predominantly coal-fired power stations in the Hunter Valley. Its fleet of coal-fired power stations was valued at $25 billion. Over the last ten years, through a public demand for clean energy, a ‘shadow carbon price’ has undoubtedly lowered the value of these assets. It hasn’t helped that none of the coal-fired power stations in the Hunter Valley have any ability to use carbon capture and storage technology, since the geology is unfavourable in the region. The concerns over the huge amounts of CO2 spewing from coal-fired power stations have helped erode the value of any existing Australian coal-fired power stations. Why on earth would financiers or investors seek to buy old coal power stations or invest in building new ones in an age of carbon constraint? You would be hard-pressed to find an advertisement from any Australian energy company promoting their use. For companies such as AGL and Origin, investment is heavily shifting towards renewables and natural gas—both lower carbon sources of energy. As an indication of this shift, there were 29 Australian energy projects worth $8 billion at the advanced planning stage by the end of 2008 and 93% of those investments were either fuelled by natural gas or renewables.11 Coal power is cheap, but it will become expensive as the world rapidly slashes carbon emissions—as it should.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 55
26/2/09 10:18:50 PM
56 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
Any previous cost advantage from Australia relying on old coal will be eroded. This gives Australia some large potential financial liabilities in a world that is seeking to address climate change. As our economy is the most greenhouse intensive in the developed world, the energy status quo is not only environmentally unacceptable but will lock us into a future carbon shock. This shock will affect virtually all exports and energy-sensitive foreign investment in Australia.
It’s Not About China Imagine that Australia depended heavily on producing and exporting Blue Delicious apples to countries all over the world. Then it was found that some rare type of deadly bacteria was found in the skin of Blue Delicious apples. For the safety of its people, each country around the world imposed trade bans on the importation of these apples. Everyone still wanted to eat apples because they are a healthy snack. So instead there was a huge surge in demand for New Zealand–produced Orange Delicious apples that didn’t have the unwelcome side effects. All global commodities are subject to global shifts in demand. Coal is a global commodity that is not produced or manufactured; it is mined and it can’t grow back. There are many alternatives to using coal for generating energy around the world. The question then becomes analogous to the Blue Delicious apple example: why would the world continue to buy Australian coal? The world will be moving to buy the Orange Delicious apples, even if they are a little pricier—for the health of their people. Australia would need to either
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 56
26/2/09 10:18:50 PM
The Future Shock • 57
eradicate the deadly bacteria on Blue Delicious apples or shift into producing the Orange Delicious variety. The vast majority of the coal produced in Australia (about 80 per cent) is exported rather than used within our shores for domestic energy generation. Australia is the world’s largest exporter of coal, although the United States, China and India have far greater reserves. Coal is Australia’s most lucrative export commodity, with an annual value of $25 billion.12 Although having the world’s fifth-largest coal reserves, some 230 million tonnes get shipped off our shores each year, representing 30 per cent of Australia’s global trade.13 Despite the widely held notion that Australian coal exports are fuelled by China’s growth, only 2 per cent of Australian coal ends up being used in China. Europe (the Netherlands, France and the United Kingdom) buys more than five times the amount of Australian coal than China.14 Australia’s biggest export earner has the single biggest carbon exposure of any commodity. This fact ultimately scares many into thinking that we shouldn’t change anything; that we need to keep digging up coal, keep building coal-fired power stations and keep doing things the way they have always been done. But neglecting the future global energy shifts will do far more damage to the coal industry than any domestic carbon price ever could. Japan is Australia’s most important coal trading partner— buying nearly half of Australia’s coal exports.15 Even though the coal for Japanese power stations comes from Australia, the carbon emitted when burning it is counted under Japanese greenhouse accounts. Japan has committed to reducing greenhouse emissions by at least 50 per cent by
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 57
26/2/09 10:18:50 PM
58 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
2050.16 It would be impossible for Japan to continue buying Australian coal and using it in its current form if it wanted to meet these significant reduction targets. The beneficiaries of this shift in Japanese energy priorities will probably be natural gas (supplied by Russia), nuclear power and renewables, not Australian coal. Europe is the second biggest purchaser of Australia coal, importing nearly $3 billion worth in 2007.17 The European Union has set the toughest greenhouse gas reduction targets in the world, proposing cuts of between 20 and 30 per cent by 2020 and 60 and 80 per cent by 2050.18 There are many low-carbon alternatives in Europe that will be cheaper than coal in a carbon-constrained world. The goal of reducing carbon emissions has already made natural gas the ‘default option’ for power generation in Europe, since it emits half the carbon of coal-fired electricity.19 The International Energy Agency conservatively estimates that global demand for coal could be 20 per cent lower by the year 2030.20 Despite the outcries here at home, Australia’s coal industry is ultimately vulnerable to overseas decisions and shifts in energy policy. Our two most important coalpurchasers (Japan and the EU) have made it clear that reducing carbon emissions is a priority in the coming decade. Across the world, states and countries are rising to the challenge of climate change by setting ambitious targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions. At the United Nations climate change conference in Bali in December 2007, all nations agreed to a roadmap that recognised that ‘deep cuts in global emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective’ of the UN climate convention, namely ‘avoiding dangerous climate change’.21 This follows the G8 meetings
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 58
26/2/09 10:18:50 PM
The Future Shock • 59
where the eight major developed economies agreed to an aspirational target of at least a 50 per cent reduction by 2050.22 The new US president, Barack Obama, has also set an ambitious target of reducing US emissions by 80 per cent by the year 2050,23 equivalent to those set by California.24 There are thousands of policies being instituted around the world, whether in the hundreds of cities and towns that have set out to embark on reducing emissions,25 or in the schools and universities that are setting ambitious goals to reduce their greenhouse footprint.26 Every new emission reduction policy around the world, whether large or small, erodes the competitive advantage of Australian resources such as coal. Australia’s biggest export could become our biggest liability in a world shifting to a low-carbon economy. In the long term, Australia’s exports cannot survive solely on supplying old coal to a world that is shifting towards cleaner, low-carbon technologies and products: it must change. If we want countries like Japan and the EU nations to buy Australian coal, then it is imperative to develop the technologies to make it significantly less greenhouse intensive.
Carbon Protectionism For Australia, it’s not just coal exports that are vulnerable in a world that will cut carbon emissions. All Australian exports are vulnerable—since coal is used for the vast majority of our domestic energy needs. That means that every export product produced on a carbon-sensitive electricity grid will also be exposed to a world moving away from carbon. Sir Nicholas Stern, the former World
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 59
26/2/09 10:18:50 PM
60 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
Bank chief economist concluded that climate change is ‘the biggest market failure the world has ever seen’.27 By this, Stern means that our historical energy prices have not reflected the cost of greenhouse gases. As the world starts to correct this market failure, carbon-intensive economies like Australia’s are in for a potential price shock. If recent trends in the United States and Europe are anything to go by, all Australian exporters need to become very aware. The Climate Security Act 2008 was one of the many legislative bills that have made it to the United States Senate over the past decade trying to reduce the 8 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases annually produced within the world’s largest economy.28 This bill, however, was very different to previous legislation. For the first time in the world, legislation proposed carbon tariffs on products from countries that were greenhouse intensive. Each product imported into the United States would be taxed depending on how much greenhouse gas was emitted through its production. The idea of imposing carbon tariffs on global trade originated in Europe. In 2006, the then President of France, Jacques Chirac, said that ‘a carbon tax is inevitable . . . if it is European, then it means that all the countries that do not accept the minimum obligations will be obliged to pay’.29 Chirac’s successor, Nicolas Sarkozy took it further in 2007, openly floating the idea to the European Commission, where there were a number of supporters.30 California, the most populous US state, with the world’s fifth-largest economy, has also talked about imposing carbon tariffs. Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said,
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 60
26/2/09 10:18:50 PM
The Future Shock • 61
My guess is that within the next decade or so if an economy ignores the damage that it’s doing to the environment, the civilised world will impose environmental tariffs, duties, and other trade restrictions to those countries. This is a matter of fair trade. Nations cannot dump products, nations cannot dump anything, and in the future they will not be able to dump carbon or greenhouse gases either, because this is an unfair trade advantage.31
It’s more likely than not that those low-carbon nations will protect their domestic industries by imposing carbon tariffs on goods produced in carbon-intensive countries. A highcarbon economy translates into a high-economic trade exposure when the world starts to move heavily to reduce carbon emissions and impose carbon tariffs. This will have an impact on all Australian export industries, not just energy and resources. Take the Australian wine industry as an example. The United States and the United Kingdom have particularly receptive palettes for Australian wines, as do I. Nearly 800 million litres of Australian wine is exported annually, worth nearly $2.9 billion.32 Producing wine requires energy during cultivation, production and packaging. If we assume that the carbon intensity of Australian wine-makers is equal to the average of the Australian economy, $1000 of wine would produce 670 kilograms of carbon dioxide. In Italy, the same batch of wine only produces 340 kilograms of carbon emissions. With a global carbon tariff, Australian wine exporters could be hit with charges for double the carbon emissions of wine produced in Italy. The long freighting distance to Europe will add another carbon charge. This is
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 61
26/2/09 10:18:50 PM
62 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
a general example of how low-carbon globalisation will give a comparative advantage to low-carbon nations and producers. Not all vineyards will have these carbon exposures. For example, over 90 per cent of the Tasmanian electricity supply comes from hydro and wind power. Any vineyard in Tasmania will have low-carbon export exposure compared to those wines coming from coal-fired electricity in the Hunter Valley of New South Wales. In 2008, Grove Mill, a New Zealand vineyard, became the first wine-maker to be certified ‘carbon-neutral’.33 Just like business tax and labour costs, the ‘carbon intensity’ of domestic energy grids and the associated products will emerge as an important factor in competing in the global marketplace.
Low-Carbon Hubs In a world moving to cut carbon emissions, foreign direct investment will start to shift towards low-carbon energy grids and low-carbon economies. Low-carbon energy grids are already becoming attractive to a range of energyintensive industries. Notwithstanding their banks, Iceland is a good case in point. This nation in the Arctic Sea has been trying to lure aluminium smelters and data centres for years. Aluminium smelting is one of the most energyintensive industries in the world; energy accounts for 30 per cent of the total cost of aluminium production.34 Alcoa, one of the world’s largest producers of aluminium, is building a US$1.5 billion smelter in Iceland, in addition to the two already operating there.35 The small Nordic nation has carved out a niche by attracting energy-intensive industries that invest and build plants on their shores.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 62
26/2/09 10:18:50 PM
The Future Shock • 63
Why would an aluminium smelter want to invest in Iceland? Because 99 per cent of the electricity supply comes from geothermal or hydro power. These clean-energy sources, with a stable supply, are not subject to the price volatility of fossil fuels. However, there is an additional benefit for locating to Iceland. By investing in a country that has a carbon-neutral energy grid, Alcoa would be eradicating any future carbon liabilities from manufacturing in Iceland. Alcoa can also promote low-carbon aluminium to an increasingly aware market that is demanding more action on climate change. Iceland is becoming the first low-carbon hub for manufacturing—now technology giants Cisco and Microsoft are thinking about relocating their energy-intensive computer data centres there.36 Iceland is benefiting from carbon neutrality by attracting foreign investment and boosting their manufacturing sector. All other factors being equal, energy-intensive industries would be mad to invest in a carbon-intensive energy grid, given potential future carbon liabilities. Production of aluminium in Queensland, for example, uses a nearby coal-fired power station for its energy supply, which makes it the most carbon-intensive aluminium in the world. Why would Alcoa or any other energy-intensive industry want to build new plants in Australia, with its high-carbon grid, vulnerable to any future carbon price shocks? In 2007–08 Japan, the European Union, the United States and New Zealand bought $75 billion worth of Australian goods, nearly three times the amount as from China.37 Of the $151 billion invested in Australia from overseas, nearly 70 per cent comes from these four places. 38 Foreign investment from China is $2.7 billion which represents
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 63
26/2/09 10:18:50 PM
64 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
a mere 2% of Australia’s total investment coming from overseas.39 Changes in trade and foreign investment from the European Union, the United States, Japan and New Zealand will have a significant impact on our longterm economy. All of these places have either committed to deep greenhouse gas emissions cuts—of between 60 and 80 per cent by 2050—or are in the process of doing so.40 Not only that, but Australia has an economy that is up to double the carbon intensity of our four biggest trading and investment partners. With the European Union and the United States mulling over a future carbon tariff, and Japan and New Zealand initiating a carbon emissions trading scheme, the Australian economy is not in a good place to absorb the future carbon-induced alterations to trade and foreign investment over the longer term. Continuing our dependence on coal for energy would lock Australia into a high-carbon future and economic shock when the world ultimately ends carbon emissions this century. For Australia to attract foreign investment and reduce the carbon exposure of Australian-made exports, it must forge a new low-carbon economy.
The End of Conventional Oil Australia’s oil reserves in the North West Shelf of Western Australia and Bass Strait have historically had enough oil to quench our large domestic demand. In recent years, however, dwindling domestic production has resulted in Australia buying large amounts of oil from other countries. Australia’s oil production peaked in the year 2000 at 809,000 barrels per day.41 With oil consumption at 925,000 barrels
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 64
26/2/09 10:18:50 PM
The Future Shock • 65
per day, Australia did not have to rely much on foreign oil imports. By 2007, production had fallen dramatically to 561,000 barrels per day, meaning Australia needed to import nearly 374,000 barrels per day, or 40% of oil consumption.42 Since the start of the new millennium, Australia has had a growing oil trade deficit, and increasing oil demand is making this deficit much worse. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) predicts oil production will level out at 500,000 barrels per day over the coming decades, whereas oil demand will potentially increase to 1.2 million barrels per day by 2030.43 Without policy measures Australia will therefore need to import between 40 and 80 per cent of its oil by 2030.44 Given Australia’s foreign oil deficit was already 40% in 2007, these projections are already proving true. We are consuming oil far faster than we can find it, which means we are sending billions of oil dollars overseas, blowing out our trade deficit. The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association (APPEA) stated in 2006 that ‘Without major new discoveries . . . this forecast translates into an estimated trade deficit in crude oil and condensate of around $20 billion by 2015’.45 In 2004, the federal government’s energy white paper optimistically forecast that the import bill on oil would be more than offset by the exports from coal.46 With long-term oil prices at over US$100 a barrel, Australia’s oil deficit has been heavily revised upwards to $25 billion by the year 2015.47 With our coal exports set for a shaky decline in a world moving away from carbon, Australia’s energy trade deficit is forecast to rise dramatically without policy action. Without a change of direction, instead of being a net energy
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 65
26/2/09 10:18:50 PM
66 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
exporter, Australia will become largely dependent on foreign sources of energy. So why should we be concerned about rising dependency on oil imports? After all, we import vast amounts of televisions, toys and food from elsewhere. Oil imports are different because oil has no current large-scale alternative and can’t be manufactured or grown in many parts of the world like televisions or rice. And not every country can produce oil—production can take place only in those countries that not only have the necessary geological conditions, but also the available reserves. Australia could, if it wanted to, start to manufacture televisions again— albeit at a higher cost than elsewhere. But if we wanted to produce oil we couldn’t; it’s a finite resource—once it’s gone it can never return. So without domestic oil production, nations are completely dependent and vulnerable to foreign supplies—which, given the history of oil shocks, is not a particularly wise economic strategy. You may have come across the term ‘peak oil’, which is often defined as the point in time when oil production reaches its maximum output and starts to decline. The theory comes from geologist Marion Hubbert, who accurately predicted the peak of United States oil production, which she found followed a bell-shaped trajectory, to be 1965–70.48 Production of conventional, cheap oil has been dwindling in all regions for a long period of time. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), Worldwide, the rate of [oil] reserve additions from discoveries has fallen sharply since the 1960s. In the last decade, discoveries have replaced only half the oil
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 66
26/2/09 10:18:50 PM
The Future Shock • 67
produced. Nowhere has the fall in oil discoveries been more dramatic than in the Middle East, where they plunged from 187 billion barrels in 1963–1972 to 16 billion barrels during the decade ending in 2002.49
Current estimates suggest about 1800 billion barrels of conventional oil are still available for extraction (with varying costs),50 which, at projected rising consumption levels, gives the world about 30 to 40 years of supply.51 Christophe de Margerie is the CEO of Total S.A., one of the biggest oil corporations in the world. He has consistently stated that global oil production has peaked, but not so much because of geological limitations. De Margerie defines peak oil as when ‘supply cannot meet demand’. The International Energy Agency forecasts the world will demand 121 million barrels per day by 2030.52 Due to technical and political limitations on new exploration licences, de Margerie says ‘numbers like 120 million barrels a day will never be reached, never’.53 The output from existing oil fields has been declining by 5 to 6 million barrels each year, which means that a lot of new oil fields need to be found just to maintain existing production levels. This is why the long-term oil price will continue to rise. Although conventional oil is finite and its production dwindling, there are multiple unconventional sources of oil, which include oil sands, oil shales, gas to oil, coal to oil and heavy oil (see Chapter 8). These unconventional production methods could produce more than ten times the reserves of conventional oil. The term ‘peak oil’ is quite misleading and should really be renamed ‘peak conventional oil’. High oil prices (because of peak conventional oil) will
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 67
26/2/09 10:18:50 PM
68 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
increase fuel efficiency, but they will also drive investment and production to other ways to produce oil. There is a limit to how efficient cars, trucks and planes can become over a period of time, and oil isn’t only used for transport. Oil and the petrochemical derivatives are used to make many things that may surprise you, including CDs, credit cards, crayons, plastic bags, cameras, telephones and even toothpaste and shampoo.54 Unfortunately, large amounts of oil will still be needed in the future simply due to our utter dependence on it through transport and all types of petroleum derivatives. ‘De-oiling’ our economy will cushion us from future energy shocks and is completely aligned with de-carbonising our economy as well. • Energy shocks are not just something that happened in the past—they will be inevitable in a world that is short on oil, high on consumption and needing to rapidly reduce carbon emissions. The 1970s oil shocks did damage to all nations with high oil dependency. But what if in the 1960s there was a country already planning to cushion the blow? Imagine a country that had already fostered an economy that was resilient to energy price hikes by cutting oil use and energy wastage and by developing fuel-efficient buildings, cars and power plants. With all the angst being felt by Australian motorists over high petrol prices, what if half the vehicles on the road were already running on sustainable biofuels, advanced batteries and electricity? A future carbon shock could be gradual or it could be abrupt, but either way, just like the oil shocks of the 1970s, it will
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 68
26/2/09 10:18:50 PM
The Future Shock • 69
be the way nations take early action that will determine the carbon shock’s economic impacts, and Australia would be among the worst hit. It’s like being in the 1960s again, but instead of being unaware of the impending future shocks, today we know that the world will rapidly cut carbon emissions in the future—we just don’t know how rapidly. Unfortunately, markets are reactive rather than anticipatory—that’s why government intervention is so important as a defence against long-term challenges. As the world either imposes tariffs or costs on carbon emissions, Australia’s carbon-intensive economy will potentially have deep carbon-related financial liabilities. If we want Australian innovators, businesses and exporters to thrive in a carbonconstrained world, we must rapidly make the transition to a low-carbon economy. It’s not a question of whether a carbon shock or energy shock will come, it’s a matter of when. It could be in five, ten or twenty years, but those nations that prepare for a world beyond oil and carbon will prosper far more than those that fail to act. The question for Australia isn’t ‘can we cut emissions without hurting economic growth?’ Rather, it is ‘can we grow our economy without cutting carbon emissions?’
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 69
26/2/09 10:18:51 PM
5 Beyond Polar Bears Beyond Polar Bears
Y
ou never quite know what to expect when attending United Nations climate change conferences. The slick suits of the governmental delegates were something altogether different from the tweed jacket-wearing scientsts of the conferences I was used to attending. During the December 2007 Bali UN climate change conference, there were a multitude of different groups, activists and societies promoting messages, campaigns and slogans to try to sway the political delegates entering the convention centre to act on solving climate change. Given the sweltering conditions outside, their messages had to be short, original and to the point to get any notice. There were 2-metre papier-mâché Earths with an overheating thermometer coming out of them and signs telling delegates to ‘stop global warming’. But even I had seen these before and they didn’t turn the heads of the thousands of policy-makers entering the conference. There was one campaign, however, which really grabbed my attention. Standing in the long security line to enter the conference, I heard a chant that was getting louder and louder. I looked towards the ruckus and saw about ten polar bears carrying signs and marching towards the entrance. I automatically assumed it was 70
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 70
26/2/09 10:18:51 PM
Beyond Polar Bears • 71
an environmental group raising awareness about the vulnerability of polar bears in the Arctic. But these polar bears had a different message—they were wearing T-shirts with banners and chanting the message ‘Save humans too’. Oxfam, the international development organisation, was taking a powerful, often overlooked message to the conference: climate change goes well beyond the environment. It has the potential to entrench poverty in some nations through degrading water and food security while at the same time devastating poor coastal nations through sea-level rise and extreme weather. The devastating Bangladeshi and Burmese cyclones in 2008, which killed tens of thousands, were to show how vulnerable some nations really are to extreme weather. The Oxfam message is critically important—there is a deeply human side to climate change. The shifts in weather patterns will potentially accelerate impoverishment and famine in the most vulnerable developing countries of the world. Recognising the socio-economic dimensions to climate change is critical if we have any chance to solve this 21st-century challenge.
Seeing the Other Side The speed of change in our society is, unfortunately, not related to the urgency of its problems. Social change is slow, and there is always going to be a gap between what is needed and what is being done. We can explore how change comes about by using a historical lens so that we can see how to move forward in the most effective way possible.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 71
26/2/09 10:18:51 PM
72 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
It’s hard to imagine that only 40 years ago endemic discrimination was a normal part of Western culture. Back then only ‘fringe’ activists were advocating antidiscrimination on the basis of race, sex or religion. Only a few politicians supported changes to our laws that, for example, allowed Aboriginal people to vote, empowered choice for women or integrated schools. But today, the younger generation, on the whole, is completely averse to discrimination, and upholding civil rights is the norm in Western culture. Political leaders embraced the civil rights agenda only after Martin Luther King Jnr made the world aware of the deep inequality entrenched across the United States. Today, some 40 years later, America celebrates a national holiday in honour of Dr King, and its President is African-American—how times change in all but a generation. Yet it wasn’t only because of Dr King raising awareness of segregation in parts of the United States that the norms in society shifted. The progressive changes in civil rights also came about through the slow realisation among the White majority that anti-discrimination policies would not threaten their existence and would, in fact, improve the lives of millions. The lesson here is that change will only occur if the individual is presented with an understanding of the consequences of the change and can see it as a net benefit collectively while not threatening his or her existence. Social change will be slow if the downside threats overwhelm the upside arguments. The first scientific evidence highlighting the dangers of smoking were published way back in the 1950s.1 In the mid-1960s, mild warning labels began to be placed on cigarette packs and then, in the 1970s and ’80s, bans on
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 72
26/2/09 10:18:51 PM
Beyond Polar Bears • 73
cigarette advertising began in some countries. Despite the evidence that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer, throat cancer, emphysema and heart disease, today tobacco advertising still exists in cinemas, on billboards and at sporting events all over Europe. Nearly one-quarter of the adult population in Australia still smoke,2 and that figure is higher in other parts of the world. With such unequivocal scientific evidence of the harm smoking causes and that nicotine is highly addictive, why are cigarettes still legally available over the counter? One reason is that most of the nonsmoking majority don’t think it affects them at all and therefore don’t demand anti-tobacco laws. Although most people want others to quit smoking, it’s a choice just like gambling, so the argument goes. But a smoking culture deeply affects all of us through the massive healthcare costs imposed to treat an unhealthy society. In Australia direct costs attributable to medical, hospital, nursing home and pharmaceutical care are in the order of $1.1 billion,3 while declines in death, illness and disability through lower rates of smoking have saved $9 billion over 30 years.4 Despite this, most non-smokers don’t really see how the smoking population affects them other than when sitting next to them in public. Cigarettes legally remain on the shelves, despite containing carcinogens, largely because of a mostly unmotivated nonsmoking majority. The recent ban on smoking in pubs and clubs in many Australian states took decades to come about, in part because of the change-averse hotel and gaming lobby. But it would have come about far quicker if the majority of the population had seen the opportunity for them to benefit from a healthier smokefree environment.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 73
26/2/09 10:18:51 PM
74 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
September 11, 2001, saw one of those crises that demonstrate the lack of adaptive capacity of societies to combat a major threat. I was living in Manhattan at the time of the attacks and during the morning of September 11 it felt like the world was coming to an end. It was a chaotic and scary time. The automatic response of the authorities was to send out the National Guard to every train station, tunnel and major building. The soldiers were decked out in full combat gear with machine-guns ready. But this was a new threat—not one based on fighting government-sanctioned armies like in the world wars or the Vietnam War. A machine-gun, tank or fighter is no match for a civilian dressed casually with a backpack full of explosives. Instead of making New York more secure, these camouflage-wearing soldiers were completely impotent in the face of the threat—and would even have made a good target for any suicide bombers. Although the old thinking of building up your military with weapons was relevant during state conflicts such as the Second World War or the Vietnam War, it has little relevancy in combating domestic terrorism. After September 11, the response of the United States and Australia was to nearly double the budgets for the military, even though building more fighters and arming soldiers could do nothing against a suicide bomber in a Bali nightclub. The conservative leadership in the United States and Australia did what they knew, not what was the most relevant for the age. Yesterday’s thinking cannot hope to solve tomorrow’s challenges. Whether it’s one idea, social movement, business or national government, it is very easy to become enslaved to accustomed ways such as linking economic growth to
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 74
26/2/09 10:18:51 PM
Beyond Polar Bears • 75
fossil fuels. Old thinking is one that believes the free market is always virtuous, climate change is only an environmental issue and that combating climate change can be done without massive technological advancement. The new longterm global challenges such as terrorism, AIDS and climate change require breaking down old ways of thinking that seem to have consumed the world’s large governments and organisations. New thinking must allow adaptation and promote resilience among the world so as to effectively meet future challenges.
The New Environmentalist Leaders all over the world use moral imperatives to try to mobilise resources to solve the world’s biggest challenges. But the problem is that billions of people across the world have different moral compasses. The vast majority of the population are guided by survival—trying to earn money and finding food and shelter for their family are the first and most important goals. Carbon emissions are probably the last thing they think about. Even in developed countries such as Australia, most people are understandably focused on reducing their debts, raising a family and paying the bills, and many aren’t convinced of the need to act on climate change. If the issue of climate change stays in the moral domain it will fail to be addressed. It needs to move from being a moral concern to being an economic imperative in order to invoke the sort of change required. Unfortunately, it’s not going to be a matter of switching off lights and having four-minute showers. The type of change required will involve action, not morality.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 75
26/2/09 10:18:51 PM
76 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
The CEO of World Vision Australia, Tim Costello, has campaigned tirelessly to increase government foreign aid to the poorest of countries from 0.32 to 0.5 per cent of GDP. Morally, how can a wealthy country like Australia allow a neighbour to starve and spiral into chaos? But it’s not just moral to help poor countries. With every moral argument, there is an even more powerful self-interest argument. Better economic development in neighbouring countries in our region potentially stops young men joining terrorist organisations, creates goodwill among the people themselves and is therefore good for Australia. Morality is often invoked as a reason to combat climate change, but as with foreign aid there are even more powerful economic, strategic and national security arguments for doing so. Climate change is a deeply moral challenge for all of us because it has big consequences for each and every generation to come. But there is something that makes combating climate change much more difficult than other issues: it involves reorganising and reinvesting hundreds of billions of dollars in capital, governance and global cooperation to bring about a clean industrial revolution. When capital is entrenched, it makes it much harder for changes to occur. The only way forward is for investors and capital to move to a place which has greater upsides than elsewhere and governments must provide this platform which boosts incentives towards making this happen. The evolution of a belief is as important as the initial belief itself. The environmental movement is going through a transition from its origins in the naturalist traditions of the 1960s. Naturalists, inspired by Rachel Carson’s beautifully eloquent book Silent Spring, have tended to
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 76
26/2/09 10:18:51 PM
Beyond Polar Bears • 77
automatically dismiss technological solutions to environmental problems. This reaction comes from the notion that humankind should not interfere with the natural world. There are indeed many examples in which human engineering of the natural world has gone awry. There are, however, just as many examples of innovation that have led to better outcomes for the environment. For example, there is a new and wonderful area of technology called biomimicry, whereby technologies are developed that harness designs of the natural world that have developed over millions of years of species evolution. The best known example is a termite nest, which maintains constant cool internal temperatures despite its harsh desert conditions. Designs based on the nest’s complex, myriad channels and ducts are now used in energy-efficient buildings in our cities. Yet biomimicry depends on investment coming from a vibrant economy. Without the investment, biomimicry will only be something for the wealthy, just like computers were twenty years ago. The new generation of climate-solvers must seek to harness, rather than hinder, markets and technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They must embrace the need to mobilise trillions of dollars of capital, commercialise climate-saving technologies and create a system where people are able to profit from a new energy economy with few carbon emissions. It needs to be this way because, without the ability to quickly shift entrenched polluting capital, climate change cannot be combated in a capitalist market-driven society. We need the banker, the trader, the industrialist, the entrepreneur, the innovator and the investor to start addressing this crisis, even though they
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 77
26/2/09 10:18:51 PM
78 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
may not be personally concerned about it. Without the markets onside slowing climate change is virtually impossible. Environmental understanding was spawned in the postSecond World War economic boom, and combating climate change will need a growing economic prosperity throughout the world. Some may think a global downturn in the economy and a recession in the United States are exactly what is needed to at least slow greenhouse emissions and climate change. But in fact, a slowing economy makes fighting climate change much harder. During the elections in 2007 for the French presidency, climate change hardly played a role, despite the French population being particularly sensitive to social and environmental issues. The French economy had been going backwards in comparison to other European nations. Unemployment had sat around 10 per cent for a long time, while France slipped from being fifth to thirteenth in income per capita in a decade. Given this economic background, the French people resoundingly elected a centre-right candidate, Nicolas Sarkozy, whose election platform was to revitalise the French economy and grow employment. Polls showed that the French people had identified unemployment and the economy as their top two issues in the election, not the environment. The same thing happened during the US 2008 presidential election, when the economic downturn, credit crisis and Iraq War consumed voter sentiment; climate change hardly rated a mention on the campaign trail. The Australian federal election in 2007 was in stark contrast to the French and US presidential elections.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 78
26/2/09 10:18:51 PM
Beyond Polar Bears • 79
Australia’s economy had been growing strongly since 1992. With wages increasing and the lowest unemployment rates in over 30 years, Australians felt more economically secure in comparison to the French or US electorates. Australia’s long period of economic prosperity helped shift public sentiment towards industrial relations and climate change. Based on polls, climate change was one of the top two election issues for Australia—not the economy or unemployment as in France or the United States. A growing economy is a critical prerequisite for making the changes needed to combat climate change. Some individuals, businesses and governments are more comfortable with change than others—irrespective of the potential collective outcome. Global warming is one of those issues that invokes the full spectrum of how humans view change. The long first phase in coping with new scientific evidence is denial: ‘We’ve seen these things before—it will pass and be irrelevant.’ But the CO2 we put into the atmosphere will stay up there for hundreds of years, continually casting its warming potential over the Earth. The 0.7°C warming seen since pre-industrial times is ‘unequivocal’, due mostly to human activity pushing up greenhouse gas concentrations by nearly 40 per cent.5 All governments (even the Bush administration) have accepted that the science is real. Despite this, some are still unwilling to makes the political changes that are needed, believing that combating global warming will slow economic growth and prosperity. This is, unfortunately, predominantly where the global battle lines have been drawn within recent international climate policy negotiations. Leaders who have been unwilling to make any changes in addressing
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 79
26/2/09 10:18:51 PM
80 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
greenhouse gas emissions do so because they believe it will ‘wreck the economy’.6 This attitude follows on from the age-old preconceived notion that doing good for the environment must be bad for the economy. But instead of devastating the economy, what if addressing climate change and leading the global new energy revolution creates a new boom in the economy? The global market for climate change solutions could make Australia’s resources boom look like short change this century. If combating climate change leads to a new clean-energy export boom, then resistance seems pretty odd. The new environmentalist sees economic growth as important rather than contributing to the problem. It’s mostly the energy supply through which economic prosperity is generated that needs to change. The climate change debate is often viewed in a polarised fashion: environment versus industry, developed versus developing countries, coal versus renewable energy, poor versus the rich. But a cleaner environment and a stable climate is in everyone’s interest, not one side or the other’s. It’s just a matter of finding the best way to achieve these goals. If there is no downside to solving climate change, then obviously everyone will support actions towards that end—but unfortunately there isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution. Industries, individuals and countries give global warming differing priorities and some will need to make larger changes than others to combat it. But change doesn’t automatically mean negative consequences. The idea of embracing climate change action to ensure a prosperous economy has been drowned out. Industry should see that combating climate change can forge a prosperous clean economy, while environmentalists should see that a vibrant
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 80
26/2/09 10:18:51 PM
Beyond Polar Bears • 81
economy is the most effective way to fast-track planetsaving technologies that will be critically needed. The importance of stabilising climate, on the one hand, and of continuing today’s economic growth, on the other, are not independent of each other—rather, they are entirely dependent on one another. To solve the problem of climate change on a global level, economic growth and greenhouse emissions must be separated. Climate-neutral development is one which allows growing prosperity but without altering the living conditions for future generations. The only way this can be achieved is through a clean industrial revolution.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 81
26/2/09 10:18:51 PM
This page intentionally left blank
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 82
26/2/09 10:18:51 PM
Part II How Do We Cut Carbon?
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 83
26/2/09 10:18:51 PM
This page intentionally left blank
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 84
26/2/09 10:18:51 PM
6 Becoming the New Saudi Arabia Becoming the New Saudi Arabia
I
t’s the year 2046. The United Nations has convened an urgent meeting of the Security Council to discuss how to deal with escalating Middle East tensions. The Saudi Arabian army is massing on the borders of the United Arab Emirates, which has developed into one of the world’s most important hubs for energy and commerce. Momentous changes in the early part of the 21st century resulted in rising tensions among these Arab neighbours. The Saudi Arabian monarch gambled that the world would still crave oil in the latter part of this century as they did in the previous one. He failed to listen to the former Saudi Arabian Oil Minister, Sheikh Zaki Yamani, when he said in the year 2000, ‘The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil.’ With oil prices skyrocketing and supply mostly found in politically unstable states, the developed world shifted heavily away from oil after the 2008 presidential election in the United States. China and India ‘de-oiled’ their economies, albeit at a slower rate than the developed world. But it was the global sanctions against production of greenhouse emissions in 2031 85
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 85
26/2/09 10:18:52 PM
86 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
that finished off the age of oil and the old use of fossil fuels. A series of climate catastrophes shook the world in the 2020s: the mass flooding of inland Asia from a snap glacial meltwater pulse from the China–Tibet plateau in 2026; the US heatwave of 2028, which killed 100,000 people; and the mass coastal evacuations across the developing world after a new breed of super-storms inundated coastal communities already beset by sea-level rise. And in 2030, a chunk of ice-shelf the size of Tasmania crashed into the Southern Ocean from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, once thought stable. Global greenhouse gas sanctions quickly followed. Saudi Arabia rapidly spiralled into economic and social decay following the greenhouse gas sanctions. Reserves of oil now lie dormant under the vast Arabian Desert— worthless even though the world still demands massive amounts of energy. It wasn’t just oil that felt the brunt of global CO2 sanctions—the use of old coal and gas also peaked and, since 2032, the world’s new energy supply has been dominated by CO 2-free energy sources. OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries), previously led by Saudi Arabia, had become irrelevant and was succeeded by a new cluster of energy superpowers under OSEC (Organisation of Solar Exporting Countries). Australia was the founding member of OSEC in the year 2025. Membership is dominated by those countries with vast expanses of desert. With eternal sunshine and no limitations on space, countries that tapped just a fraction of the sun’s energy have become the energy superpowers of the 21st century. The world’s once worthless dry wastelands are now the engine-rooms of the global energy economy.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 86
26/2/09 10:18:52 PM
Becoming the New Saudi Arabia • 87
Foreseeing the shift to a new global clean-energy order, the United Arab Emirates used some of the huge oil and gas windfalls of the early 21st century to invest in solar power within large chunks of the Arabian Desert. Since then, the UAE has become one of OSEC’s most influential members, through its vast solar thermal arrays, developed by Australian researchers, which pump out clean energy for the entire Middle East and some parts of India. Frustrated by their lack of foresight and crippled by plummeting oil revenues, Saudi Arabia in 2046 wants what the UAE has—a prosperous and clean economy that has longevity. The Saudi aggression seems reminiscent of the Iraqi aggression towards Kuwait in 1991 which sparked the first Gulf War. To avoid a repeat, Australia, along with its Western allies and other OSEC nations, is trying to lead a diplomatic effort using its newfound power as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. The Council is drafting legislation that would boost loans from the World Bank to develop vast solar arrays within Saudi Arabia. The initiative could boost clean-energy supplies to India and bring much-needed economic development to Saudi Arabia. These momentous events since the early 21st century have shifted prosperity from nations that dig and burn to those that think, design and build. Africa, fortunately, is one continent that is finally poised to prosper enormously from the global clean-energy shift. Once plagued by war and corruption, many northern African nations have moved impressively towards stable economic growth and democracy because of the world’s largest power source: the Sahara Desert. Europe led the development, with ten northern African nations, to form
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 87
26/2/09 10:18:52 PM
88 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
the European–Saharan Solar Thermal Energy Network in 2037. This solar thermal network now supplies Europe with 20 per cent of its CO2-neutral energy through the Trans-Mediterranean Energy Link (TMEL), connecting Africa and Europe to the same electricity grid. This cooperation has boosted European diplomatic relations with African nations such as Egypt, Algeria, Niger, Libya, Sudan and Morocco. From the early part of the 21st century, Australia played a crucial role in forging this new era of clean economic growth and international cooperation. The TMEL only came about following the successful Australian-led effort to build the Asia Pacific Electricity Grid (APEG) in 2025. APEG connects Australian energy supply to its Asian neighbours including Indonesia, Singapore and southern China. APEG was built after a breakthrough in transport efficiency for transmission cables discovered by Australian researchers in 2020 after the launch of the Helios Program. The Helios Program was a bold government-supported initiative led by the CSIRO, a group of select universities and some energy companies. Their specific objectives were to fast-track the development of commercially viable baseload clean power technologies and to develop superefficient transmission lines for electricity supply. Aside from the immeasurable environmental benefits, the program’s strategic goal was to position Australia as the world’s dominant clean-energy superpower. The Helios Program was launched from the basis of sound scientific understanding. The solar energy hitting Australia’s desert, the heat found kilometres underground and the energy within the currents of Australia’s oceans
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 88
26/2/09 10:18:52 PM
Becoming the New Saudi Arabia • 89
are enough to supply the world’s entire energy supply indefinitely. Although the potential was enormous, politicians were tentative at the beginning of the new millennium, since it was easy to continue digging up fossil fuels and burning them. Nevertheless, in 2012, then former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd launched the Helios Program. One of the main constraints on the large-scale use of these renewable sources of energy was that the deserts, oceans and interior were geographically far away from the populations that needed the energy. The prime minister understood that a nation that came up with the technology to transport electricity over tens of thousands of kilometres with little energy loss would be in a premier position in this greenhouse century to supply unlimited clean, climate-neutral energy. Australia’s massive inland arid region, ocean currents and favourable geological conditions gave the country a natural competitive advantage, allowing it to generate energy and create technologies in proportions massive enough to supply a growing Asia. The investment in the Helios Program was made up from budget savings and revenue gained through the auctioning of carbon pollution permits under an emissions trading scheme that began in 2010. The government also used a portion of the $60 billion previously spent on dubious defence projects by their predecessors. The total investment of $30 billion over ten years resulted in the highest investment per capita of any government towards clean-energy R&D, exceeding that of Japan or the United States. The upfront investment cost for the Helios Program was similar in size to purchasing a suite of fighter aircraft for the Defence Department. But with the fuel sources being
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 89
26/2/09 10:18:52 PM
90 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
free, and the world craving CO2-free energy sources, the economic and environmental dividends for Australia over the long term were immense. By 2030, clean-energy exports to the Asian market had increased ten-fold since 2020, making clean energy by far Australia’s largest export. The super-efficient transmission cables used for APEG and TMEL were built under the Helios Program. The UAE have just purchased another US$20 billion of solar arrays to add more capacity to the nation’s clean-energy production. Private investors are now building multibillion-dollar solar thermal arrays in isolated sun-drenched regions and are assured of efficient electricity transport across global energy markets via the Helios design. Through the Asia Pacific Electricity Grid, investors now have access to the booming Asian market. Solar thermal arrays located on a 15 by 15 kilometre parcel of land in the Great Sandy Desert are powering 45 per cent of Australia’s energy supply. The Helios Program wasn’t just focused on solar but three other clean-energy technologies important for Australia’s long-term economic future: geothermal energy (or hot rocks), clean coal and wave power. Geothermal (geological heat) energy is produced by tapping the naturally boiling granite rock that lies kilometres below the surface. Massive amounts of electricity are produced, and the ‘hot-rocks’ 3 kilometres below the arid inland of Australia could supply Australia’s current energy needs for over 450 years.1 In 2046, through discoveries by Helios Program scientists, geothermal sources are providing 30 per cent of Australia’s energy supplies. Back in 2008, Australia’s coal reserves were estimated to last 400 years and were the
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 90
26/2/09 10:18:52 PM
Becoming the New Saudi Arabia • 91
country’s largest export earner. Australian-led research pioneered a new and inexpensive way to capture CO2 from coal-fired power stations and pump it underground. This technology saved the coal industry from extinction. With such unlimited amounts of clean, carbon-neutral electricity in Australia, car companies were quick to develop super-efficient biofuel-electric hybrid engines that could be plugged into the electricity network, completely unreliant on oil. Combining the electric motor with a conventional motor that uses cellulosic biofuels from the leftovers of Australia’s crops, the car industry has continued to flourish on the back of the plug-in biofuel hybrids. Australia is from 1990 levels on track to cut its greenhouse emissions by 90 per cent by the year 2050. With sanctions on CO2 emissions in place and other nations slower to de-carbonise their economies, foreign investment in Australia has surged to levels never seen before. Without risk from present and future carbon emissions penalties, companies from Google to Pfizer have outsourced a lot of their plants, offices and professionals to Australia. Human civilisation thought oil and fossil fuels were valuable in the 20th century—but any nation that harnesses even a fraction of the sun, wind, waves, or Earth’s interior energy will become the new Saudi Arabia: the world’s leading clean-energy supplier for the 21st century. Instead of the old industrial revolution that linked economic growth to polluting and finite fossil fuels like oil, the clean industrial revolution links growth to carbon-free technologies with limitless fuel supplies (sun, wind, earth, waves). The race is on for nations to become the global supplier of these
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 91
26/2/09 10:18:52 PM
92 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
new clean technologies. There are a number of countries today that are already leading the world in developing and building the new clean-energy economy, and are on the path to becoming the 21st century’s clean-energy superpowers.
The New Clean-Energy Economy Burj al-Taqa looks like a long, thin candle. The difference is that it’s 68 storeys high, over 300 metres tall and, when completed, will be among the tallest towers in the world. Hundreds of these grandiose projects are being constructed all over the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Among them are a US$1 billion museum in the capital, Abu Dhabi,2 and plans for building a town in Dubai that is a replica of the French city of Lyon, equipped with clones of the French city’s cinemas, cafés and schools.3 But in Abu Dhabi, Burj al-Taqa is aiming to differentiate itself from the others. It plans to be the world’s first zero-emissions tower. Looking at the Arabian Peninsula using Google Earth, all you see is desert. Despite the long history of the region, it’s easy to understand why the population density is sparse. A friend of mine who lives in Dubai, the UAE’s largest city, tells me that in summer you can’t be outdoors for more than ten minutes because of the intense heat. Everything is air-conditioned, from apartments to the underground parking garages and expansive shopping malls. Dubai is built to hide people from the elements so they can be blissfully unaware of the scorching 50°C temperatures that can occur in summer. Buildings themselves act like greenhouses, with glass windows trapping heat and elevating
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 92
26/2/09 10:18:52 PM
Becoming the New Saudi Arabia • 93
the temperature to tens of degrees hotter than the outside. To cool down a super-hot building in the desert requires an enormous amount of energy for air-conditioning. Water is, of course, scarce in the Arabian Desert. Water supply mainly comes from desalinating nearby sea water, requiring even more energy than for air-conditioning. Places such as Bahrain and Qatar have the same problems as the UAE and this makes them among the most energy-hungry nations in the world. Every dollar of economic activity spent in these countries uses four times more energy than the equivalent amount spent on similar activities in the United States or Australia.4 Abu Dhabi is possibly the most challenging environment in the world to build a zeroemissions building—and that’s one of the reasons they have planned it. So how are they going to do it? It takes a first-class designer not only to protect the interior from the outside elements but also to use non-fossil fuels for the building’s energy supply. At the base of the tower, sea water will be used to cool air before it enters a ventilation system and air-conditioning unit. The energy self-sufficiency comes from a wind turbine on the roof and a floating collection of solar panels just offshore in the Persian Gulf. The baking sun during the day produces more than enough energy from the solar panels, so the excess will be used to produce hydrogen from water. The hydrogen will then be used to generate the building’s electricity needs at night. The tower itself will be made entirely of glass, which would ordinarily cook the interior by acting as a thick greenhouse blanket that traps the blazing desert heat inside. The project would have stopped dead in its tracks if not for a newly designed
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 93
26/2/09 10:18:52 PM
94 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
ultra-efficient glass. This vacuum-glazed glass, in which a thin layer of low-pressure air buffers two layers of glass, acts like the thermal flask you put soup or coffee into when going on a picnic. Vacuum glazing reduces heat flow by up to two-thirds of normal glass.4 This means that despite the 50°C outside temperature, the interior is much cooler, requiring much less energy for air-conditioning to make the temperature comfortable. A project like this is not cheap since it is the first of its kind, but it is the beginning of a larger national strategy. The UAE is beginning to diversify its economy. Despite its massive oil and gas reserves, the UAE is using some of its recent windfalls to invest heavily in clean technology, where its leaders see a vibrant economic future. The government is taking the concept of zero-emissions construction a step further by planning to build the world’s first zero-carbon city, just outside Abu Dhabi, called Masdar City. Seeing that the UAE is four times as energy intensive as Australia, many people would think that making a city of 50,000 zero-carbon and zero-waste would be impossible. The ambitious project is part of the Masdar Initiative, and Abu Dhabi’s goal is to become the region’s research, development and commercialisation hub for clean-energy products and technologies. The year 2007 marked the first time that more people around the world lived in cities than in rural areas. By 2030, nearly two-thirds of the global population of 8.1 billion will be living in urban centres.5 This rapid urbanisation will improve energy efficiency—it is far cheaper and easier to build infrastructure and resources when people live closer together. It will also provide an opportunity for
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 94
26/2/09 10:18:52 PM
Becoming the New Saudi Arabia • 95
cutting-edge innovation, design and engineering that are extremely efficient at resource utilisation. Carbon-free cities like Masdar City are microcosms of the world’s future greenhouse age. But there is a dilemma for the people of the United Arab Emirates in building zero-emissions buildings and zero-emissions cities: none of the materials, expertise or technologies are produced within their own country . . . yet. Everything has to be imported. Nations such as Denmark, Germany and Japan, where clean-energy technologies have already had a foothold for many years, are now set to reap the benefits of the global shift in energy and materials. The Emirates and other emerging economies can’t develop these sorts of technologies overnight, as it takes decades of research and education. The solar panels will have to come from Germany or Japan, wind turbines from Spain or Denmark and the vacuum glass from Japan or the United States. With the Arabian Peninsula dripping with oil and oozing natural gas it would be easy for an Arab nation to become complacent and think the oil age will last forever. Saudi Arabia, for example, relies on oil production for 90 per cent of government revenue and nearly half the country’s GDP. But with oil supplies eroding, prices skyrocketing and global warming invoking serious future energy shifts and threatening direct consequences, the greenhouse age won’t be about taking things from the ground and exporting them. It will be about harnessing the immense amount of natural energy all around us and exporting the technologies that capture it. Whether it’s vacuum glass, solar panels, carbon fibre, wind turbines, ultra-insulating bricks, or carbon-capture and storage technology, clean-energy
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 95
26/2/09 10:18:52 PM
96 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
technologies will be in high demand, and the new Saudi Arabia will be the country that fast-tracks their development, commercialisation and export. Some countries started their energy realignment decades ago and are uniquely positioned to benefit from the emerging new clean-energy order. European countries have been forced to think of alternatives to the old conventional energy supplies. With hardly any fossil fuel reserves, European nations such as Spain, France and Germany were dependent entirely on foreign supplies, particularly for their oil and gas. The energy crisis in the 1970s stimulated European nations to make provisions within their economies to shield themselves from any future energy price shock. Some nations shifted to nuclear power, others to coal, so as to reduce their dependence on volatile outside forces. France, for example, switched virtually all its electricity generation to nuclear. Nuclear has some huge problems, notably with trying to deal with a 100,000-year radioactive waste stream, high costs and risk of catastrophic accidents. Other European nations took a different direction. Denmark’s population isn’t much larger than the city of Sydney’s. Despite the small population base, the Danes embarked on an energy program to equip their economy for the new energy order. In the early 1970s, Denmark started an intensive research and development program into wind turbines for generating electricity. Climate change wasn’t even on the radar, but independent means of generating energy was critical after the energy crisis. The added benefit of wind power became more evident in the 1980s. Power generated this way was not only greenhouseemissions free, it lacked the dangerous by-products of
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 96
26/2/09 10:18:52 PM
Becoming the New Saudi Arabia • 97
nuclear power. The Danish government poured R&D funding into wind power during the 1980s. Wind turbine manufacturers and developers were encouraged by favourable government incentives. The first suite of wind turbines constructed in the United States were all manufactured in Denmark. Today this small nation manufactures over half the world’s wind turbines. In 2007, oil-rich Bahrain completed a world first in building efficiency and design. Its 250-metre twin-towered World Trade Centre incorporates three massive wind turbines into its design. Through its positioning and the unique aerodynamic design of the towers, the prevailing onshore Gulf breeze is funnelled into the path of the turbines, delivering up to 15 per cent of the building’s energy needs. The three wind turbines didn’t come from Bahrain but from one of Denmark’s many wind turbine manufacturers, Norwin. Vestas, the largest Danish wind turbine manufacturer, began production of wind turbines in 1979. Advances in turbine technology and production techniques have reduced wind power costs by 75 per cent over that time.6 Today, Vestas employs over 15,000 people, has annual sales of nearly €5 billion and has a global market share for wind turbines of 23 per cent. Production at Vestas grew about 30% each year since 2003.7 Worldwide, about 70,000 megawatts of wind power will be put online between 2007 and 2010, which equates to about 100,000 wind turbines.8 Denmark and Vestas are poised to benefit hugely from this. Clean-energy technology exports have surged to make up nearly 10 per cent of total exports from Denmark, at US$11 billion a year (€6.7 billion).9 Today, 20 per cent of electricity generated in Denmark comes from wind power,
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 97
26/2/09 10:18:52 PM
98 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
a figure that the government aims to increase to 40 per cent over the next decade. If we believe some recalcitrant commentators, the growth in wind power so far would have sent the Danish economy back to the dark ages. In fact, the Danes are far richer than Australians measured by GDP per capita (by about $5000 per person),10 while their carbon intensity has been cut by over one-third in less than ten years.11 Australia’s carbon intensity hasn’t changed over the same period. Meanwhile, the Danes have invested in clean-energy research and development, increased their wealth and have positioned themselves as the world’s Saudi Arabia for wind power. Not only that, but their fuel supply is free, independent and unlimited, and provides Denmark’s economy relief from any future energy fuel price crises. It is commonly thought that either China or the United States is the world’s largest exporter of goods, yet Germany, with a population of 82 million, has been the world’s largest exporter since 2003. From cars to high-tech industrial machinery, the ‘made in Germany’ brand has driven global economic trends even more than China. China is the growing manufacturing powerhouse for cheap goods, while German engineering focuses on design, precision and higher value items that as yet aren’t manufactured in China. Although China can manufacture a 10-cent syringe, it as yet doesn’t have the precision and design experience to build a $200,000 computed tomography (CT) scanner for disease detection. Germany has caught on to the cleanenergy race and seems to understand that there is a natural competitive advantage for innovative and skilled nations in the new energy order. Its goal is to be the new Saudi
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 98
26/2/09 10:18:52 PM
Becoming the New Saudi Arabia • 99
Arabia for solar power. Being the world’s largest exporter, Germany’s economy is actually more dependent on industry and manufacturing than Australia’s. German manufacturing accounts for nearly one-quarter of the nation’s GDP, while manufacturing contributes half that to the Australian economy. The energy profile of Germany is very similar to Australia’s. Both countries have considerable coal reserves for electricity generation and export, and economies that rely on industry but Germany has taken a different tack to Australia over the past few years. With the economic growth potential of the clean-energy market, the German government has invested heavily in research and development for solar power and provides feed-in tariffs, under which electricity utilities are obliged to buy solar electricity at very generous rates. By 2020, renewable energy sources (not including hydro) will make up 27 per cent of Germany’s electricity supply. In the long term, it is envisioned that up to one-quarter of Germany’s electricity will come from solar power alone. I didn’t know how dreary, cloudy and rainy western Europe could be until my wife and I lived there for six months in 2006. Come November, temperatures plummeted to below freezing and stayed there for the next six months. Aside from the wonderful sights, history and culture, I was literally gagging to come back home from lack of sun. It simply baffles me that Germany leads the solar power market, given its climate. Australia gets the most powerful and consistent solar radiation anywhere in the world, which is why our skin cancer rate is so high. Yet there are 75 times the number of solar panels installed in Germany than Australia, even
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 99
26/2/09 10:18:52 PM
100 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
though Germany’s population is only four times greater than ours. As in Denmark, government-led plans created a local domestic industry. Germany now is the world’s largest market for solar energy, and German solar manufacturing companies produce over half the world’s solar panels. Companies like SolarWorld, Q-Cells, Conergy and Ersol are positioning themselves for the burgeoning global clean-tech market. These companies employ 45,000 people, a workforce that is predicted to double over the next five years.
The Clean-Energy Revolution The old global energy order is being broken down bit by bit and is undergoing a transition towards clean, lowcarbon, ultra-efficient technologies. Extracting fossil fuels from the ground will become less important than technologies that harness the natural, eternal energy available all around us. The demand for this clean energy will predominantly come from the world’s three biggest economies—Europe, the United States and Japan. The rapidly expanding Chinese economy, however, is also beginning to forge a new cleaner energy economy. By 2020, China aims to generate 15 per cent of its energy from renewable sources, almost double the current figure12 and invest US$200 billion in getting there.13 China’s annual investment in renewable energy is already about $10 billion, nearly double that of the United States and only second to that of Germany.14 China is undertaking a massive expansion in clean technologies and this is set to continue. Just as China is buying huge amounts of iron ore, copper
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 100
26/2/09 10:18:53 PM
Becoming the New Saudi Arabia • 101
and other Australia commodities, the potential is just as large for the Chinese to buy clean-energy technologies and products in the coming decades. Yet the resources boom in Australia, like the oil boom in Saudi Arabia, has entrenched complacency and status-quo economic thinking. The mining boom over the past decade has masked the need for investments for the long-term economy and will result in missed opportunities in the global clean-energy technology market, the fastest growing market in the world. New investment in clean-energy technologies (solar, wind, biomass, etc.) grew by 40 per cent in 2007 to be nearly US$100 billion. New investment in wind power is expected to grow from US$35 billion in 2007 to nearly US$100 billion annually by 2017. Solar power is projected to undergo a similar meteoric rise, from US$23 billion to US$90 billion annually by 2017. Annual new investment in clean-energy technology is expected to be nearly US$300 billion over the next decade.15 Nations that create thriving domestic clean-energy industries will be the ones to prosper while combating climate change. As we’ve seen, even UAE, with its vast reserves of oil and gas, has started on the race to become the new Saudi Arabia: the world’s leading clean-energy supplier. In Australia’s case, moves towards clean energy will need bold initiatives that invest and prioritise developing the new technologies needed for the greenhouse age. The emergence of a new energy superpower this century will be dictated by brains and technology rather than mines, shovels and what lies beneath. Whether they are known technologies, such as carbon capture and storage, hydrogen fuel cells, wind, solar-thermal, geothermal and biofuels,
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 101
26/2/09 10:18:53 PM
102 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
or the still unknown revolutionary technologies, cleanenergy production technologies are the new oil wells of the 21st century. With Australia’s natural endowment, wealth, innovation, capacity and vision, coupled with its proximity to the emerging economic powerhouse of Asia, the investment in clean technology is not just an environmental strategy, it is an economic growth strategy. Australia cannot be left behind in this race. As John F. Kennedy said: ‘Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or the present are certain to miss the future.’
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 102
26/2/09 10:18:53 PM
7 How Science Must Save Us How Science Must Save Us
I
t was early morning and perspiration was already dripping off my face as I hailed one of the taxis jostling for position outside my hotel. I was in Bali, Indonesia, on my way to attend the United Nations climate change conference. The sweltering conditions seemed appropriate for a group of foreign politicians, diplomats and lobbyists trying to start the world moving beyond the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. My choice of a light blue business shirt and tie was a bad one for my first day in Bali. The sweat-drenched cotton was sticking to the vinyl passenger seat, feeling like a film of Glad Wrap plastered over my back. The taxi driver, Wayan, had been driving taxis all his life. His car was small and old, probably built in the 1980s, and was typical of the thousands ducking and weaving through the Balinese streets. As he did for all tourists, Wayan immediately cranked up the air-conditioning the moment I sat down— something that happened every time I used a taxi over the next two weeks. I needed the cooled air desperately and learnt very quickly while in Bali that a bottle of water must be pretty close at all times. Despite this, I felt guilty in needing the extra energy to cool me down, particularly 103
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 103
26/2/09 10:18:53 PM
104 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
since I was on my way to a climate change conference. The typical Australian generates ten times the greenhouse gas emissions of the typical Indonesian. New South Wales, for example, has a carbon footprint equivalent to the combined greenhouse gas emissions of Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Morocco, Nepal and Sri Lanka1. Amazingly, the round-trip flight I took between Sydney and Bali is nearly equivalent to the average Indonesian’s greenhouse footprint for the whole year. Although I purchase a swag of mallee trees somewhere in Australia to ‘offset’ the emissions, these sorts of things are a band-aid solution and won’t be around forever. Looking out the taxi window, as I started to recover from the heat, I noticed that half the vehicles zooming around were small moped motorcycles. As Bali grows, what happens when the average Balinese purchases a car instead of a two-cylinder moped? How much more oil-based energy will be burnt because of that? In China, home to nearly one and a half billion people, new car sales have tripled since 2001 to be nearly ten million per year,2 and the worldwide car fleet is projected to increase from 600 million in 2005 to a staggering 2.9 billion by the middle of this century.3 The air-conditioning guilt I was experiencing morphed into a far more frightening global conundrum. If energy in the developing world is built on exploiting carbon (through oil, coal and gas), then simple arithmetic shows that population and economic growth will lead to massive greenhouse emission increases. More than one and half billion people don’t have access to electricity.4 On current trends, in the next two decades 300 million people are going to use electricity for the first time. It is a tremendous development for these poverty-
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 104
26/2/09 10:18:53 PM
How Science Must Save Us • 105
stricken people to have access to electric power—and increasing access should be prioritised. From an energy and greenhouse perspective, however, it means we have an immense challenge. If those hundreds of millions use just a fraction of the energy we use and it’s generated from carbon-intensive fuels, there is little hope in reducing emissions to the levels needed. Do we tell millions of poorer people around the world not to connect to the electricity grid for the first time or taxi drivers like Wayan to stop using his taxi? Of course not. But imagine a world in 50 years where a taxi runs on greenhouse-neutral fuel or electric-powered batteries and the hundreds of millions of people who are to use electricity for the first time are served by climate-neutral energy. Aside from Western tourists having guilt-free A/C, this scenario would ensure economic prosperity without damaging the climate. Some people think that combating climate change is about changing lifestyles, that we can do it if each of us merely conserve energy from our wasteful lives. Switching off a light bulb or driving less is great, but by themselves such measures have little chance of addressing climate change. You may switch off lights or appliances whenever you are not using them, like I do, and be the most energyconscious person in the world—but what happens during the eight hours at your office or the five hours at home watching television or cooking dinner? Or when you visit your mother, either interstate or across town? No matter what anyone says, there will always be baseline CO2 emissions in our current energy framework. There is no doubt that we do waste a lot of energy, but estimates suggest we can reduce energy demand by about one-third
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 105
26/2/09 10:18:53 PM
106 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
at the very best.5 This is fantastic, and should be one of the first avenues pursued, but by itself it is nowhere near enough if our goal is to stabilise atmospheric CO2 and the future climate. The challenge is that a billion people are existing on less than $2 per day; these people don’t need energy conservation, they need more available energy to break them from poverty. A population of 6.4 billion is likely to grow to be nine billion. Even if we, in the developed world, achieved a 30 per cent cut in energy demand it would only buy us a little more time, since the two to three people born into the world every second will eventually negate any conservation measures achieved by you or me. The obvious solution to cut greenhouse gas emissions would be to cut economic growth, but this is not an option in a world which seeks to lift billions of people out of poverty. Without lowering standards of living or reducing the global population, combating climate change in this century requires a massive clean industrial revolution led by scientific innovation. The future world has to continue growing but with an energy framework that is carbonneutral. Although this challenge is daunting, the power of science to change the world for the better is unparalleled.
A Better World through Technology The Greek mathematician Archimedes said, ‘Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it and I shall move the world.’ The expansion of human understanding drives the progression of civilisation. Everything we are accustomed to today has come via technological innovation: from food, water and shelter to the more advanced items
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 106
26/2/09 10:18:53 PM
How Science Must Save Us • 107
in our life such as machines, X-rays and movies. Science has its fingerprint on everything we do. Just as technological innovation created the first industrial revolution in the eighteenth century, it now must create a future clean industrial revolution that makes the world cleaner, healthier and more prosperous. Scientific advances are largely, and understandably, the domain of wealthy nations, but they should be used for the advancement of all humanity. The evolution of the scientific understanding of climate change only began when developed nations acquired the resources to measure continuous carbon dioxide air samples. The first continuous record came from a volcanic mountain in Hawaii by atmospheric scientists from the United States in 1957. Australia has one of the longest continuous records of atmospheric greenhouse gases in Cape Grim, Tasmania, dating back to 1976. Without the necessary resources devoted to science, and in this case measuring CO2 in the air, our climate would be changing and we wouldn’t know why. In the same way that rich nations can allocate scientific resources to diagnosing problems, they can also allocate scientific resources to the solution. In the late 1960s, the naturalist Paul Ehrlich wrote his bestselling book The Population Bomb which predicted some dire consequences as a result of exploding global populations outstripping food production. Ehrlich followed on from the great Thomas Malthus who, in the late eighteenth century, inspired thinking over the link between population and scarce natural resources in his ‘Essay on the Principle of Population’. Ehrlich went further than Malthus in predicting widespread famine and disease due to food
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 107
26/2/09 10:18:53 PM
108 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
demand far exceeding the natural capacity of food production. He famously predicted that ‘in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now . . . while India couldn’t possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980’.6 Ehrlich’s predictions might well have come true if not for the most powerful weapon in humanity’s arsenal to make the world a better place: scientific innovation. Norman Borlaug was the scientist who proved Ehrlich wrong and helped ‘feed the world’.7 In the mid-twentieth century, Borlaug, an Iowa agricultural scientist, was crossbreeding thousands of different varieties of wheat in order to produce a new, high-yielding variety. At the time, Mexico was on the verge of starvation; other countries, such as India and Pakistan, were not far off. Borlaug successfully bred a new, high-yielding dwarf variety of wheat. The amount of wheat harvested on the same area of land more than doubled because of Borlaug’s discovery. The dwarf wheat was first grown in Mexico and then introduced into India and Pakistan where wheat yields increased six-fold in a matter of years. In 1960, globally, a tonne of global grain was produced for every hectare. By the year 2003, the grain yield had tripled to nearly 3 tonnes per hectare.8 Between 1950 and 1985, grain production surpassed population growth by 23 per cent.9 Consequently, the food intake per person increased by nearly one-third over that period.10 This surge in crop yields after the 1960s removed hundreds of millions from starvation and malnourishment and came about in large part through science performed in one laboratory. Since the mid-1980s, population growth
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 108
26/2/09 10:18:53 PM
How Science Must Save Us • 109
has started to outstrip food yields around the world. The pre-1980s level of advancement needs to happen again this century. Nevertheless, Borlaug did more for the world than virtually any other person, including presidents, diplomats and prime ministers.
Beyond Emissions It’s now easier and quicker than ever before to spread ideas globally. An invention, concept or social movement started today in the most remote place on Earth can now move instantly across the world via the internet. The power of one person, one scientist, one business or one nation to bring about change has never been greater than now. Some people say Australia should do nothing to combat climate change because our emissions only make up 1.5 per cent of global greenhouse emissions. This is dangerous thinking as the proportionate level of emissions for any country is completely irrelevant. Setting and implementing ambitious greenhouse reduction targets within an economy drives innovation towards development and commercialisation of low-carbon technologies. In a globalised trading economy, nations have more of a chance to export products and technologies than in a non-globalised one. Carbon emissions are a global problem, with every developed nation on the road to reducing emissions. Therefore any nation, no matter how small, can spread the products and technology necessary to combat climate change. Just because Australia has only 0.3 per cent of the global population, should we not invest in medical research to find cures for global diseases? Or what about the war in Iraq where Australia was part of the
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 109
26/2/09 10:18:53 PM
110 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
‘Coalition of the Willing’. We only had 0.4 per cent of the forces present in Iraq—so why support any troop contribution? The ‘X per cent’ argument can be used on any global issue involving Australia. But it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny; on global economic grounds, it is dangerous because technological advantage from even a small country can be used throughout the world. Finland has a population slightly larger than Sydney, about five million. Nokia was a Finnish conglomerate company that before the 1990s produced paper, footwear, televisions, personal computers and telecommunications products. Like all other low-added-value manufacturers in developed countries, it was losing the battle with China, the low-cost international competitor. In the early 1990s, Jorma Ollila, the new CEO, completely restructured the company to focus solely on high-value innovative telecommunications services. Innovation can’t be outsourced to cheap labour countries and today Nokia is at the forefront of telecommunications innovation. The interconnected economy brings huge opportunities for small, knowledgerich nations to export technologies and prosper. Nokia is Finland’s biggest company, employs over 100,000 people (including over 30,000 in research and development) and sells one billion phones worldwide, with a global market share of 38 per cent.11 For every person in Finland, Nokia sells 200 mobile phones around the world. Insular domestic thinking is a dangerous distraction for any economy in this new globalised 21st century. Like Finland, Australia has the potential to shape the world, not by raw military or economic might, but by the seeding of ideas in an interconnected world. With 1.3 billion
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 110
26/2/09 10:18:53 PM
How Science Must Save Us • 111
internet users worldwide, ideas and discoveries have instant global reach and a single idea has the potential to transform the world for the better. Australia’s proportion of medical research, for example, is small in comparison to other developed nations, but the ability of Australian science to fundamentally change the world is not. A prime example is Professor Ian Frazer of the University of Queensland, who helped developed the first cervical cancer vaccine, which will save hundreds of thousands of lives across the world. Then there’s Professor Fiona Stanley, one of the most inspirational people you could ever meet, who helped discover that pregnant women who take folate significantly reduce the risk of spina bifida in children. There are thousands of inspirational Australian scientists working to solve society’s ills. While Australia is a comparatively small country of 21 million people, our science has made a big impact on the world, including in the area of clean-energy technology. Professor Martin Green, a researcher at the School of Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering at the University of New South Wales, has consistently led the world in the development of silicon-based solar panels, which convert sunlight into electricity. In 1985, Green’s group was the first in the world to develop a solar cell that could convert 20 per cent of the incident sunlight into electricity. The group has held the world record for silicon efficiency for most of the last twenty years; the figure is 25 per cent today.12 In 1995, the group developed a secondgeneration solar panel known as thin-film technology, which significantly cut costs by using 100 times less silicon during production. A spin-off company called Pacific Solar Pty Ltd
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 111
26/2/09 10:18:53 PM
112 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
was formed that same year to try to commercialise the new technology. One of Professor Green’s PhD students, Zhengrong Shi, helped develop this new thin-film technology and became leader of the Thin Film Solar Cells Research Group and executive director of Pacific Solar Pty Ltd. Shi was offered $6 million in the year 2000 by Chinese authorities to set up a thin-cell solar manufacturing plant near Shanghai.13 With few government incentives or domestic industry in Australia, he decided to move to China, forming Suntech Pty Ltd to manufacture and commercialise the thin-film technology. Dr Shi’s company now supplies a large chunk of China’s burgeoning solar power capacity as well as the world’s. He is now a billionaire and maintains close ties with his old alumni. Without a thriving domestic solar industry in Australia, Dr Shi needed to go offshore to commercialise his cutting-edge solar technology. Meanwhile, in June 2004, with a continued lack of a solar industry in Australia, Pacific Solar Pty Ltd sold its intellectual property rights for thin-film technology to a new German company, CSG Solar AG, which had the backing of a consortium of European investors. The German company now has worldwide rights to commercialise the thin-film technology the UNSW group developed. In the future, Australian innovation will not just be about engineers and scientists developing new generation clean coal, wind, solar and geothermal energy. Climate change will affect natural ecosystems, causing changes that may have profound impacts on the way we live. Understanding, monitoring and adapting to these changes will also put Australia ahead this century. From a rainforest plant called
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 112
26/2/09 10:18:53 PM
How Science Must Save Us • 113
the periwinkle that is used to treat childhood leukaemia and hodgkins disease14 to Taxol, the chemotherapy compound derived from the Pacific Yew tree,15 more than half of drug discoveries, particularly anti-cancer treatments, have natural origins.16 A very small portion of Earth’s plants and animals have been fully understood for the purpose of drug discovery. A threat to the Earth’s biodiversity because of climate change and human overdevelopment is therefore a threat to our long-term health. Australia, with its unique climate and geologic isolation, has an immense variety of specially evolved plants and animals. Ensuring rich biodiversity in Australia’s natural environment is critical to finding new medical discoveries. Researchers working for the Victorian government in 2006, for example, discovered in tammar wallaby milk an important antimicrobial protein, which could lead to the development of effective measures to kill antibiotic-resistant ‘superbugs’.17 New genetic technologies applied to dairy and beef cattle have the potential to improve yields and also to cut one of the most important contributions to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions: methane from livestock. The methane burped and farted from cows and sheep in agriculture represents 10 per cent of Australian greenhouse emissions.18 The CSIRO is developing techniques, from simple dietary protein supplements to vaccines, which reduce burping and farting, and therefore greenhouse emissions. We have a rich history of developing cutting-edge cleanenergy technologies but we’ve lacked the long-term vision and push to fully realise a thriving clean-energy industry. Clean technologies aren’t just needed in energy supply; we need low-carbon, ultra-efficient products for buildings,
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 113
26/2/09 10:18:53 PM
114 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
infrastructure and industry. The extremely efficient vacuumglazed glass, to be used in the world’s first carbon-neutral building in the United Arab Emirates, was pioneered by Australian researchers. The Applied Physics department of the University of Sydney was the first laboratory to develop a demonstration of thermal insulating vacuum glazing back in 1988.19 But like other Australian clean technologies of the last decade, a manufacturer in Japan purchased the worldwide rights for production. It’s great to see Germany, China and Japan benefiting from Australia’s research and intellectual property, but in this new greenhouse age shouldn’t Australia be producing, manufacturing and commercialising the technologies conceived in Australia? Surely our multibillion-dollar educational and research investments should create new solutions in response to the problems of climate change and energy, not just within the laboratory, but also in the commercial world, to commercialise and build new production capacity to bring clean-energy exports to a world craving clean energy. One new Australian technology could, potentially, bring down global greenhouse emissions. With over 600 billion tonnes of carbon to be avoided over the next 50 years, and the increasing population demands on energy, there is a massive global clean-technology void to fill.
The Future Climate Solvers Australian school children are scientifically and mathematically more literate than most other nations. According to the OECD, Australian school leavers rank fourth in the world on scientific literacy and eight in the
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 114
26/2/09 10:18:53 PM
How Science Must Save Us • 115
world on mathematical literacy, well above the OECD average.20 Children in the United States, for example, rank nineteenth in science and twenty-fourth in maths literacy.21 Australia’s challenge is to encourage those school leavers to take on a career in science, engineering or mathematics. In 1985, 19 per cent of university graduates in Australia came from science, maths or engineering.22 Today, that number is barely 17 per cent. Business and management students, on the other hand, have surged from 10 per cent to account for 35 per cent of all graduates. Internationally, the number of Australian science and engineering graduates is much lower than other developed nations. According to the OECD, only 7.3 per cent of Australian graduates have degrees in engineering, compared with an average of 13.1 per cent for all OECD countries; only 0.4 per cent of degrees are in mathematics and statistics, in comparison to the OECD average of 1 per cent. In Australia, about 6000 engineers graduate each year, a figure that’s been static for over a decade. In India, 112,000 engineers graduate each year, while in China there are 351,537 engineers looking for jobs.23 Engineering Australia estimates that there is currently a shortage of about 20,000 engineers, while Australia is below average for engineering graduates per head of population.24 This does not put Australia on an optimal footing for the clean industrial revolution. To position Australia to prosper in a greenhouse age we must increase the proportion of science and engineering students who continue into research post-graduate degrees, such as a PhD—this is where the backbone of Australia’s clean-energy economy will come from. In 1988, over half of Australia’s PhD graduates came from the science and
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 115
26/2/09 10:18:53 PM
116 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
engineering fields. That number has continually dwindled since then, and in 2006 only one-third of PhD graduates were researching science and engineering.25 The financial burden on university students has been growing over the past decade and could be a strong reason for why students are not continuing on to the higher research degrees. In 1996, completing a four-year engineering degree incurred a HECS debt of $9800, while a three-year science or maths degree cost about $7300. Today the HECS debt is $28,000 for engineering and $21,000 for science degrees. One of the unfortunate consequences of these big student loan increases is not so much creating a disincentive to enter university as producing a dramatic shift away from sciences because they may be viewed as poorly paid professions. To attract the best and brightest to fight Australia’s most pressing long-term challenges we must lower the financial burden for students in areas where there is greatest need.
Boosting Our Ideas and Inventions Funds for scientific research in Australia come from three sources: governments, business and philanthropy. Governments support research and innovation through block funding to universities and government research organisations such as the CSIRO; competitive grant funding through the Australian Research Council; and direct funding to businesses for use on scientific research and development (R&D). In 2005, the Australian government allocated $6.8 billion to science and innovation.26 That included all money for research into thousands of different scientific areas, ranging from cancer research to military technology.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 116
26/2/09 10:18:53 PM
How Science Must Save Us • 117
Businesses, from food manufacturers to software companies, also fund R&D themselves so as to develop the latest and most efficient production techniques or newest range of products. Business in Australia collectively provides an additional $8.4 billion for R&D.27 Overall, government, business and philanthropy invested nearly $16 billion to R&D in Australia in 2005, representing about 1.77 per cent of (GDP).28 Relative to our national income, this amount of R&D funding puts Australia fifteenth out of 28 developed nations.29 The average R&D funding is 2.25 per cent of GDP in OECD countries and pushing 3 per cent in the United States and Japan.30 Australia’s level of investment in science and innovation is well below average in comparison to other developed nations. Increasing R&D is important, but to maximise the innovation investment Australia needs to attract the world’s best researchers. The question we have to ask ourselves is: How much do we need to open up the incentives to attract the best minds in the world? Let’s say Joe Blow is 35 years old and is at the forefront of solar panel materials research in the United States. He has all the trademarks of a fantastic asset for any university or country. How does an Australian university or the CSIRO hire him? The CSIRO rates him, based on his publication record and expertise, as a Level Six public servant, while the university rates him as a Senior Lecturer. This level at both institutions receives a salary package of, say, $95,000. Meanwhile, the US institution he is currently employed with hears about the talks he is having with these Australian research organisations and— with more flexibility and resources—immediately adds 20 per cent to the offer, a car and a deposit for a home. This
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 117
26/2/09 10:18:54 PM
118 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
situation actually happens all the time. Are we too rigid in Australia in hiring researchers? Should Australia enter bidding wars by breaking down existing barriers to truly invest in the best and brightest? Without leading levels of investment in science and innovation, all the reform in the world can’t make Australian science first class. However, raw investment is a first step towards prioritising Australia’s innovative clean technology capacity. Australia is a major energy exporter: both coal and natural gas generate tens of billions of dollars for the Australian economy. Given that energy is disproportionately important for Australia’s exports, shouldn’t Australia be investing in scientific R&D into new energy technologies? The energy superpowers of the greenhouse age will need to boost investment more than other countries in developing new technologies, whether it’s innovation into cleaning up conventional fossil fuels such as coal or gas, or researching conventional clean-energy technology such as wind, solar and biomass, or developing the new types of clean-energy technologies such as geothermal, wave and carbon capture and storage. So how much does Australia need to invest in clean-energy R&D? The direct government allocation of R&D for energy resources and technology was just $100 million in 2006, a mere 2.4 per cent of Australia’s public funding for science and one of the lowest scientific priorities in that year.31 Research to help find medical breakthroughs understandably receives a significant proportion of Australia’s science budget. Other areas receiving more investment than energy R&D include defence technology, industrial technologies and agriculture. Other nations that aren’t energy exporters
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 118
26/2/09 10:18:54 PM
How Science Must Save Us • 119
invest much more than Australia in energy R&D. Japan, South Korea, Germany and France, for example, spend at least three times the amount Australia does on energy R&D, as a proportion of GDP, while the United Sates and Canada invest double.32 Industry in Australia invests 1 per cent of GDP in R&D—well below the OECD average of 1.5 per cent.33 BHP Billiton, the world’s largest mining company, is based in Australia and in 2007 had an annual revenue of US$32 billion and net profit of nearly US$11 billion. That makes BHP Billiton the 27th most profitable company in the world.34 Despite this, and the fact that coal is one of its most important commodities, BHP Billiton spent just US$76 million on R&D in 2006; 713 other companies around the world invested more into R&D.35 Meanwhile, the world is shifting beyond old energy such as coal, from which BHP makes a lot of its money. It seems that BHP sees the world using old coal forever and feels it has nothing to worry about, strategically, environmentally or economically. The lack of support for Australian energy innovation from big Australian resource companies must be made up for by public investment if Australia is to position itself for the clean industrial revolution. If it is solely the government’s responsibility, then the government has every right to adjust taxation, increase specific levies and increase funding so that our research institutions and the innovation that is developed is internationally competitive this century. Australia does have one major advantage over other countries on energy R&D: it has no nuclear power industry. Other nations have had to disproportionately fund nuclear
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 119
26/2/09 10:18:54 PM
120 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
power R&D over other technologies with very little gain in lowering costs or risks. Global energy R&D expenditures over the last 30 years show that nuclear technology received US$120 billion worth of funding, compared to US$19.7 billion for renewables such as wind, solar and biomass.36 Spending on nuclear leaves little room for expenditure on other technologies. Even today the federal government in the United States spends 29 per cent of energy R&D on nuclear, 29 per cent on fossil fuels and 19 per cent on renewables.37 An analysis of nuclear power in the United States showed that the cost of electricity from nuclear reactors has more than doubled since the mid-1970s,38 despite disproportionate R&D expenditure.39 You would think Japan would have cheap nuclear power, given its long-standing nuclear industry and tens of billions invested in nuclear R&D.40 But it doesn’t. Japan built two of the world’s most advanced nuclear reactors in 1996 and these are currently producing electricity at double the cost of a natural gas power plant and are up to onethird more expensive than a high-capacity wind plant.41 Having a nuclear industry is a drain on energy R&D and gives Australia a considerable advantage in leading the non-nuclear low-carbon economy. Japan and the United States spend US$3 billion each year on energy R&D, but the nuclear power industry absorbs between one-third and two-thirds of the budget. As Australia doesn’t have nuclear power, that allows it to free up R&D funding in other, safer, clean-energy technologies that have a larger potential for growth. Even when taking out the nuclear R&D spent over the world, Australia spends half what most developed nations
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 120
26/2/09 10:18:54 PM
How Science Must Save Us • 121
do on energy. Positioning Australia to prosper in the greenhouse age needs strategic investment in developing and commercialising clean-energy technologies. From 1996 to 2006, Australia’s total investment in energy R&D was about $500 million,42 less than one-third of that spent on political advertising.43 It’s a mistake for a carbon-intensive energy exporter to virtually stand still on energy innovation in the face of a world moving towards low-carbon energy; in fact, it’s one of the gravest strategic mistakes of Australia’s federal government over the past decade. As we are so dependent on coal, Australia must be the leader in discovering new clean technologies and driving down the cost of existing clean technologies. The federal government has committed $740 million in energy R&D over three years from 2008 to 2011. This has tripled the direct public investment on energy R&D and puts Australia’s investment in energy innovation at least in the vicinity of other developed nations. This money will be spent on boosting clean-energy research, clean technology business commercialisation, an Australian solar institute, clean-coal development and developing an Australian-made petrol-hybrid vehicle. The federal government has made some important steps in the right direction for Australia, but how much more is needed?
A 21st Century Snowy Mountains Investment The Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme is arguably Australia’s boldest and most visionary engineering project. Covering an area over 5000 square kilometres with intricate interlocking dams tapping snow melt from the Australian
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 121
5/3/09 3:43:28 PM
122 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
Alps, the scheme generates massive amounts of hydroelectric power and about 2000 giga-litres of water for food production in the arid interior.44 The Snowy Mountains scheme employed over 100,000 workers from many countries around the world upon its completion in 1974.45 The economic and social prosperity generated by this grand project is unparalleled as it provided livelihoods for tens of thousands of post-war Australian migrants, clean power supply for the eastern states and the economic sustenance for numerous regional towns. Prime Minister Ben Chifley introduced the project as a national milestone in 1949 when he declared: ‘The Snowy Mountains plan is the greatest single project in our history. It is a plan for the whole nation, belonging to no one State nor to any group or section . . . This is a plan for the nation and it needs the nation to back it’.46 In the end it cost $800 million, or about $6 billion in today’s currency. To address factors such as the dwindling supplies of conventional oil, Australia’s extremely carbon-intensive economy and the emerging global carbon price while also combating climate change, Australia will need another visionary investment like the Snowy. It was once said that a politician thinks of the next election and a statesman thinks of the next generation. There is no question that the political vision needed for Australia to be on the frontline of the climate and energy challenges this century will be hard. But given the environmental, economic and social consequences of failure, it is an effort that the Australian people need to support. The dividends on our investment will be great, whereas the short term costs will be relatively minor. US president Barack Obama is planning
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 122
26/2/09 10:18:54 PM
How Science Must Save Us • 123
to invest US$150 billion towards building a secure and clean-energy economy in the United States that serves the purpose of both reducing greenhouse emissions and cutting their dependence on foreign oil supplies.47 Australia cannot be left behind in this century’s greatest technological race towards clean energy. Public funding of energy research and development has been stagnant at about $100–150 million between 1992 and 2007.48 Business investment in energy R&D accounts for nearly 80 per cent of the total allocation of funds (about $1 billion), yet only one-quarter of the funding is allocated towards clean technology and energy efficiency—while $800 million was devoted to fossil fuel mining and extraction of resources.49 The economic realities of the emerging greenhouse age have yet to be matched by the necessary funding of energy research and development. Professor Ross Garnaut recommended that an investment in clean energy of $3 billion each year was needed to ease the cost and exploit Australian opportunities in a world that will inevitably move to be low carbon over the coming decades.50 Nicholas Stern, the UK equivalent economist to Garnaut, recommends that developed nations should invest 1 per cent of GDP per year,51 which is about $10 billion for Australia. The beneficiaries of this new clean technology investment would not be just energy industries like solar, wind and clean-coal technologies; this investment should cast a very wide net to include transport, infrastructure and building materials as well as building and home design. For example, it could be used for tax credits for small startups attempting to convert wastewater to ethanol, or producing renewable lightweight materials for building
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 123
26/2/09 10:18:54 PM
124 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
supplies and insulation, or for a technology company to develop an automated sensor system for commercial buildings. Investment in rail for both metro and high-speed interstate connectors, for example, is critical to address the climate and energy challenges this century and is perfectly suited for this 21st century clean-energy fund. Clean-energy investment will boost innovation and provide a vibrant domestic economy built for a 21st century global economy, an economy that will be looking to cut carbon, move beyond oil and use water and energy more efficiently. It’s not just the government’s role to allocate funds as eventually, if the carbon price works the way it should, most of the new clean investment funds should be coming from the private sector. But governments should see themselves a bit like venture capitalists—investing in the future of Australian technologies and innovation. Venture capitalists seek big returns quickly, but the advantage of government investment is that the investment can be for the long term and will offer high returns for the Australian environment and economy. We can think of Australia’s clean-energy investment as an insurance policy against some potentially very nasty future consequences. Australia spends 3 per cent of its GDP on insurance, excluding health or life insurance52 and is similar to the expenditure of the rest of the world.53 Journalist Peter Hartcher put it very nicely in saying, ‘If the world is prepared to pay the equivalent of 3.5 per cent of its total annual output to guard against the possibility of all sorts of risks that, in any one year for any one client, are quite remote, such as fire and theft, then the prospect of paying a 1 per cent premium to protect against a
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 124
26/2/09 10:18:54 PM
How Science Must Save Us • 125
catastrophic global event seems entirely reasonable.’54 Given the massive economic consequences for Australia of the inevitable global shift towards low-carbon energy and the known limits on the supply of oil, the clean-energy insurance policy covers all bases for future Australian prosperity. And the best minds and entrepreneurs of our nation are waiting for the government to take out this insurance policy.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 125
26/2/09 10:18:54 PM
8 Breaking Our Coal Addiction Breaking Our Coal Addiction
F
or many Australians, myself included, soft drinks are a sumptuous treat—especially Coca-Cola. Without self-restraint I could guzzle Coca-Cola like it’s water, especially on a hot day. Over-consumption of Coca-Cola is hideously bad for our health, though: one 375-millilitre can contains something like ten teaspoons of sugar. The obesity epidemics in most Western nations have undoubtedly been helped along by the availability of high-sugar soft drinks. Back in the 1980s, the health-conscious consumer became wary of these drinks. Coca-Cola and the other soft-drink manufacturers were in a dilemma: how could they market their products to a world that wanted lowsugar drinks? The answer came from the laboratory. Researchers working for a pharmaceutical company developed aspartame, an artificial sweetener. The soft-drink companies had found the solution which allowed their consumers to enjoy soft drinks without the high-sugar side effects. Diet brands are now some of the biggest-selling soft drinks in the world. Coal is as bad for Earth’s climate as Coke is to your health. The coal industry today is where Coca-Cola was 126
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 126
26/2/09 10:18:54 PM
Breaking Our Coal Addiction • 127
twenty years ago—looking for a way to keep the world consuming its product, but without the bad side effects. Coal is the world’s most widely used fuel for electricity and it’s the most carbon-intensive power source. The United States Energy Information Agency predicts that without any policy changes, global demand for coal could nearly double by the year 2030, leading to an increase in greenhouse emissions from coal from 9.3 billion tonnes in 2008 to 18 billion tonnes by 2030.1 The vast majority of this increase will come from China and India alone. New technologies must therefore be fast-tracked in order to commercially demonstrate to the world that coal can be used with lowcarbon emissions. You’ve probably heard of the term ‘clean coal’ which has been used ubiquitously among politicians and industry experts. Clean coal refers to a number of different technologies, which are still in the development phase. It most often refers to carbon capture and storage (CCS). CCS technology involves capturing carbon dioxide emitted by power station smokestacks, liquefying it and pumping it deep underground to seal it away in deep saline aquifers, depleted oil reservoirs and uneconomic coal seams. These stable geological reservoirs could store CO2 for a very long period of time. Since coal and natural gas generate the great majority of our electricity needs, the advantage of CCS is that the world could foreseeably continue to use our abundant coal and gas reserves while burying most of the offending emissions—a seemingly win–win solution. CCS has considerable benefits for existing natural gas production. Since 1996, the Norwegian petroleum company Statoil has been capturing and storing carbon dioxide under
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 127
26/2/09 10:18:54 PM
128 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
the North Sea during natural gas production, instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. The US company Chevron is planning to capture and store 3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year from the Gorgon gas field off the coast of Western Australia. Although CCS has been proven for natural gas production, as indicated by a special CCS report published by the international Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ‘there are knowledge gaps relating to large coal-based power plants’.2 The development of clean-coal technologies is in its infancy and, given Australia’s technological skills base, is one area where there are potential export opportunities to nations that cannot develop these technologies. Given the world is moving away from carbon-intensive forms of energy, you would expect big coal companies to be pumping billions into new technologies that lower the carbon footprint of their products. Just like the soft-drink industry, Australia’s coal industry must develop clean coal or it will die a slow death. Maybe they know something we don’t, but looking at their strategic investment you would be hard pressed to find evidence of any concern over carbon emissions from their commodities.
Where’s BHP? In 2006, the global business sector invested US$446 billion in R&D.3 Some companies invest enormous sums into research and development. This innovation research puts those companies at a commercial advantage by enabling them to develop and commercialise new products. But some sectors need more R&D than others. The most R&D-
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 128
26/2/09 10:18:54 PM
Breaking Our Coal Addiction • 129
intensive sectors are found in healthcare and software, where on average 13 per cent of revenue is spent on R&D (see Figure 3). Software becomes redundant a few years after its launch. Without substantial innovation in developing new software, Microsoft isn’t going to be able to sell its computer operating system. Other sectors such as automotives, aerospace, computer hardware and electronics spend upwards of 4 per cent of their revenue on R&D. As Figure 3 shows, Toyota, for example, is the world’s biggest private investor in R&D, each year putting a massive US$7 billion into its own scientific and engineering departments’ laboratories. This is where products like the gasoline-electric hybrid were developed. In general, the larger the company, the more it invests in R&D, particularly among car manufacturers. There is one big exception to this rule—the energy and resources sector. Energy and resources companies are the world’s worst investors in R&D, while at the same time being the world’s most profitable companies. Not one energy company is even close to being in the top ten companies that invest in R&D as listed in Figure 3. In 2007, the global revenue of Exxon-Mobil, BP, Shell, Chevron, Conoco-Philips, Total, BHP and Rio Tinto was US$1.6 trillion. The total amount of R&D invested by these companies is about US$2.4 billion, averaging 0.15 per cent of total revenue.4 Toyota invests nearly triple the amount of R&D than those eight energy companies combined, despite having a fraction of their revenue. Given energy and resource companies’ extraordinarily high profits, along with the importance of finding climate-neutral forms of energy, you would think energy companies would be somewhat research
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 129
26/2/09 10:18:54 PM
130 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
intensive—particularly in trying to develop the new lowcarbon fuels for the greenhouse age. You may then ask why there’s such a disparity between the R&D investment of the car industry and that of the energy industry, since you can’t have one without the other. Cars are continually advanced by design innovations and have undergone a vast improvement from the gas-guzzling deathtraps of the 1960s to the safer and generally more efficient fleets of today. But as far as energy and resource corporations are concerned, all that is needed are bigger shovels and drills to extract the raw materials from the Earth.
Rank
R&D investment ($US)
R&D investment as percentage of revenue
Company
Sector auto healthcare auto healthcare
$7,691,000,000 $7,599,000,000 $7,200,000,000 $7,125,000,000
3.7% 15.7% 4.5% 13.4%
5 6 7
Toyota Pfizer Ford Johnson & Johnson DaimlerChrysler General Motors Microsoft
$6,678,000,000 $6,600,000,000 $6,584,000,000
3.5% 3.2% 14.9%
8 9
GlaxoSmithKline Siemens
auto auto software & internet healthcare computing & electronics computing & electronics
$6,351,000,000 $6,294,000,000
14.9% 5.8%
$6,107,000,000
6.7%
1 2 3 4
10
IBM
Figure 3
World’s top ten companies for research and development (R&D) investment.5
In response to the growing concern over coal’s dominant role in emitting greenhouse gases, the Australian coal industry formed a consortium of companies called COAL21.6 COAL21 has the explicit goal of reducing greenhouse gas
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 130
26/2/09 10:18:54 PM
Breaking Our Coal Addiction • 131
emissions from coal-based electricity generation through seed funding of R&D. Given the importance to the companies’ long-term viability, this sounds very encouraging. The stated goal of COAL21, as highlighted in every coal company’s annual report, is to cumulatively invest $1 billion over ten years into clean-coal R&D, which equates to $100 million each year. Is this a reasonable investment, given coal revenue and the strategic imperative for the coal industry to demonstrate that coal can be used in a low-carbon way? Coal production in Australia is about 350 million tonnes, with a value of nearly $30 billion each year.7 The investment by COAL21 is therefore about 0.3 per cent of production value. Large pharmaceutical companies invest on average 14 per cent of their annual revenue in research to find breakthrough drugs ranging from painkillers to cancer and diabetes treatments (see Figure 3). If Australian coal companies invested the same amount as the automotive industry does, the additional R&D would be $1.2 billion each year; the figure would be $4.2 billion if coal companies matched the investment of pharmaceutical or software companies. Instead, Australia’s coal industry invests just $100 million. R&D investment by Australia’s resource sector is particularly frugal given the fact that the government lavishes tax benefits on this type of investment. Fasttracking the development of ‘Diet-Coal’ is both an economic and environmental imperative for Australia. The war chest for clean-energy innovation must be in the same league as that of, for example, the pharmaceutical companies, which employ thousands of scientists. If resource companies invested in clean technology innovation even on the same
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 131
26/2/09 10:18:55 PM
132 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
level as car manufacturers, then commercial-scale clean-coal power plants would be built much more quickly. Instead of being funded mostly by the coal industry, clean-coal demonstration plants across the world have been financed predominantly by government funding. The Futuregen project in the United States, the ZeroGen project in Queensland8 and the Greengen project in China are all mostly taxpayer-funded projects. A momentum against carbon-intensive commodities will build up over the coming decades, yet most coal and oil companies are yet to fully realise this. In 2007, BHP made a big announcement that it would spend $70 million a year until 2012 for low-carbon technologies.9 Meanwhile, the federal government has announced $500 million, the NSW and Victorian governments $230 million10 and the Queensland government $300 million11 for clean-coal research. Taxpayers can fund clean-coal technologies, but shouldn’t BHP, with a $20 billion profit, be funding most of it, given it’s in their long-term business interest anyway? Why should Australian taxpayers fund the development of a technology that is to benefit the most profitable resource companies, companies that spend a mere 0.3 per cent of their sales on developing clean-coal technologies?
Fitting an Airbag to a 1964 EH Holden Australia has nearly 30 coal-fired power stations that are currently operating (see Figure 4). Power stations last for up to 50 years and each has been built at various stages over the past 40 years. With clean-coal technologies still at least a decade away from meaningful implementation
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 132
26/2/09 10:18:55 PM
Breaking Our Coal Addiction • 133
and the government seeking to cut emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, what is the fate of Australia’s existing coalfired power stations? Can clean-coal technology save the current suite of coal-fired power stations and make a contribution to lower carbon emissions? We have to be realistic about clean coal. Although the technology certainly has long-term potential, closer scrutiny shows the emission reductions over the short to medium term to be very modest at best. Based on government estimates, existing power-generators are projected to cover 75 per cent of our electricity needs by 2020.12 The only way Australia could possibly reduce emissions rapidly below current levels without closing down coal-fired power stations is to retrofit clean-coal technology to existing power stations. A number of conditions have to be met before even considering retrofitting this technology to a coal-fired power plant. Firstly, nearby geological storage reservoirs are needed. Geoscience Australia has conducted a thorough review of the potential for CCS using the current suite of coal-fired power stations. It found that some big coalfired power station regions, such as the Hunter Valley in New South Wales, have no potential for CO2 storage.13 Other sites in South Australia and Queensland would require transporting liquefied CO2 in pipelines for up to 500 kilometres (see Figure 4). These CO2 pipelines would be very expensive. Overall, there is potential favourable geological storage conditions for about half the coal-fired power stations in Australia.14 Is it possible to retrofit those coalfired power stations with geological CO2 storage reservoirs close by in order to capture CO2 from their smokestacks?
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 133
26/2/09 10:18:55 PM
134 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
An exhaustive multi-author study conducted in the United States in 200715 analysed the potential for carbon capture to be retrofitted to old coal-fired power stations. The study found that retrofitting an existing coal-fired plant originally designed to operate without carbon capture ‘will require major technical modification’ and would reduce electricity output by up to 40 per cent.16 Reducing output by this much imposes prohibitive economic costs on retrofitting current coal-fired power stations. Further, most of the power stations capable of storing CO2 nearby are old power stations. For example, some brown coal power stations in the Latrobe valley, located within 100 kilometres of CO2 storage areas, were built in the 1950s and 1960s (see Figure 4). Retrofitting carbon capture on the smokestacks of these old power stations would be like fitting airbags to a 1964 EH Holden—you could probably do it, but the cost of the retrofit would be higher than the cost of the car itself. Given these limitations on CCS for retrofitting Australia’s existing coal power stations, there is little room for this new technology to help cut emissions in the short to medium term. CCS is only really technically and economically feasible for new power plants. There is no way around it: to cut emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, some of the old coal power stations will need to be phased out, decommissioned and replaced with low-carbon options.
The Need for Gases and Rocks In the early 1990s, Britain was heavily dependent on coal, which supplied two-thirds of its electricity needs. It broke its coal habit by switching to natural gas power, which
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 134
26/2/09 10:18:55 PM
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 135
black coal black coal black coal black coal black coal black coal black coal black coal black coal black coal black coal black coal black coal black coal black coal black coal black coal black coal black coal multi-fuel brown coal brown coal brown coal brown coal brown coal brown coal brown coal brown coal
Primary fuel
Australia’s coal-fired power stations.17
NSW NSW NSW NSW NSW NSW NSW NSW QLD QLD QLD QLD QLD QLD QLD QLD QLD WA WA WA Vic Vic Vic Vic Vic Vic SA SA
Eraring Bayswater Liddell Vales Point B Mt Piper Wallerawang C Munmorah Redbank Gladstone Tarong Stanwell Callide C Millmerran Callide B Swanbank B Tarong North Collinsville Muja Collie Kwinana WPC Loy Yang A Hazelwood Yallourn W Loy Yang B Morwell Anglesea Northern Thomas Playford B
Figure 4
State
Name 1982–84 1982–84 1971–73 1978 1992–93 1976–80 1969 2001 1976–82 1984–86 1993–96 2001 2002 1988–89 1970–73 2002 1998 1985–86, 1965 1999 1976, 1970 1984–87 1964–71 1973–75, 1981–82 1993–96 1958–59 1969 1985 1960
Year commissioned 2640 2640 2000 1320 1320 1000 600 150 1680 1400 1400 900 852 700 500 443 188 1040 330 880 2120 1600 1480 1000 195 160 530 240
>500 km >500 km >500 km >500 km >500 km >500 km >500 km >500 km 300–500 km 300–500 km 300–500 km 300–500 km 300–500 km 300–500 km 300–500 km 300–500 km 300–500 km <100 km <100 km <100 km <100 km <100 km <100 km <100 km <100 km <100 km >500 km >500 km
Distance from geological Capacity (MW) CO2 storage areas
Breaking Our Coal Addiction • 135
26/2/09 10:18:55 PM
136 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
helped the country cut greenhouse gas emissions by 15 per cent in just over ten years. Australia has vast natural gas reserves in Western Australia and in new coal-seam gas reserves found in Queensland and New South Wales (144 trillion cubic feet), which gives Australia ample domestic supplies over the coming decades.18 Natural gas power plants are quick to build, can be used for baseload electricity capacity and emit up to 60 per cent less greenhouse gas than equivalent coal plants. With an emerging carbon price, natural gas power is likely to become cheaper than coal-based power and will be an important lower carbon power source for the coming decades. Gas power generation can also help to decentralise Australia’s inefficient and leaky power grid by exploiting smaller purpose-built generation plants through a process called co-generation, or combined heat and power (CHP). CHP plants produce electricity and also capture the heat produced during power generation, which is otherwise wasted. Using heat (usually in the form of steam), generated from the production of electricity, is a highly efficient means of energy supply. Large CHP projects would suit chemical plants, oil refineries, pulp mills, sugar mills and mineral processing plants, which all need large amounts of steam. Natural gas-fired CHP plants can be small enough to use for hospitals, commercial laundries or university campuses, which all require heat for their daily operations. Because of their high energy efficiency, natural gas CHP plants reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80 per cent compared to coal-based electricity generation.19 Natural gas is currently used for about 15 per cent of our electricity needs.20 To rapidly reduce emissions over the coming
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 136
26/2/09 10:18:55 PM
Breaking Our Coal Addiction • 137
decades, natural gas will have to make up to one-third of our energy supply, according to most estimates.21 Natural gas is a finite fossil fuel that still produces CO2 emissions, so it can only help in the short to medium term to lower Australia’s carbon exposure. The long-term solution will need a big boost from near-zero carbon energy technologies to supply our energy needs. Over the next decade a carbon price alone can’t ensure this zero-carbon transition because development and commercialisation of carbon-neutral technologies take time and the current suite of technologies is more expensive than fossil fuel technologies. Government legislation must be used to help accelerate the use of new carbon-neutral technologies. There is a lot of optimism that geothermal energy will potentially supply a sizeable chunk of Australia’s baseload energy requirements; it is one technology that should justifiably receive much support. Geothermal energy comes from the immense heat within the interior of the Earth. That heat can be tapped by drilling wells more than 3 kilometres deep to convective reservoirs where temperatures exceed 100°C. These reservoirs can produce massive amounts of steam, which can be used to drive turbines and generate electricity. Geothermal energy provides significant commercial baseload electricity supply across the world in more than 24 countries, particularly in areas of seismic activity. Five countries (Iceland, the Philippines, Kenya, Costa Rica and El Salvador) obtain 15 to 22 per cent of their electricity needs from geothermal energy.22 Geothermal energy from the volcanic activity in the North Island of New Zealand supplies 7 per cent of the nation’s electricity needs. The United States, the Philippines, Indonesia and
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 137
26/2/09 10:18:55 PM
138 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
Mexico have the largest installed capacity of geothermal energy, a combined capacity of 6600 megawatts—roughly about half the energy needs of New South Wales.23 Traditional geothermal plants only occur in a few areas, mostly along boundaries between continental plates. Areas in the middle of plates, such as in Central Australia, have a separate and massive heat source below ground known as hot rocks. Water can be pumped down to these hot rocks and turned into steam, which can drive turbines to produce electricity. There are numerous companies working feverishly towards demonstrating a commercial-scale hot-rock power plant in Central Australia, Western Australia, New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania.24 Australia has enough hot-rock energy to meet electricity consumption for 450 years, and this technology is projected to supply up to 10 per cent of Australia’s energy needs at prices cheaper than other renewable options.25 The one problem is the capital cost involved in building high-voltage transmission lines connecting the national grid with central Australia. But potential wells are also being tapped in Tasmania, New South Wales and Queensland, all of which are close to the current grid. The use of wind and solar technologies will also be a critically important in developing a carbon-neutral energy supply for Australia. Wind turbines generate about 1 per cent of Australia’s electricity, but given the strong wind resources in the south, wind power could supply 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity over the coming decades.26 The vast majority of solar power is generated by photovoltaic panels on homes and buildings. Solar panels are typically not used to generate large-scale electricity
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 138
26/2/09 10:18:55 PM
Breaking Our Coal Addiction • 139
because of the relative inefficiency (and therefore high cost) of converting sunlight into electricity. Concentrating sunlight using mirrors, however, increases both the efficiency and capacity dramatically for solar power. Solar thermal power plants use big mirror reflectors that concentrate sunlight so perfectly that the ultra-high temperatures convert water to steam, which can be used to drive turbines to generate electricity. This solar thermal technology will be used for power generation in Egypt, Nevada, Spain, Abu Dhabi and northern Africa.27 The Queensland town of Cloncurry will soon source its entire energy supply from a solar thermal plant. 28 Similar technology, which uses mirrors to concentrate sunlight onto high-performance photovoltaic panels, is being used to build the world’s largest solar power station in northwest Victoria,29 capable of supplying carbon-neutral power to 45,000 homes. High-capacity solar power has an immense potential to generate carbon-neutral power for Australia, replacing the need for coal-fired power stations. Given the vast sunny and arid area of the Australian interior, the potential for solar power plants to supply our energy needs is virtually limitless. Wind and solar power technologies are more expensive than coal-fired power and, without a carbon price within the economy, uptake of wind and solar has been slow over the past decade. Governments have needed to mandate these clean forms of energy, given the price differentials with coal. The Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) has been the main piece of legislation to push through renewable energy sources such as solar and wind to supply electricity in Australia. For over a decade MRET was
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 139
26/2/09 10:18:55 PM
140 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
embarrassingly low at about 2 per cent of total Australian electricity supply. To fulfil an election commitment, the federal Labor government has lifted that target to nearly 15 per cent by 2020 (with an additional 5 per cent coming from hydro power). With the adoption of a carbon price via an emissions trading scheme, however, in some areas wind power could become equivalent in price or even cheaper than energy generation from coal. One piece of legislation initiated in many countries to increase the role of renewable energy is called the ‘feed-in tariff’, or ‘renewables premium’. If an investor, business, farmer or household generates excess electricity beyond their needs using renewable energy such as wind, solar or biomass technology, they can sell this power back to the grid at a guaranteed higher price. Governments have used this legislation to compel energy companies to purchase electricity from these sources at the higher rate. In Germany, for example, since 1999 you have been able to install a solar panel system on your roof and sell any excess electricity back to the grid at a fixed price, which is up to four times the market rate. California introduced the first nonEuropean feed-in tariff in 2008, while South Australia, Victoria and the ACT have passed similar legislation.30 The repercussions of feed-in tariffs are similar to those of MRET, whereby energy prices become slightly higher because the energy company has to charge more to recoup the higher costs of renewable energy. On average, though, from overseas experience only $1.50 is added to energy bills each month.31 In cold and cloudy Germany, interestingly, it’s become so successful at driving solar power use that production costs for installation have been cut by 40 per
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 140
26/2/09 10:18:55 PM
Breaking Our Coal Addiction • 141
cent in comparison to other European countries.32 There is one powerful additional benefit of a feed-in tariff over MRET: each household or business becomes a mini carbonneutral power station. This clean micro-power generation distributes energy much more efficiently than a few big power stations in locations far away from population centres that require expensive and leaky transmission cables. It decentralises power generation so that new billion-dollar power stations are at least delayed. It also empowers individuals and businesses to be part of the solution to climate change in the new low-carbon economy that moves away from our old coal addiction.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 141
26/2/09 10:18:55 PM
9 The Crude Truth The Crude Truth
Y
ou could buy a barrel of West Texas crude oil for about US$30 at the start of 2004. By mid-2008, the price had reached nearly US$140 a barrel. In four and a half years, the price of oil surged nearly 500 per cent. The average price of unleaded petrol in Australia’s capital cities doubled, from about 80 cents per litre to $1.60 per litre1— and it would have been a lot worse without a strengthening Australian dollar. In the face of these petrol-price hikes, you would assume that Australians, would have switched to smaller and more economical vehicles in droves. But there is little evidence for this. In fact, small-car sales increased by only 6 per cent in 2007 while sales of fuelinefficient medium-sized four-wheel drive vehicles (sometimes referred to as sports utility vehicles) surged by 20 per cent.2 During the first quarter of 2008, non-SUV passenger vehicle sales decreased by 3 per cent, while again SUV sales rose, this time by 16 per cent.3 What is happening to make Australians buy more inefficient cars while the price of petrol surges? The average Australian spends about 5 per cent of their income on petrol.4 But it is the higher earners, who can spend as low as 2 per cent on petrol as a proportion of their income, who can absorb higher costs 142
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 142
26/2/09 10:18:55 PM
The Crude Truth • 143
at the pump; fuel economy doesn’t play an important role in their purchasing habits. With an expanding economy and growing population, this demand for bigger cars will tend to cancel out fuel efficiency gains made elsewhere. Although petrol prices prior to the global financial crisis were at an all-time high, the evidence suggests that it’s not changing habits to the extent we would expect—this poses serious problems for Australia’s future oil security. Even with a high oil price in the long term, a lot of oil will still be needed in the coming decade simply due to our overdependence on it. So where will the oil come from? As the oil price inevitably rises in the longer term, new investments in other unconventional sources of oil become very attractive. A future beyond crude will be a battle fought between various unconventional technologies that produce synthetic oil—and the outcomes from each in relation to climate change couldn’t be more divergent.
Oil That Is Grown In the US state of Missouri, a large billboard along a busy highway shows a picture of two men. On one side, a white American farmer is pictured amid flowing green cornfields. Wearing a baseball hat, he typifies your jovial, friendly neighbour. On the other side is a frowning, mean-faced Saudi Arabian king (Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud) in full white robes and headwear. Intentionally, the unflattering picture shows the king to be dressed in strikingly similar attire to Osama bin Laden. Between the two pictures, in big bold print, the caption reads, ‘Who would you rather buy your gas [petrol] from?’ The cornfields shown in the
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 143
5/3/09 3:43:37 PM
144 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
background aren’t being used for producing tortillas or Corn Flakes, but to produce ethanol, used instead of petrol in motor vehicles. Some Midwesterners call it ‘freedom fuel’, since biofuels produced in American cornfields reduce US dependence on Middle Eastern oil. This nationalistic sentiment seems to be working, with a number of states mandating a 10 per cent ethanol mix within their petrol supply. In late 2007, President Bush signed into law the aptly titled Energy Independence and Security Act5—with not a word about climate change. This Act mandates 34 billion litres of biofuels to be used in 2008, increasing to 136 billion litres by 2022. This increases the current level of US biofuels by five times and reduces conventional oil consumption by 13 per cent by 2022.6 The European Union is also promoting biofuels, in particular biodiesel, which is made from rapeseed and sunflower seed. By 2020, the European Union aims to make motor fuel 10 per cent biofuel. Over the next twenty years, biofuels could be supplying 25 per cent of the world’s energy needs.7 Given the recent surge in production, are biofuels helpful in making the transition in our transport economy towards a low-carbon solution? Or do they present more problems than they potentially solve? The answer isn’t quite so black and white. A biofuel is a bit of misnomer, since all fossil fuels, whether it be coal, gas or oil, come from living things. Biofuels today, however, are typically referred to as those that can be grown or derived from living matter. The end product can be a range of different fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel or methanol. These synthetic fuels can be used as additives to petrol and eventually could completely replace
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 144
26/2/09 10:18:56 PM
The Crude Truth • 145
petrol. Indy cars, those Formula-1 style racing cars that race on the Gold Coast each year, have been running on pure methanol for years. Ethanol (ethyl-alcohol), however, is the most widely used biofuel and has always had promise since American automaker Henry Ford labelled it ‘the fuel of the future’ back in 19258—that is, until oil came along. Ethanol is produced through the fermentation of sugar or starch (which must be converted to sugar before refining). The United States is the world’s largest producer of ethanol, producing 19 billion litres in 2006; 98 per cent comes from corn starch.9 In a close second, Brazil produces 17 billion litres10 but Brazil’s ethanol production comes directly from the fermentation of sugar cane. Together, the US and Brazil supply over 80 per cent of the world’s ethanol.11 In Europe, biodiesel production is preferred, so as to be compatible with the high use of diesel in European countries. Biodiesel is produced by the chemical transformation of crops that make vegetable oils, such as palm oil, soy beans or rapeseed. Over 75 per cent of global biodiesel production comes from Europe.12 Fuels made by using corn, sugar, palm oil or rapeseed as feedstocks are grouped together and called first-generation biofuels. In relation to climate change, the energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reductions achieved by using biofuels depend on the type of feedstock used to generate the synthetic fuel. In the United States, corn is one of the most inefficient ways to produce ethanol—about 3500 litres of ethanol is produced per hectare of land.13 It’s sort of like growing bananas in a cold climate—you could probably do it, but it would be enormously inefficient and expensive. In the United States, corn-based ethanol is lavished with
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 145
26/2/09 10:18:56 PM
146 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
a whopping 51 cents a gallon government subsidy to help make up for this inefficiency.14 The carbon reductions from US corn-ethanol depend on the type of fuel used to generate the electricity at the ethanol factory, but in general carbon emissions are cut by between 0 and 20 per cent in comparison to conventional oil.15 In Brazil, ethanol made from sugar cane produces 7000 litres of ethanol per hectare, more than double that of starch-based ethanol production. Also, the energy ratio (energy produced versus the energy needed) of producing sugar-cane ethanol is seven times the level of using corn or wheat. This high energy output ratio for Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol means costs are low and greenhouse emissions are cut by up to 80 per cent compared to conventional oil.16 President Lula da Silva of Brazil likens biofuels to cholesterol—there’s good and bad: ‘Good ethanol helps to tackle the pollution of the planet and is competitive. Bad ethanol depends on the fat of subsidies.’ Australia is in a similar situation to the United States because biofuels in Australia are produced from wheat, which has a comparable inefficiency to corn.17 A recent government analysis shows the greenhouse gas reductions of an E10 fuel (10 per cent ethanol, 90 per cent petrol) from wheat would be only 1.7 per cent.18 The amount of wheat Australia could export if this type of biofuel was expanded would be dramatically cut. If Australia mandated E10 fuel like some states in the United States, it would require 5.5 million tonnes of wheat as the feedstock, and would force Australia to import wheat in drought years,19 and that’s not even including the potential reductions in wheat yields predicted via climate change itself.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 146
26/2/09 10:18:56 PM
The Crude Truth • 147
Aside from the small emissions reductions from growing first-generation biofuel feedstocks such as corn and wheat, the expansion of these biofuels must be limited since they compete with food production. With scarce amounts of arable land, farmers switching their food crops to provide fuel supply inevitably push up global food prices. Corn is Mexico’s baseline food supply, with tortillas a part of every Mexican’s diet, and most of the corn consumed is imported from the United Sates. In 2007, over one-quarter of corn farmland was used for ethanol production.20 This undoubtedly helped triple the price of corn tortillas, forcing the president of Mexico to cap tortilla prices in some places.21 Across the Pacific, the Chinese government put a moratorium on the expanded use of corn for ethanol and is promoting other feedstocks that don’t compete with food crops, of which there are many. Livestock producers from the United States to Japan use corn to feed their cattle, and higher corn prices mean higher meat prices. The thought of farmers abandoning growing food for a starving world to grow fuel to satisfy SUVs in the West is pretty offensive. There are scary statistics, such as ‘Filling a 100-litre tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires over 200 kilograms of corn which contains enough calories to feed one person for a year.’22 Biofuels can’t be blamed for everything, though. Rice, for example, has surged in price. In Haiti, riots broke out because rice and fruit went up by 50 per cent in price within a year.23 But rice and fruit aren’t used to make biofuels. The sugar price has reversed the trend of other food commodities, dropping by half its value since 2006. Yet Brazil produces nearly 20 billion litres of ethanol from
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 147
26/2/09 10:18:57 PM
148 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
sugar, and has been increasing production in recent years. Wouldn’t we expect the global sugar price to rise rapidly if biofuel production was to blame for higher food prices? There is no doubt that using wheat and corn in particular for biofuel production will put pressure on food stocks—but overstating the impact of biofuels generally is unhelpful, particularly when we desperately need low-carbon alternative fuels over the coming decades. A separate concern over the expansion in the use of some first-generation biofuels is that an increase in the area of land needed to provide biofuel feedstock could accelerate the destruction of natural forests and ecosystems. Obviously cutting down pristine rainforest to grow sugar cane must be avoided. However, such land-use problems aren’t necessarily due to biofuels; a long history of policy failures and an inability to understand the tremendous resources in these pristine ecosystems are sometimes to blame. There is a tremendous amount of degraded, nonarable and marginal land where biofuel crops could be harvested. Brazil’s President da Silva points out, ‘Our sugar plantations are 2000 km away from our rainforest. That is the distance from the Vatican to the Kremlin.’ Brazil produces 19 billion litres of ethanol from sugar crops each year, which takes up only 1 per cent of arable land—far away from the Amazon, as the president explains. Policies can help reduce the potential problems associated with biofuel expansion. A report prepared for the US Department of Energy found that 1.3 billion tonnes of environmentally sustainable plant matter could be produced on American land alone without affecting food production.24 This would
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 148
26/2/09 10:18:57 PM
The Crude Truth • 149
provide 350 billion litres of fuel, which is about 65 per cent of the country’s current demand.25 Given the concerns over food competition, potential ecosystem destruction and marginal greenhouse benefit, some commentators have called biofuels ‘worse than fossil fuels’.26 But assessing the merits of biofuels depends on the country, type of feedstock and the policies in place to avert some of these potential concerns. It is wrong to tar all biofuels with the same brush since some have none of the associated problems. For example, perennial grassland species, found on every continent, can offer tremendous greenhouse gas savings and can be grown on agriculturally degraded land, neither displacing food production nor biodiversity.27 There is enormous potential for nextgeneration non-food biofuels to cut greenhouse gas emissions dramatically and increase economic prosperity in many poor countries.
Making Oil from Sewage Renewable fuels are all around us. Everything from grass clippings to leftovers in our garbage bins are potential feedstocks for the next generation of biofuels. Ethanol can be produced from organic feedstocks such as wheat stalks, sugar-cane leftovers, fast-growing grasses, wastewater or even landfill waste. The cellulose contained within this non-food material can be broken down into sugar and then ethanol. This production of cellulosic ethanol is well known, with commercialisation just beginning in the United States and Australia. Policies aimed at boosting the development and generation of these second-generation biofuels are
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 149
26/2/09 10:18:57 PM
150 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
critically important. Of the 136 billion litres of biofuels mandated for production by 2022 in the United States, 60 per cent must come from second-generation biofuels that have no impact on food prices—such as swtichgrasses, leftover agricultural harvests and algae, to list just a few. We know that potential organic waste material is present in massive quantities—the challenge is to break down this material to a usable liquid in large enough volumes. And there are some promising developments on the horizon. Some of the latest research involves targeting microbes that break down sewage to become biofuel. Craig Venter, the biological geneticist instrumental in mapping the human genome, has a new venture, Synthetic Genomics, whose goal is to find new microbes that create a world without fossil fuels.28 The microbes could be those found in wastewater ponds or even in termites. Termites are known to most as home-wreckers, with an enormous ability to digest vulnerable wood beams in Australian houses. Aside from their home-wrecker status, termites are tiny bioreactors that mimic the process needed to convert dead organic material such as wood into sugars. A termite deploys specialised microbes within its gut which break down the organic material into simple sugars that can be used to make ethanol.29 Imagine a crop that only grows on poor soil or degraded land, requires little water and produces biofuel of the same efficiency as Brazilian sugar cane. India has earmarked 11 million hectares and potentially up to 30 million hectares for cultivation of a crop called jatropha.30 Converting wasteland into biodiesel cropland will produce much needed income for farmers and help with soil erosion and salinity,
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 150
26/2/09 10:18:57 PM
The Crude Truth • 151
while having no impact on food prices. Most importantly, jatropha biodiesel would slash greenhouse gas emissions from conventional diesel use. An additional benefit is that jatropha can be grown with other crops such as coffee, sugar or fruits giving the farmer additional income. The train line between Mumbai and Delhi already runs on 20 per cent jatropha-produced biodiesel.31 Advanced biofuels will allow agriculturally dominated poorer nations an increasing source of income and lowcarbon energy supply.32 There are also additional benefits of using agriculture as a source of energy supply. In Brazil the vast amount of sugar-cane leftovers (bagasse) are used not only for ethanol production, but for fuel to generate electricity. Many ethanol plants already source their power from this biomass energy. Biomass electricity is currently one of the only forms of renewable electricity supply that is uninterrupted (geothermal, solar thermal with storage are others). Agricultural wastes from sugar cane, wheat, wood or virtually any organic material could be fed into power plants to supply near-zero greenhouse emission electricity. In central Thailand, the Mitr Phol Sugar Group harvests 110,000 tonnes of sugar cane, which when crushed, produces 32,000 tonnes of bagasse. The European Commission helped fund a US$50 million power plant near the sugar mill to use the bagasse as a fuel. This bio-energy power plant generates zero net greenhouse gas emissions and produces nearly double the power needs of the sugar mill itself. The excess clean electricity generated is sold back to the grid and has resulted in a total pay-back time for the European investors of five years.33 Biomass-fuelled electricity is already valuable in rural parts of Australia,
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 151
26/2/09 10:18:57 PM
152 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
with over 4 per cent of Australia’s primary energy supply coming from biomass energy, such as bagasse and wood waste.34 Globally there are 1.6 billion people without access to electricity and another 2.4 billion who rely on straw, dung and wood to meet their energy needs. Power plants fuelled by locally produced biomass in communities and villages across the world could generate clean greenhouseneutral energy at costs lower than that of power plants using fossil fuels. The world is always going to need cars, planes and ships—all of which currently run on oil-derived fuels. Nearly 3 billion cars will be in use by the middle of this century. Without the ability to redesign our cities and transport pathways from scratch, certain biofuels will be an important way to lower greenhouse gas emissions and move our world towards clean transport fuels. If we avoid the development of advanced biofuels, there will be dark clouds on the horizon in a world that is moving beyond conventional oil.
Potential Greenhouse Explosion Before the Second World War, Adolf Hitler was in a dilemma over the single most important commodity for any army in the 20th century: oil. Without domestic oil production, how was he going to fuel his trucks, planes, submarines and tanks? Germany, however, had tremendous amounts of coal, so the Nazis fast-tracked the technology of making oil from coal. The synthetic oil process was perfected and oil was produced from over 25 different processing plants around Germany.35 Virtually all of the aviation fuel used
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 152
26/2/09 10:18:57 PM
The Crude Truth • 153
by German planes and half Germany’s total oil use during the war came from this unconventional synthetic fuel.36 For similar energy security reasons, ‘Hitler fuel’ is making a strong resurgence in nations with massive coal reserves dependent on costly foreign oil imports: namely the United States, China, India and Australia. Coal can be converted into oil in two ways—through direct or indirect liquidification. The direct way involves dissolving the coal in a solvent under high temperature and pressure; the indirect way involves gasifying coal into ‘syngas’, which can then be condensed into a liquid. The World Coal Institute estimates that this sort of unconventional oil production can produce oil at US$25 to $45 per barrel. With conventional oil reaching US$150 per barrel in 2008, there has been a lot of investment streaming into this technology—and not just in China and the United States. In Australia, AngloAmerican and Shell have collaborated to form Monash Energy, which is to build a $5 billion plant to convert brown coal into diesel fuel. But this technology is carbon intensive and, despite the apparent concern over carbon emissions in the community, there is nothing to stop a large increase in the production of oil using coal-to-liquid technology because of high conventional oil prices. Without a carbon price on fuel, there would be no economic reason for a company like Monash Energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their coal-to-diesel plant. Coal is the most abundant of fossil fuels, with over 400 years of reserves, and the most greenhouse intensive. Coal-to-oil production produces seven to eight times more CO2 than the production of conventional oil.37 If the world started to shift its production of transport fuel from oil to coal we would be
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 153
5/3/09 3:43:46 PM
154 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
locking in new, unforeseen greenhouse projections that would be beyond the IPCC’s worst-case scenario. Canada is already experiencing a greenhouse gas explosion from its reliance on unconventional oil production using tar sands, a mixture of sand, water and the sticky oil called bitumen. Enormous amounts of heat are needed to extract oil from tar sands, and enormous volumes of waste water are produced. Canada has 174 billion barrels of tarsand reserves, making it the second largest reserve after Saudi Arabia,38 and these reserves become economically viable when oil reaches US$30 per barrel. Considering the price of oil, there has been massive investment in tar-sand production over the last decade. Current production is more than 1 million barrels per day, with some forecasting fourfold expansion by 203039 to possibly make up 16 per cent of North American oil production. Tar sands produce three to four times the CO2 in pre-production than conventional oil.40 Much of the 27 per cent increase in greenhouse gases since 1990 in Canada is due to Alberta and its tar sands. The mining of this resource also produces enormous amounts of tailings, which act like a slow oil spill, polluting nearby waterways and groundwater. A reliance on tar sands has some nasty unforeseen economic and environmental implications for the United States as well. To produce 1 litre of oil by this method needs three to four times the energy of current conventional oil production. Most of the extra energy required to produce oil from tar-sand in Canada comes from natural gas, a cleaner fuel than oil. Via pipelines, Canadian natural gas is imported to the US for use in power plants and heating. Sixteen per cent of US gas consumption comes from
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 154
26/2/09 10:18:58 PM
The Crude Truth • 155
overseas and Canada accounts for 85 per cent of those imports.41 Up to half of Alberta’s natural gas reserves could be consumed by tar sands over the next fifteen years,42 causing exports to the United States to fall, crimping US supply exactly at a time when the need for clean gas, as opposed to coal, is crucial. Oil shales are geological reservoirs where the full geological conversion to oil hasn’t been able to take place because of insufficient heat and pressure. There is a total potential global resource of 1500 billion barrels, although not all of that is good quality. The Rocky Mountains in the United States has 80 per cent of the world’s medium-quality oil shale reserves, at 500 billion barrels,43 nearly double the known oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Australia also has a large reserve of oil shale near Gladstone and Mackay in Queensland. Economically recoverable reserves are 29 million barrels, while there are 1.3 billion barrels of medium quality oil reserves in Australia.44 The local environmental impacts of oil shale mining and processing are extensive, but the main drawback of this type of energy-intensive production is that it gives off five times the amount of greenhouse gases than conventional oil production.45 There has been a frenzy of populist political arguments over petrol and whether a future carbon price should be imposed on the Australian motorist, already hurting from steep petrol-price increases in recent years. Some politicians seem to think that the high global oil price (because of peak conventional oil) is already doing the job on greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging more efficient use of fuel. If you think that the global oil market and the high price of petrol has already solved greenhouse emissions
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 155
26/2/09 10:18:58 PM
156 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
within transport, think again—it could, in fact, result in a far worse greenhouse gas nightmare if it leads to more Australian coal-to-oil production or oil-shale extraction. A carbon price on transport is critical to avoid this and to create new investment in Australia’s low-carbon economic future—whether it is next-generation biofuels, battery technology, fuel cells or plug-in electric cars. Given that we know an Australian emissions trading scheme will begin in 2010, how would a carbon price impact the cost of fuel? Burning 1 litre of petrol emits about 2.3 kilograms of CO2, which would equate to about a 1 cent increase in petrol costs for every $4 CO2 per tonne carbon price. The medium-term carbon price is likely to be around $30 to $40 per tonne, which would increase that cost of petrol by 8 to 10 cents per litre. The government has, smartly, included fuel within the emissions trading scheme but plans to initially cut the government fuel excise so motorists don’t see higher prices. Including a carbon price is the important step and it’s encouraging that the government has initiated this in order to shift our transport economy towards low-carbon production. Globally, the biofuel versus unconventional oil dilemma is a whole separate challenge. High oil prices without a separate carbon price on fuel could result in oil production moving to a far worse greenhouse outcome if China, India, Canada and the United States start to heavily ramp up production in coal-to-oil, tar-sands and oil-shale unconventional oil production. A shadow global carbon price through binding national emissions cuts is critically needed to avoid this.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 156
26/2/09 10:18:58 PM
10 Fitting Carbon Shock-absorbers Fitting Carbon Shock-absorbers
T
yping ‘shock’ into Google spits back 192 million hits in 0.06 seconds. The top hit is a Wikipedia definition: ‘A shock is an unexpected or unpredictable event that affects an economy, either positively or negatively.’ If you type in ‘carbon shock’, the most powerful search engine in the world doesn’t know what to look for, spitting back incoherent information. Although Google’s search engine can’t seem to find much information on ‘carbon shock’, Google executives have been feverishly planning for a future world without carbon, something that will fit their business with shock-absorbers for any post-carbon world. California’s Silicon Valley is the corporate home of Google and thousands of other information technology (IT) companies, ranging from Apple to eBay. Although California houses all the executives, marketers and computer coders, Silicon Valley is not the reason why it only took 0.06 seconds for the results of my Google search to reach my computer. Traversing the world within a micro-second is made possible by a vast global array of computers and machinery called ‘Googleplex’. Googleplex is a network of strategically positioned data centres that 157
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 157
26/2/09 10:18:58 PM
158 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
house thousands of microprocessors, servers and other hardware. The lightning-quick speeds of information beamed across the world come from the power of these data centres. The exact number of data centres is a tightly held Google secret, since its computing power gives it a competitive edge over rivals like Yahoo! and Microsoft. The best guess a few years ago was that Google had about 500,000 servers in 25 data-centre locations around the world.1 Processing video streams, audio files and satellite pictures takes an enormous amount of computing power and, with 1.4 billion global internet users2 and continually increasing, every internet firm is rapidly expanding its data-centre empire. With thousands of racks of computers, processors and spinning hard drives packed into one site, the energy demand is immense. Cooling the over-loaded supercomputers requires more energy to power than the hardware itself. According to a report to US Congress, the energy consumption of data centres has been doubling every five years and absorbs nearly 2 per cent of total US electricity consumption, amounting to annual electricity bills of US$7.4 billion and greenhouse emissions of about 100 million tonnes.3 Google wants to become carbon neutral and has already built the biggest solar plant in the United States within its Mountain View headquarters.4 It sounds like Google truly cares about polar bears and public perception (which they probably do), but you can’t build a US$200 billion empire on perception alone. This decision will actually give its business economic shock-absorbers for a future carbon-constrained world.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 158
26/2/09 10:18:58 PM
Fitting Carbon Shock-absorbers • 159
The battle between Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! for the future online world will be largely determined through data-centre superiority and how each company services the fastest-growing market in the world, Asia. Microsoft wants 800,000 servers by the year 2011 and is spending US$2 billion per year trying to catch up to Googleplex.5 IBM already has nearly 80 hectares of data centres, and plans to double that by 2010.6 Luring technology companies’ data centres to a city or country is very lucrative since they bring in upwards of half a billion dollars to the local economy and create hundreds of permanent long-term jobs. The locations of Google’s new data centres are decided largely on the grounds of energy costs, reliability and security. Any future energy price shocks will erode the company’s bottom line. Recently a number of Google’s new energy-intensive data centres were built along the Columbia River on the border of Oregon and Washington in the United States—far away from big cities. These data centres tap into a stable and secure hydro energy supply from the powerful Columbia River. But the river doesn’t just provide a stable power supply—the energy is also carbon neutral. Carbon-neutral power for its data centres is good for the company’s stated ‘green’ goals, but it serves a far bigger purpose. Any gradual or abrupt carbon shock, as the world starts to combat climate change, will have absolutely no effect on the running costs of these hydro-powered data centres. If Google decided to tap into coal-fired power instead, it would lock the company into decades of uncertainty and higher energy costs depending on the size of the emerging carbon price.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 159
26/2/09 10:18:58 PM
160 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
Google is actively pursuing low-carbon energy sources when making its next range of investments in data centres around the world. Even though a carbon price is yet to be allocated in most of the world, Google is imposing one on itself when purchasing new data centres. According to Google, the self-imposed ‘shadow carbon price’ will enable us to calculate a more accurate cost of power as one of the key criteria in site selection for our data centers. The cost of carbon is not yet recognized by the U.S. market, but may soon become so through legislation. Pricing carbon is an important tool to reducing the financial risk that our energy investments face. Moreover, when evaluating power options, using a shadow price for carbon puts renewable energy on a more level playing field.7
Every single item produced, sold and traded in the global economy has a certain level of exposure to things beyond an industry’s immediate control. Whether it’s exposure to interest rates, labour costs, weather or foreign currency— different products have different exposures. Airlines, for example, are heavily exposed to the price of oil, while wheat farmers are vulnerable to droughts and floods. The recent global credit crisis hit debt-laden businesses more so than others. Those that had heavy debt exposure faired the worse. Reducing long-term carbon exposure should be a top priority for every CEO, president and prime minister. Relying on carbon-intensive power sources is too much of an economic liability for Google—so it has wisely started to fit carbon shock-absorbers for when the world cuts carbon emissions.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 160
26/2/09 10:18:58 PM
Fitting Carbon Shock-absorbers • 161
Poking the Market Google imposed a carbon price on its data-centre purchases even without climate change legislation to force it. It did this, knowing that this legislation is imminent, in order to gain a competitive advantage over its rivals. Australia must think in a similar way. We know the world is going to cut carbon emissions—some countries quicker than others— and by imposing an effective carbon price within the economy, Australia will give itself a head-start on much of the world. The federal government is set to impose a carbon price via a carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) by the year 2010. But like any government scheme it can be watered down to appease carbon-intensive interest groups if the government becomes fearful of making the necessary changes. The whole point of the scheme is to cause a structural adjustment within the economy to promote low-carbon activities. This will mean price rises in some parts of the economy during the transition. But in the long term, those prices will rise even more if Australia delays introduction and the world inevitably starts to correct the market failure to recognise greenhouse gas emissions. It’s those countries that adjust and adapt earlier that will benefit the most. An ETS works by the government setting a cap on greenhouse gas emissions over a specific period of time— for example, 30 per cent reduction below 1990 levels by the year 2020. Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 equivalent) in the year 1990 totalled 552 million tonnes.8 To achieve this target the allowed emissions would have to be 386 million tonnes by 2020. Each tonne of emissions
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 161
26/2/09 10:18:58 PM
162 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
represents a permit which is allocated to the market freely or by an auction process. These carbon permits gives the user (or business) permission to emit 1 tonne of greenhouse gas in the following year. The amount of permits allocated by the government will decrease each year to reflect its set reduction targets. Every year, companies will need to purchase the amount of carbon permits reflective of the amount of carbon emissions within their operations. The government does not set the carbon permit price; market supply and demand does. The fewer permits available over time, the higher the carbon price will become. An emissions trading scheme is equivalent to a government-imposed carbon price. Investment will initially shift to low-carbon solutions—particularly building insulation, production-line efficiency and efficient lighting where the investment cost is low and savings are high. The market will create new ways to reduce emissions for the least cost—but the market’s effectiveness ultimately depends heavily on the magnitude of the carbon price. If it is too low, there is no incentive to reduce emissions; the higher the price, the more options become available. Innovative companies are set to benefit from emissions trading schemes since lowering carbon emissions now has a material benefit. Like any government–business partnership, the design of an emissions trading scheme is most critical, and could be the topic of an entire book in itself.9 The challenge for the government will be to implement the carbon price widely across the economy. Although some industries will be reluctant to submit to a carbon price, the broadest coverage will drive Australia towards a low-carbon economy as quick as possible.10 Has there been an example of energy prices
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 162
26/2/09 10:18:58 PM
Fitting Carbon Shock-absorbers • 163
inducing a structural adjustment in an economy whereby carbon was cut and the economy grew?
The Unexpected Decarbonisation You can take your pick of who has done wonders to raise the awareness of climate change around the world. Maybe it’s Dr Jim Hansen, the NASA climate scientist, who first presented evidence to the US Congress back in 1988 about the dangers of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Maybe it’s Al Gore, the former US vice-president, who made a documentary on the topic in 2006 called An Inconvenient Truth which won an Academy Award and received worldwide fame. Or maybe it’s Nicholas Stern, the former World Bank economist, who delivered his seminal work on the economics of climate change to the UK government in that same year. Without doubt they have all been extremely important in bringing climate change to the world’s attention. For me, however, the most important person probably wouldn’t even have known what climate change meant, since he died in 1975, more than a decade before the problem of CO2 became clear. The person wasn’t a scientist, journalist or activist. In controlling the world’s oil tap, Saudi Arabia’s King Faisal, in 1973, without knowing it, showed how the global economy could prosper by using less energy and therefore emitting much less CO2. His unintentional actions also put to bed the notion that growing wealth must mean polluting more or that imposing a carbon price will devastate an economy. The United States has been the world’s largest marketdriven economy for most of the twentieth century. After
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 163
26/2/09 10:18:58 PM
164 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
the Second World War, the United States, like most developed countries, went through an economic boom, with large economic expansion through higher GDP growth. Carbon dioxide emissions were tightly bound to economic growth in the United States in the post-Second World War period up until the early 1970s (see Figure 5). As the graph shows, rising carbon emissions separated from rising economic growth after King Faisal induced oil price shocks in the 1970s. When the price of Corn Flakes goes up, you start to think about Rice Bubbles. In the same way, market economies worked how they are supposed to—by finding energy sources other than oil. Although this was an abrupt energy price shock, over time we adapted to the higher price of oil by building more fuel-efficient cars (although this changed after the oil price plummeted in the mid-1980s) and eradicating oil use for electricity generation. In the developed world, economies shifted away from using oil. From 1973 onwards you can see how the US economy decoupled economic growth from CO2 emissions, due to King Faisal’s oil price hikes. After 1973, the US economy, like the economies of most developed countries, shifted to become more efficient with the use of oil, since it was now particularly costly not to do so. Figure 5 shows that between 1970 and 2003, the US economy grew by about 150 per cent, while CO2 emissions grew by only 20 per cent. What would have happened if King Faisal hadn’t imposed an oil embargo on the West? The US economy would have grown just as much but with far more greenhouse emissions. An additional 5 billion tonnes of CO2 from the United States would have been put into the atmosphere without King
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 164
26/2/09 10:18:58 PM
Fitting Carbon Shock-absorbers • 165 US GDP growth 240
200
160
1973 and 1979 oil price surges Indexed growth
120
US CO2 emissions growth 80
40
0
1960
1966
1972
1978
1984 1990 1996
2002
Year
Figure 5
US indexed economic growth in comparison to fossil-fuel CO2 emissions since 1960.11
Faisal’s geopolitical oil embargo. The global figure would have probably been double that, since Japan and Europe also shifted heavily away from intensive use of oil. The executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Claude Mandil, concluded: ‘Oil price shocks in the 1970s and the resulting energy policies did considerably more to control growth in energy demand and CO2 emissions than energy efficiency and climate policies implemented in the 1990s’.12 The IEA analysis shows that without the oil shocks
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 165
26/2/09 10:18:58 PM
166 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
and associated energy savings, global energy use at the end of the 1990s would have been 50 per cent higher than what it actually was. Without knowing it, King Faisal in 1973 contributed to lowering CO 2 concentrations substantially, compared to what would have been the case without the oil price shocks. Price signals drive investment in alternatives and conservation and provide new opportunities to build wealth while reducing carbon emissions. Today, industry avoids wasting energy since it is a cost. Adding a carbon price to energy will drive efficiency even further. In 1973, oil made up 51 per cent of Australia’s primary energy supply, including large amounts of electricity generation. Today, that figure has dropped to 30 per cent, a figure similar to other developed economies.
Can Australia Cut Emissions and Grow the Economy? The Australian economy has done well over the past 15 years, with uninterrupted economic growth and the lowest unemployment for 30 years. 13 So how will halving greenhouse emissions by mid-century impact Australia’s economy? A number of studies have attempted to model the expected economic cost of imposing deep cuts to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions using current technologies.14 A number of options may be used to achieve the cuts, including using more natural gas instead of coal, introducing higher energy efficiency, increasing the share of current renewable technologies such as wind, solar and biomass, and using the suite of high-potential technologies
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 166
26/2/09 10:18:59 PM
Fitting Carbon Shock-absorbers • 167
such as geothermal, wave, and coal-with-carbon capture and storage. A range of carbon emission reduction scenarios have been modeled by the department of Treasury,15 and the results are similar to other studies carried out by the CSIRO and ABARE. Treasury modeling suggests Australia’s economic growth and prosperity will grow substantially under all carbon reduction scenarios. The Australian GDP is expected to grow from $0.8 trillion in 2005 to roughly $3 trillion by 2050, even if we set ambitious carbon reduction targets of 25 per cent by 2020 and 90 per cent by 2050.16 Without any action, the economy is modeled to grow by only 0.1–0.2 per cent.17 However, this doesn’t include the significant economic impacts of dangerous climate change itself, which could be 5 per cent of GDP, according to the Garnaut Climate Change Review.18 One study by the CSIRO has looked at the implications of Australia achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, which is the optimal climate change response for Australia.19 In the study, this goal was reached by employing aggressive measures and buying a chunk of greenhouse credits from overseas projects to offset our transport emissions, which could still be emitting considerable amounts of greenhouse gases in 2050. While transitioning Australia to be a zero carbon economy, the study shows the economy still nearly tripling by 2050.20 In 2007, McKinsey, a global consultancy company, published a report on the cost and options available for Australia to cut emissions rapidly by 30 per cent below 1990 levels by the year 2020 and 60 per cent by 2030.21 Over 150 different options were cited, including raising fuel economy standards for cars, insulating commercial
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 167
26/2/09 10:18:59 PM
168 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
buildings, soil conservation, and carbon capture and storage for existing power plants. According to McKinsey, Australia could rapidly reduce emissions by 35 per cent below 1990 levels by the year 2030 at no net cost to the economy.22 In other words, we can make considerable cuts to greenhouse emissions over the coming decades at no cost. The McKinsey study found that cutting emissions to levels 10 per cent lower than those of 1990 is estimated to create about $8 billion in savings to the Australian economy. These types of reductions are known as ‘negative cost abatement opportunities’, which range from improving fuel economy in vehicles and increasing refrigeration and lighting efficiency to changing residential and business stand-by appliance settings. Improving commercial ventilation and heating efficiency, for example, will save 30 million tonnes of carbon and $5.1 billion of costs by the year 2030.23 The economic savings could be used to offset the higher upfront costs of breakthrough technologies such as geothermal, solar thermal, carbon capture and non-food biofuel technologies that will also be needed to fit carbon shockabsorbers to Australia’s economy. Aside from models and projections, we know from what has happened in other countries that cutting emissions and growing the economy are not independent of one another. A comparison of economic growth and greenhouse emissions in the UK and Australia in the decade after 1996 illustrates a deep contrast. The change in domestic greenhouse emissions during this period shows very different trends in each country. While Australia’s greenhouse emissions increased by 15 per cent, UK emissions fell by 10 per cent (see Figure 6). Economic growth was strong for both
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 168
26/2/09 10:18:59 PM
Fitting Carbon Shock-absorbers • 169 Change in total greenhouse gas emissions (%) 15 Australia 10 5 0 –5
UK –10
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
Change in Gross Domestic Product (%) 70 60 Australia
50
UK
40 30 20 10 0 1996
Figure 6
1998
2000
2002
2004
Relative comparison between GDP growth and greenhouse gas emissions for Australia and the United Kingdom between 1996 and 2005.24
countries, yet greenhouse gas emissions were the polar opposite, with Australia growing emissions strongly. New figures show the UK has cut greenhouse gas emissions by over 20 per cent since 1990 while growing GDP at one of the fastest rates in the developed world.25 A number of reasons caused the UK to slash greenhouse emissions and grow their economy. A big shift from coal to natural
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 169
16/3/09 2:29:23 PM
170 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
gas power generation helped, as well as rapidly reducing methane emissions from landfills and nitrous oxide from industrial processes. A climate-change levy on electricity, coupled with high taxes on fuel, has contributed to energy efficiency and conservation. The point for Australia is that an economy triple its size, but with comparable population growth, has been able to reduce emissions by 20 per cent since 1990 and still strongly grow its economy.
Pay Now or Pay, Much More, Later In the short-term, imposing a carbon price will mean electricity from carbon-intensive sources will become more expensive. But there is a lot of scaremongering around the likely price rises in the coming years as a result of adding a carbon price to the economy. Although we will pay more for low-carbon energy technologies, the costs will continually decline relative to our income levels. Just cast your mind back to the cost of original computers compared to today; the same thing is happening in relation to low-carbon energy technologies and products—the costs will come down relative to our incomes. It’s not households that will be harmed by Australia moving towards a low-carbon economy, it’s the carbon-intensive industries that will need to adapt the most. Australians, on average, spend 2 per cent of their net income on electricity and gas, which is the lowest level of expenditure compared to eleven other broad areas. Food (15 per cent), housing (15 per cent), recreation (10 per cent), household contents and services (8 per cent) and servicing and maintaining a car (8 per cent) are where most of the
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 170
26/2/09 10:18:59 PM
Fitting Carbon Shock-absorbers • 171
money goes. Australians spend 50 per cent more on clothing and footwear than on electricity and gas, while three times more on alcohol and cigarettes.26 By 2010, on average, Australians will spend $570 a year on electricity and gas with an average annual disposable income of $28,000.27 Cutting emissions by 10–25% by 2020, our electricity bill is projected to be $130–210 more per year, but our disposable income will rise by nearly $4000 per year.28 Cutting emissions by 90 per cent by 2050 would require about $300 more to be spent on electricity each year from 2010 levels, but our disposable income will grow to be $46,000—$18,000 more than in 2010.29 By 2050, even the most aggressive cuts in greenhouse emissions will contribute to the average Australian paying less as a proportion of their disposable income on electricity and gas than in 2010.30 Yes, we will lower electricity bills while cutting emissions by 90 per cent. This is an absolute worst-case scenario since it doesn’t even include the expected benefits to household incomes of boosting clean technology exports, the likely rapid cost reductions of up-scaling of clean technologies, or avoiding climate change associated damages. The federal government introduced tax cuts in May 2006 worth $27 billion, which resulted in the average Australian paying $1200 a year less in income tax than in the year 1995.31 The federal Labor government implemented additional tax cuts of the order of $47 billion in their 2008 federal budget. On top of the prior tax cuts, someone earning $40,000 per year received $1050 tax cut in 2008– 09, which will rise to $1800 by 2010–11. Someone earning $155,000 received a $1350 saving in 2008–09, rising to $4050 by 2010–2011.32 These policies alone boost average
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 171
26/2/09 10:18:59 PM
172 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
incomes by thousands of dollars a year in comparison to the incremental yearly rise in energy costs. The other point that is very important, however, is that lower income Australians pay more as a proportion of income on energy than wealthier Australians. So any increases in electricity prices will impact on lower income households more, while we’ve had higher absolute tax cuts to wealthier Australians. Higher income Australians should be paying their fair share to move Australia to a low-carbon economy and this inequity should be fixed through taxation adjustment or direct assistance to low income households. As we found out earlier in this chapter, Google has already self-imposed a carbon price when making investment decisions for its energy-hungry data centres. But Google’s investments will be high in cost without a legislated carbon price, so why would they do this? Why wouldn’t they wait until the government mandates a carbon price? The reason is that it is much cheaper to be ahead of the carbon cost curve than behind it. A new building development, power station or commercial venture are all long-term investments. Investment decisions made today can’t be seen only through short-term eyes, but must anticipate the medium- to longterm costs and risks of carbon. There is no doubt that the cost of carbon globally will rise continually as long as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 does. That means it’s in a nation’s best interest to account for carbon earlier as opposed to delaying and paying much more in the future in order to transition towards a clean, low-carbon economy. For Australia, even if a carbon price is delayed in countries like China or India, it is much better for Australia to act early. As highlighted by the Treasury:
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 172
26/2/09 10:18:59 PM
Fitting Carbon Shock-absorbers • 173
If a carbon price is introduced gradually, rather than in all economies at the same time, long-term costs are lower for early movers and higher for economies that delay. The economies that defer a carbon price become more carbon-intensive, so when a carbon price is eventually introduced, they face greater costs, particularly because global investment is redirected to early movers.33
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 173
26/2/09 10:18:59 PM
This page intentionally left blank
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 174
26/2/09 10:18:59 PM
Part III The New Low-carbon Economy
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 175
26/2/09 10:18:59 PM
This page intentionally left blank
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 176
26/2/09 10:18:59 PM
11 Carbon Economics Carbon Economics
C
arbon production, either directly through products or indirectly through energy consumption, will forge a new competitive advantage for businesses in the coming decades. Being low carbon hasn’t often been thought of in terms of economic advantage, but in the economic competition between cities, nations and businesses, it is starting to play a key role. As the world starts to assign value to CO2 emissions, it will create a new type of lowcarbon capitalism—something that will drive markets to solve climate change rather than contribute to it.
Toyota Versus General Motors For a fleeting moment after the 1970s oil shocks there was a flurry of investment in alternative energy sources. After the Saudi oil embargo was lifted, the oil price plummeted to record lows—hovering around US$20 a barrel for much of the late 1980s and ’90s. The market was telling us there was ample supply and that we could use it to our heart’s content—so in many countries investment in conservation and alternative energy sources dried up. But the oil shocks induced some governments to raise the price of petrol well 177
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 177
26/2/09 10:18:59 PM
178 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
beyond those dictated by the market. The case study between Japanese (Toyota and Honda) and American (General Motors and Ford) car manufacturers provides us with one of the most important premises of this book: that imposing a government-led carbon price earlier than other countries will give Australian industry a competitive advantage in the longer term as the world moves to cut carbon emissions over the coming decades. In the United States, the federal government has historically allowed petrol prices to be dictated mostly by the global oil price by imposing very low fuel taxes. The low government excise resulted in cheap petrol throughout the 1980s and ’90s when the global oil price was at record lows. Japan, however, didn’t allow market forces to dictate the price of petrol. Having no reserves of oil, Japan was vulnerable. The Japanese government realised that if oil prices could be so easily dictated by foreign intervention as in the 1970s, there was nothing to stop a similar surge in prices again. Japan was not going to let foreign energy dependency make its economy vulnerable again. Instead of allowing petrol prices to drop after the oil shocks, as in the United States, Japan (as well as Europe) imposed higher petrol excise taxes that kept the price relatively high in comparison to other nations. Why would they do such a thing? Because the market cannot predict whether a Saudi king will wake up one day and decide to cut oil production or a US president will decide to invade an oil-rich Middle Eastern country. The higher cost of petrol, together with tougher government emissions standards, pushed the Japanese economy towards conservation and oil efficiency. In contrast, American fuel efficiency standards have always
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 178
26/2/09 10:18:59 PM
Carbon Economics • 179
been the worst in the developed world. The powerful American car-industry lobby has stringently rejected any government mandates on raising fuel efficiency over the last twenty years. With cheaper fuel and less incentive to improve fuel efficiency, the two biggest US car-makers, General Motors and Ford, invested heavily in developing big, heavy and powerful four-wheel drives in the 1990s. Meanwhile, because of the higher price of fuel in Japan and more stringent fuel economy standards, Toyota and Honda were investing heavily in fuel-efficient vehicles at the very time when global oil prices were at their lowest. Because of the emphasis on fuel efficiency, Toyota’s conventional-engine cars were getting much better fuel economy than equivalentsized vehicles in the United States. Toyota and Honda vehicles’ average fuel economy is more than 20 per cent better than the average for General Motors and Ford.1 The general investment by the American car manufacturers in larger, more fuel-dependent cars was not only an environmental disaster but an economic calamity for these companies. Surging oil prices and a big shift towards lower vehicle emissions have devastated the largest US car manufacturers who are on the brink of collapse. In the US, for example, Ford’s market share for new vehicle sales was about 25 per cent in 1998 but has fallen to 13 per cent a decade later.2 General Motors has also followed a precipitous decline.3 Toyota and Honda, on the other hand, have nearly doubled their market share over the same decade.4 The American car makers have categorically lost the battle with Japanese car makers. Both companies have been devastated by the shift towards fuel-efficient
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 179
26/2/09 10:18:59 PM
180 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
vehicles and the growing consumer aversion to light trucks, utilities and 4WDs. Toyota has surged past Ford and GM as the world’s largest car manufacturer5 and is projected to surpass GM as the number-one vehicle manufacturer in the world. Honda, on the back of massive sales of the fuelefficient Civic and Accord models, has been gaining considerably on the US gas guzzlers.6 The decline in market dominance of the US car manufacturers is starkly illustrated by their share price index in comparison to the Japanese car-makers (see Figure 7). Since 2003, Toyota and Honda’s stock price has more than doubled while General Motors and Ford’s been in terminal decline since late 2003. The massive investment into research and development by Japanese car manufacturers led to some breakthroughs
Average stock index 140
Japan
120 Hits $3/gallon (September 2005)
100 Hits $2/gallon (June 2004)
80
Hits $3.2/gall (May 2007)
60 40 20 0 –20 –40
US
US petrol price $1.4/gallon (January 2003)
–60 2003
Figure 7
2004
2005
2006
2007
Comparison of the average stock index of large car manufacturers in the United States (General Motors and Ford) to those in Japan (Toyota and Honda) from 2003 to 2007. Average consumer petrol price in the United States is also shown periodically.7
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 180
26/2/09 10:19:00 PM
Carbon Economics • 181
in fuel economy technology. The biggest was the hybrid vehicle, sometimes called the petrol-electric vehicle. Hybrid vehicles are perfectly suited for the age of greenhouse and peak conventional oil. Of the fuel used by a conventional car, a massive 85 per cent of the energy content is wasted through heat-loss, engine inefficiencies and braking. A big chunk of this waste occurs when idling, stopped at traffic lights or stuck in traffic jams. Toyota and Honda envisaged a petrol motor that would automatically switch off when you were idling or moving at low speeds. They started to test the use of a high-powered battery that would kick in at these times. But how was the battery going to charge? A new type of battery was going to be needed for this new type of car. After years of testing, the Japanese manufacturers came up with a rechargeable battery that was charged by tapping the kinetic energy released during braking. Back in 1997, when the oil price was just over US$10 a barrel, Honda introduced the Insight and then Toyota introduced the Prius. Since then Toyota has sold one million Priuses and expects to sell a million per year by 2010.9 In the United States, Prius sales grew from 110,000 in 2006 to 184,000 in 2007—a rise of nearly 70 per cent. The Prius accounts for about 5 per cent of Toyota’s new car sales globally, but hybrids are the fastest growing class of vehicle and Toyota has stated it would like its entire fleet to be equipped with hybrid engines by 2020. Alliance Bernstein, a global asset management firm, predicts hybrids will make up 50 per cent of new car sales by 2015, and 85 per cent by 2030.10 Although we’ve seen Toyota and Honda leap ahead of GM and Ford, car manufacturers are still only weakly
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 181
26/2/09 10:19:00 PM
182 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
accounting for carbon emission costs, as opposed to just the market cost of oil. A 2007 study analysed the carbon intensity, rather than just fuel economy, of the world’s car manufacturers. The average carbon intensity (grams of CO2 per kilometre driven) for GM and Ford was found to be 262 and 170 for Honda and Toyota.11 That means that the American car-makers have a 50 per cent higher carbon exposure than Japanese car-makers. The American carmakers have slowly started to realise how deeply exposed they are. Relying on gas-guzzling Hummers and SUVs without focusing on fuel efficiency is not the wisest of long-term strategies. GM is introducing the Volt, a fully electric car, in 2009, which will add another level of efficiency. But the US car manufacturers have a long way to go to catch up with their overseas counterparts. The 2008 Green Car of the Year in the United States was the Chevy Tahoe SUV Hybrid, with a 5.3 litre V8 engine supplemented by a small electric battery—which has a fuel economy of about 11 litres per 100 kilometres driven.12 According to the Australian government’s Green Vehicle Guide, that is equivalent to the fuel economy of the 3.6 litre V6 Toyota Kluger SUV.13 Meanwhile, many diesel or hybrid cars achieve over double the fuel economy of either of these SUVs. If the United States is calling the Chevy Tahoe the Green Car of the Year, their manufacturers will have a much bigger shock coming when governmentimposed carbon prices start to bite. At a time of record low oil prices, Toyota was developing the ultra-efficient Prius while General Motors was developing the extraordinarily fuel-guzzling Hummer. Like General Motors in the United States, the Australian car industry
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 182
26/2/09 10:19:00 PM
Carbon Economics • 183
manufactures large, predominantly six-cylinder vehicles. This market is utterly vulnerable to the global momentum towards smaller, fuel-efficient vehicles. There has already been a shift towards Toyota in Australia with the fuelefficient Corolla surpassing the Holden Commodore as Australia’s most popular vehicle in early 2008.14 In a carbonconstrained, high-oil-priced environment, the market will shift towards brands and companies that have a competitive advantage. Toyota and Honda have benefited economically from this foresight and the tough fuel excise and emissions standards in Japan. In order to compete, Australian car manufacturers need to invest heavily in research and development into smaller fuel-efficient vehicles. Imposing a carbon price early at least tries to even up the competitive advantage for Australian car-makers to design future fuelefficient vehicles whether they be plug-in hybrids or electric vehicles.
The Low-Carbon Advantage Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) began to be manufactured in the 1930s for the refrigeration industry. In the mid-1970s, scientists came to observe that the chlorine atom in CFCs broke down ozone in the upper atmosphere. Satellite photos of a huge ozone hole spurred global policy action in the form of the Montreal Protocol in 1991, which banned the use of ozone-depleting substances within the industry. At the time, the industry was very worried over the extra cost burdens of this legislation. Industry doesn’t often implement change unless government policy demands it. Chemical company Dupont was manufacturing half of the developed
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 183
26/2/09 10:19:00 PM
184 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
world’s CFCs during this period. Dupont was smart, as it knew the world would eventually move towards banning ozone completely. Instead of resisting the ban on ozone, it embraced it. Dupont spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing non-ozone-depleting substitutes well before the Montreal Protocol was ratified because it foresaw the opportunity of this new ‘green’ market. Early action was required by Dupont in order to reduce the risks of eroding market share in a post-Montreal Protocol world. In only a few years, Dupont scientists had come up with alternative compounds and in the early 1990s began to manufacture and deploy these alternatives to refrigeration and airconditioning suppliers. Dupont grew its business by investing early in innovation and is now supplying the world with non-depleting ozone substances for refrigeration and industry. Just as Dupont grew their business by supplying the world with the products needed to solve the ozone hole problem, so there will be an even bigger lowcarbon industry required to help combat climate change and supply the clean industrial revolution this century. General Electric (GE) is a technology and services corporation and one of the biggest companies in the world. It started out in the early twentieth century on the back of Thomas Edison’s development of the incandescent lamp. In mid-2005, GE launched ‘Ecomagination’, a program to develop tomorrow’s low-carbon solutions, such as solar energy, hybrid locomotives, fuel cells, lower-emission aircraft engines, lighter and stronger materials, efficient lighting and water purification technology. Ecomagination has a 70-product line-up with US$17 billion worth of sales already which is expected to reach US$25 billion by 2010.15
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 184
26/2/09 10:19:00 PM
Carbon Economics • 185
It already has a US$50 billion backlog of orders, in particular wind turbines and energy-efficiency products, including compact fluorescent light bulbs. Lorraine Bolsinger, head of the Ecomagination program, told shareholders that the company ‘has never had an initiative that has generated better financial returns so quickly’.16 With these lowcarbon products outpacing company performance returns by more than two to one, it’s no wonder the CEO in 2005 declared, ‘It’s no longer a zero-sum game—things that are good for the environment are also good for business’, and that the company does this ‘not because it is trendy or moral, but because it will accelerate [economic] growth’.17 The low-carbon advantage is not just for energy and engineering companies, it’s also relevant for every company whose products require energy to operate. As energy costs undoubtedly rise over the next decades, new market opportunities will open up for the energy-conscious consumer. Historically, people have not often thought about the running costs of their purchases. Some people think they are buying the cheapest washing machine in the store—but after five years of use, it’s actually one of the most expensive machines because it saps a lot of power. The greenhouse age will usher in a new type of consumer—one who looks at the running costs of a product, as opposed to just the purchase price, just as people do with cars nowadays. Cutting running costs will be important across all electronic appliances, even among some consumer products not normally associated with being part of the greenhouse solution. I’ve always washed my clothes in cold water, ever since my mother told me I could wash whites and colours
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 185
26/2/09 10:19:00 PM
186 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
together this way. Apparently washing your clothes in cold water is not the norm. Most people, at least in the United States, wash their clothes using warm water, soaking up to one-third of household hot water needs.18 The massive consumer conglomerate Procter & Gamble have developed a washing detergent that is effective for removing stains but works only in cold water—cutting the electricity needed for washing machines by half. If every household in the United States used cold water for their laundry, it would cut total household energy consumption by 3 per cent and save 30 million tonnes of CO2.19 The information technology and telecommunications sector is one industry with huge opportunities in the lowcarbon economy. Personal computers waste half of their required energy as heat and use a substantial amount of electricity for operation. One hundred million office computers consume 1 per cent of the United States’ electricity, resulting in an enormous energy bill for businesses and households.20 Computer makers HP and Dell have led the development of energy-efficient computers.21 To demonstrate the savings that could be had on using these efficient computers, HP commissioned a study for the US government, which has 10 million personal computers for its public servants. The study found that the US federal government could save more than US$82 million in annual energy costs while cutting greenhouse gas emissions if energy-efficient computers were used.22 There are currently one billion computers in use worldwide, and some estimates suggest four billion will be in use by 2020, tripling the IT industry’s proportion of greenhouse gas emissions.23 With energy costs rising, the global market
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 186
5/3/09 3:44:29 PM
Carbon Economics • 187
will shift towards energy-efficient computers, and those companies who position themselves early are set to be the Toyota of the personal computer market. The rapid development of energy-efficient computers and other automated energy-saving software would avoid nearly US$1 trillion in energy costs and 8 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.24 The roll-out of widespread fibre-optic broadband capabilities will also present low-carbon productivity gains within the new low-carbon economy. Moving information across the world instead of people is much more carbonand cost-efficient for any international business. For example, simply installing a high-definition video teleconferencing facility in a boardroom is far more cost effective than flying twenty executives from around the world to one location in order to meet up—and is obviously much less carbon intensive. The onset of accurate global positioning systems, coupled with broadband connections in a centralised location, can potentially optimise freighting, courier use, taxi pick-ups or even public transport logistics. Cutting down transport times, fuel costs and carbon emissions are all good for business in the new low-carbon economy. An Australian study estimated that faster broadband and on-line products such as high-definition teleconferencing, on-line freight logistics management and other internet carbon opportunities could save nearly $7 billion in annual energy costs while cutting Australian greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent.25 The race for the low-carbon advantage is also taking off in the airline business. The two giant airline manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus, are in the midst of a race to the bottom
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 187
26/2/09 10:19:01 PM
188 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
of the carbon tree. They’ve seen what has happened to General Motors and are putting huge resources towards fuel efficiency. Airbus wants to cut emissions in half by 2020 and has already increased its research and development budget by 25 per cent in 2008 (to around US$3 billion).26 Boeing may have already got the low-carbon edge, however, from its new 787 Dreamliner aircraft, which has beaten Airbus sales by two to one.27 The 787 is much lighter than any metal (steel) aircraft because the material used in half of its primary structure (including the engines and wings) are lighter composites, such as carbon fibre. This makes the 787 Dreamliner 20 per cent more fuel efficient than conventional aircraft with correspondingly lower CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, Virgin Atlantic Airlines demonstrated in 2008 that a Boeing 747 could fly on a fuel mixture consisting of up to 40 per cent biofuels.28 The biofuel used for this flight was made from coconut oil and has no prospects for mass production, but the characteristics of the biofuel were such that the biofuel did not freeze at –47°C, a necessity for any aviation fuel. For airlines, non-food biofuels seem like the only option over the coming decades to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Any airline that can develop a jet-grade biofuel will not only reduce carbon exposure dramatically, but also became financially independent of oil price rises, which erode financial viability. Wal-Mart is an institution in the United States and visiting a store is an experience in itself. Think of the biggest Bunnings Warehouse you have ever seen . . . then double it in size. Instead of being filled with hardware, picture that store filled with every item you could ever
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 188
26/2/09 10:19:01 PM
Carbon Economics • 189
imagine, from dog pillows to diamond rings and everything in between. The rise of the global Wal-Mart retail chain over the last two decades has been astronomical. There are over 7000 stores worldwide and nearly two million employees, and the company’s annual turnover was US$370 billion in 2007.29 The revenues of Wal-Mart total 50 per cent of Australia’s total GDP and if Wal-Mart were a country, it would rank alongside Norway as the 24th richest.30 Changes made by the CEO of Wal-Mart are equivalent to those decisions made by a leader of a medium-sized country. Wal-Mart accounts for a staggering 30 per cent of Chinese exports, valued at about US$32 billion in 2007.31 In 2007, Wal-Mart launched a particularly ambitious program called ‘Sustainability 360’, in which it attempted to cut energy use at its stores worldwide by 30 per cent and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent in seven years.32 In the next ten years it has set out to double the fuel efficiency of its 7000-vehicle trucking fleet, and cut waste and packaging by 25 per cent in three years. Wal-Mart’s long-term aspirational goal is for its operations to be powered by 100 per cent renewable energy and to generate zero net waste. Wal-Mart has 60,000 suppliers worldwide and it wants 20 per cent of those suppliers to be aligned with its sustainability goals within three years.33 The goods purchased by Wal-Mart from China have an enormous amount of greenhouse emissions embedded into their production because China uses a lot of coal-fired power generation. When a US$32 billion client tells you to clean up your act, it’s highly likely that you are going to listen pretty closely. Well before the introduction of any carbon tariffs, Wal-Mart is using its immense trading power
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 189
26/2/09 10:19:01 PM
190 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
to impose a ‘shadow carbon price’ on its Chinese suppliers.34 If Wal-Mart wants to get close to achieving its global greenhouse goals, every new investment or store across the world will need to be sourced from low-carbon electricity. Without national or international treaties it may well be that one of the most effective ways for the West to persuade China to actively shift towards a low-carbon economy is the incentive to keep Wal-Mart’s business. By achieving these greenhouse goals, Wal-Mart will unlock big cost savings, which have already been found in other large global corporations. British Petroleum (BP) is the fourth-largest company in the world, with annual revenues totalling US$300 billion in 2007.35 In 1997, BP became the first major oil company to set a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10 per cent of 1990 levels by the year 2010.36 Although initially not knowing exactly how it would attain this goal, BP achieved it by 2001 by replacing old infrastructure, repairing leaks, installing automated leak detection systems and developing new operational efficiencies across its entire oil and gas production network. By optimising its operations, BP cut both costs and greenhouse emissions. This greenhouse gas reduction program led to the unlocking of US$650 million in value, from a minimal investment.37 This program made economic sense, so the company has continued to invest in energy efficiency. It now estimates that the total economic savings generated since 1998 are more than US$1.6 billion, from an initial investment of less than US$170 million.38 Reducing greenhouse gas emissions actually generated a lot of money for BP, which has already invested in reducing the risks and costs of any future carbon liability.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 190
26/2/09 10:19:01 PM
Carbon Economics • 191
Many companies have put forward programs to reduce their carbon footprints and environmental impacts—but they often do so on the basis of corporate social responsibility, to give the appearance that they are doing something about climate change. But being green isn’t about public relations any more; it’s a core growth strategy for many smart businesses. Consultancy firm Lehman Brothers published a report on the business case for early action on climate change. Its main findings were: Firms that recognise the [low-carbon] challenge early, and respond imaginatively and constructively, will create opportunities for themselves and thereby prosper. Others, slower to realize what is going on or electing to ignore it, will likely do markedly less well.39
An update concludes that ‘share prices will increasingly be affected by environmental performance [carbon emissions]’.40 In mid-2008, an unlikely coalition of global corporations signed off on another business-oriented report about the opportunities offered by the transition towards a lowcarbon economy. Under the banner of USCAP (United States Climate Action Partnership), conglomerates such as Dow, Du Pont, PepsiCo, Xerox and BP concluded: In our view, the climate change challenge, like other challenges our country has confronted in the past, will create more economic opportunities than risks for the U.S. economy. Indeed, addressing climate change will require innovation and products that drive increased energy efficiency, creating new markets. This innovation will
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 191
26/2/09 10:19:01 PM
192 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
lead directly to increased U.S. competitiveness, as well as reduced reliance on energy from foreign sources.41
An equivalent organisation in Australia called the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change, which includes companies such as Westpac and IAG, had come to a similar conclusion two years earlier in its report, ‘The Business Case for Early Action’.42 Smart companies are already putting big resources towards getting a slice of that low-carbon money pie—just like Nokia did for mobile phone technology.
Knowing Your Carbon Worth How prepared are Australian companies for the low-carbon energy order? Producing carbon is a cost to a business—so cutting carbon has the potential to unlock savings. The difficulty is knowing where the carbon comes from and how to cut the costs of producing it. As Australia and the world start to value carbon, each business must become aware not only of how much carbon is being emitted but of where within its operations and supply chain this occurs. A recent PricewaterhouseCoopers survey of 303 of Australia’s top companies found that only 2 per cent of companies had a good understanding of their own carbon emissions, while 36 per cent had no understanding of their carbon emissions and therefore their exposure to a carbon price.43 Why is a knowledge of corporate greenhouse emissions important? Firstly, because companies must plan for the oncoming caps in their greenhouse gas emissions that will be imposed by the government by 2010, or plan for any
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 192
5/3/09 3:44:39 PM
Carbon Economics • 193
future energy shocks to parts of their business. But there is an even bigger reason for publicly listed companies to know their carbon footprints—investor uncertainty. Just as the share prices of oil-dependent airlines Qantas and Virgin Blue have been decimated in 2008 because of oil’s high price and future uncertainty, so carbon is an added risk for investors. If there is no understanding of the carbon footprint within a company, investors will start to speculate on its carbon exposure—the company’s vulnerability to climate-change regulations and the market shifts that result. For example, for a food and beverage company, this would entail knowing which material among its products emitted more carbon during production: aluminium cans, glass or plastic bottles? As the world starts to put a value on carbon emissions, companies will have to take a look at shifting towards the lowest carbon exposure possible among its products and supply chains. It may mean sourcing renewable energy for electricity or using carbon-neutral plastic—but such actions will give companies a head-start in the new world of low-carbon capitalism. The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) is an independent non-profit organisation that helps businesses disclose information about their greenhouse gas emissions in order to highlight the risks and opportunities, along with informing the market of each company’s carbon management strategies to reduce any future exposures. Each year the CDP asks the world’s largest corporations to disclose their carbon emissions and those from their supply chain. In 2002, the first year CDP sought this information, only 47 per cent of companies replied to the survey—but back then only 35 institutional investors worth US$4.5 trillion were interested
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 193
26/2/09 10:19:01 PM
194 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
in the results. The CDP recently got the backing of some big blue-chip investors such as HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs, and it now represents over 300 institutional investors with combined assets of US$57 trillion under management, including large Australian investors Catholic Super, AMP Capital, ANZ, NAB and Industry Fund Management. The response rate among the world’s largest 500 companies is now 77 per cent, with the majority of firms not only disclosing greenhouse gas emissions but disclosing active greenhouse reduction plans.44 If you are a publicly listed corporation there’s probably no quicker way to spur action than US$57 trillion pleading for your company’s carbon emission profile. This type of information is critical for businesses to find ways to reduce energy consumption and emissions. For example, Wal-Mart only found, through this CDP process, that the refrigerants in its stores produced more greenhouse gas emissions than its entire truck fleet.45 Most companies have a bipolar view of climate change: 82 per cent view climate change as an opportunity, while at the same time 79 per cent view climate change as a risk.46 Different sectors have varying degrees of climate and carbon exposure. However, businesses that understand where their emissions are coming from, whether in production or within the use of their products, will know the optimal way to reduce future carbon risks and capitalise on the opportunities as a global carbon price emerges throughout the world’s economy.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 194
26/2/09 10:19:01 PM
12 The Accidental Environmentalist The Accidental Environmentalist
M
y friends have quite a diverse set of views on how much they should contribute towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Most of them think we should do something about climate change, it’s just not a very high priority in relation to other things in their lives. Like most Australians, financial security always takes precedence, as you’d expect. But how can we convince Australians that a prosperous financial lifestyle can come about while contributing to a solution to climate change? How do we get the businesspeople, bankers and traders to become accidental environmentalists? A few years ago I came up with a seemingly obvious idea that I thought would reduce greenhouse gas emissions while making economic sense. There are over 17,600 taxis in Australia, making nearly 200 million trips each year.1 On average each taxi travels 155,000 kilometres annually, making running costs (especially fuel) the most important part of its business. The vast majority of Australian taxis are Ford Falcons, which use LPG instead of regular petrol. Why do they use LPG as opposed to petrol? There are large running-cost savings when using LPG for such high-use 195
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 195
26/2/09 10:19:01 PM
196 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
vehicles. A regular Ford Falcon uses about 14 litres of petrol per 100 kilometres, which equates to 21,700 litres of fuel each year at a cost of $30,380 if taking the petrol price to be $1.40 per litre. For LPG, the fuel economy is about 16 litres per 100 kilometres, but LPG costs just 64 cents per litre, which cuts the running costs down to $15,870— that’s nearly half the running costs of a regular Ford Falcon using petrol. The taxi industry switched to LPG a long time ago in light of this cost revelation. What about greenhouse emissions? Each litre of LPG used emits one-third less CO2 than regular unleaded petrol.2 Taking this into account from a greenhouse perspective, the regular Falcon emits 52,080 kilograms of CO2 each year, while the LPG version emits 39,680 kilograms. With over 17,600 taxis in Australia, this equates to a reduction in CO2 emissions of 220,000 tonnes each year. In 2003, Toyota launched the second-generation Prius hybrid vehicle, which is equivalent in size to the Ford Falcon and achieves a five-star safety rating according to the Australian New Car Assessment Program.3 The Prius has the best fuel economy of any vehicle on Australian roads— achieving a fuel economy of about 4.4 litres per 100 kilometres in city driving. If all taxis changed to Priuses, wouldn’t they be cheaper to run and save on CO2 emissions? I crunched some numbers. For the same conditions used above, the average Australian Prius taxi would consume 6820 litres of petrol at a cost of $9548. That is nearly 70 per cent less than the fuel costs of a petrol Falcon and 40 per cent less than those of the LPG Falcon. CO2 emissions for the Prius taxi were calculated to be 16,368 kilograms, which is a 68 per cent reduction from the petrol Falcon
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 196
26/2/09 10:19:01 PM
The Accidental Environmentalist • 197
and a 58 per cent reduction in emissions from the LPG taxi. Overall, converting the Australia-wide taxi fleet from LPG Falcons to Toyota Priuses would save $111 million on running costs and 410,000 tonnes of CO2 annually. The savings in running costs could then be partially transferred to make taxi fares a little cheaper. Not only that, but LPG taxi drivers would have to fill up at a service station three times before the Prius taxi ever entered a petrol station, for the same mileage. This means that the taxi driver would be more productive and could pick up more fares when using a Prius, and that’s on top of the large running-cost savings. I presented this simple business model for the ‘green taxi’ to a friend who loved it, not so much because of the greenhouse savings that would result, but because the running costs cuts and productivity gains would give the green taxi a big advantage over the current Falcon LPG fleet. He became an accidental environmentalist; it was the win–win scenario I was looking for—creating a model that would grow a business and cut greenhouse gas emissions. This sort of thing seems to be catching on overseas. All 13,000 of the famous yellow taxis of New York will be hybrid vehicles by the year 2012,4 while all Boston’s taxis will be hybrids by 2015.5 After a little research in Sydney, however, we quickly found out there was no way outsiders like us could introduce such a scheme into the highly regulated and protected taxi industry. Since then there have been a number of Prius taxi trials around Australia, so it may have a life after all in this country. Climate change is a moral challenge, since our actions have negative repercussions for the economic and environmental prosperity of future generations. To solve
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 197
26/2/09 10:19:01 PM
198 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
the problem, however, the issue of climate change must move into financial markets. It sounds abhorrent that we have to assign a monetary value to something in order to address it. However, for better or worse, governments don’t own the means of production of carbon emissions, whether it be cows, cars or power plants. Markets will have to be guided by legislation that makes low-carbon investments more attractive than dirty investments.
Dog Socks Versus Solar Capitalism is like chemotherapy: while doing good things, it also has some bad consequences. What are some of the good aspects of capitalism with respect to climate change? A strong market economy promotes technological innovation and efficiency, which drives down carbon costs. Just as a competitive market economy will produce cheaper fridges with more features, it could also drive better and cheaper climate-saving technologies. This low-carbon innovation can only present itself if the government intervenes in the market and allocates a price for carbon. After this government intervention, a refrigeration company like Fisher & Paykel will start to allocate resources towards developing fridges that lower energy running costs. Innovation is the biggest advantage for competitive market economies. What are the bad outcomes of capitalism in relation to climate change? It’s not so much what capitalism does but what it currently doesn’t do. If there is more profit to be made in making designer socks for dogs than building a solar thermal power plant, the dog socks will always win in a free market. The free market doesn’t discriminate
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 198
26/2/09 10:19:01 PM
The Accidental Environmentalist • 199
between the collective needs of solving global warming and an individual who wants Paris Hilton dressware for dogs. If the government does not value pollution, then unbridled capitalism will continue to produce bad outcomes, such as surging carbon emissions. Cutting smog pollution in our cities was achieved because the government raised fuel standards, converted public transport to cleaner fuels, and implicitly started to put a value on the cost of smog pollution coming out of the tailpipes of cars. Car manufacturers responded to this and were forced to innovate, design and build vehicles that produced less pollution. Capitalism inherently moves towards the lowest cost production without paying attention to any bad outcomes (like pollution) of this production on a larger scale. A purely capitalist economy, based solely on individual rights, must only lead to the destruction of a wider resource, thereby destroying any hope for the individual to use that resource in the future. The demise of Australia’s food bowl, the Murray–Darling basin, illustrates how individual maximisation can lead to the eventual collective collapse of a natural system. Individuals will always maximise outcomes to their favour—it’s human nature. But these individuals can’t see the collective damage, and will only start to address the system when it starts to fail. Government intervention is critical to ensure the collective good. But even with government intervention, we’re still left with the dog socks versus solar dilemma. Governments can’t legislate for investors to put their money in a solar-thermal start-up as opposed to a dog-sock factory. But governments can place a value on carbon, and then allow markets to find technological solutions to drive down
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 199
26/2/09 10:19:02 PM
200 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
the cost of carbon pollution. Because we live in a market economy, the problem of climate change can only be solved through a massive activation of capital markets towards clean-energy technologies and products. The only way the majority of companies will do that is if they can see adequate financial returns. We must find a way to make James Packer and Andrew Forrest into accidental environmentalists. If we get to the point where Gordon Gekko (the ruthless financier from the movie Wall Street) is putting his money in new clean technology start-up firms, then we are on the path to solving climate change. How do we lure the wealthy bankers and CEOs to be accidental environmentalists? In a capitalist-driven marketplace, we need to ‘show them the money’.* The global population currently emits about 50 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. Michael Molitor, a friend and colleague, uses simple arithmetic to highlight the potential capital market opportunity to cut greenhouse emissions and also lure accidental environmentalists. To limit CO2 concentrations to 450 parts per million, the world will need to avoid 600 billion tonnes of CO2 entering the atmosphere over the next fifty years. Assuming an average carbon price of $25 per tonne, that equates to a US$15 trillion opportunity. If we make the price a more realistic $40 per tonne, which is the price needed over that period to get anywhere near our goals, it means the capital market opportunity becomes US$30 trillion. That number should
* Taken from title of the first annual lecture at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, by adjunct professor Michael Molitor.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 200
26/2/09 10:19:02 PM
The Accidental Environmentalist • 201
be large enough for any capitalist to see the potential upside for them in combating climate change and moving to a clean economy. Even just a tiny slice of that enormous carbon pie should make any individual or company invest in solar thermal technology over a dog-sock factory. Dr Zhengrong Shi, the Chinese-Australian solar power engineer and entrepreneur, for example, had an estimated personal wealth from his commercialisation of solar photovoltaic technology in China of US$2.9 billion in 2008, making him among the top 400 richest people in the world, according to Forbes magazine.6 Dr Shi’s wealth illustrates that helping combat climate change is not independent of making money.
Clean Ventures In 2007, Sir Richard Branson of Virgin Atlantic Airlines put forward a US$25 million prize for the first group of scientists that can find a way to take 1 billion tonnes of CO2 out of the atmosphere every year. It seems like a lot of money. But some simple calculations demonstrate that this design would be worth way more in the real world than a miserly US$25 million. At a carbon price of US$20, that technology would be worth US$20 billion. Taking the more realistic long-term carbon price of U$40, the market in ten to twenty years’ time will value that technology at 1600 times the money put forward by Sir Richard. The group that comes up with this technology definitely won’t need Sir Richard’s reward, although it is a nice gesture. Science and technology are on the front line in the battle against global warming, given the scale of the carbon
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 201
26/2/09 10:19:02 PM
202 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
reductions needed over this century. However, scientific research and development costs money. The more capital investment there is, the greater likelihood of success. Venture capitalists invest money on the basis of good financial returns. John Doerr is one of those people. During the 1980s, Doerr became a partner in the firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB), which invested in a number of then unknown information technology companies, such as Netscape and Amazon. In 1999, KPCB was one of two venture capital firms to invest US$20 million for a substantial slice of ownership in a risky and unknown start-up firm called Google. Google was a late starter to the internet, coming in after search engines such as Lycos, Excite and HotBot. Yet today Google has nearly two-thirds of the global market share for internet searches, and the company is worth over US$200 billion.7 Not a bad investment for Doerr and his venture capital firm. The new sector of venture capital opportunities is in clean technology, and there have been promising trends over recent years. New clean-tech start-ups, ranging from those making ethanol from garbage to companies developing the next generation of battery storage devices, are now the new wealth-creating opportunities. The International Energy Agency, in its 2008 outlook, estimates that US$45 trillion of new investment will be needed up until 2050 to reduce greenhouse emissions to a level recommended by scientists.8 Doerr’s venture capital firm has raised US$1.2 billion and funded over 30 new and existing clean-technology companies.9 Doerr believes clean technology ‘is the largest economic opportunity of the 21st century, and a moral imperative’.10 New global investment in clean technology
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 202
26/2/09 10:19:02 PM
The Accidental Environmentalist • 203
was US$148 billion in 2007, surging 60 per cent from the previous year. 11 Although this figure is promising, investment in clean technology will need to be at ten times that level for deep carbon reductions to be realised.
Australian Ventures In the 1990s, David Mills from the University of Sydney was developing a kind of solar power, which instead of using silicon panels to convert sunlight into electricity (which is inefficient), used big mirror reflectors. These reflectors concentrate sunlight, generating high temperatures which are used to convert water to steam, which then drives a turbine to generate electricity. Mills perfected his solar thermal design and formed the company Solar Heat and Power Pty Ltd in 2002 to commercialise the technology. After five years, and a recalcitrant political environment in Australia, Mills went to the United States, picked up US$40 million from the same venture capitalists who originally funded Google, and the company is now called Ausra.12 Ausra is building a 177 megawatt solar thermal power plant in central California, with another 1000 megawatts over five years.13 Most wind and solar plants today cannot run 24 hours a day over a year. When the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow there is no electricity generated. But when there is blazing sun and windy conditions, they produce excess energy, which most of the time is wasted. New ways of storing this excess energy are coming onto the market, providing an enormous opportunity to make both wind and solar plants capable of running 24/7. The CSIRO has
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 203
26/2/09 10:19:02 PM
204 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
developed an ultra-efficient battery, which has potential important use as a way to regulate and store energy from wind or solar energy plants.14 This storage device integrates a supercapacitor with a lead-acid battery to produce a highpower discharge and charge with a long, low-cost life. This technology is expected to provide 50 per cent more power output and last three times longer than its conventional lead-acid-only counterparts. A venture capitalist has raised capital to commercialise this technology in a company called Smart Storage Devices.15 Another Australian-developed battery, called the vanadium bromide redox battery, was developed at the University of New South Wales. With the help of venture capital a new company called V-fuel hopes to commercialise and expand this technology. 16 New investment in wind power has grown by 250 per cent and solar has grown by 450 per cent since 2003.17 Any new storage technology that solves the problem of supplying energy when either the wind doesn’t blow or the sun is down will potentially make a fortune for the new clean capitalists. Imposing a strong and broad carbon price in the Australian economy will drive new innovative climatechange-solving start-ups. A Melbourne-based company has designed electronic technology for street lamps and highpowered lights in football stadiums that cuts energy use by up to 25 per cent simply by varying the supply of power without changing the output of light. Given the massive energy use of street lighting and football fields and stadiums that require powerful night lights, this technology, developed by the company Active Reactor, will be very attractive.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 204
26/2/09 10:19:02 PM
The Accidental Environmentalist • 205
In Australia since 1999, about $20 million in private venture capital has been invested in various clean technologies, including geothermal, biofuels and wave power.18 Superannuation funds are the largest source of clean-tech capital in Australia, but are particularly riskaverse. Up until 2007, Australian clean-tech venture capital has not followed the trends in the United States, Europe and Canada. When accounting for different levels of GDP, Australian clean-tech venture capital is just 35 per cent of Canada’s and half that of the United States.19 In the United States and Europe, about 10 to 14 per cent of venture capital moved into clean-tech in this period, while in Australia it was only 2 per cent.20 For Australia to forge ahead and benefit from the clean industrial revolution, this investment needs to grow ten-fold. There is a massive untapped amount of capital in Australia’s superannuation funds. Although you may not hold shares directly, your superannuation fund does. Superannuation funds in Australia have $1.18 trillion of assets under management,21 the highest assets per capita of any nation.22 Australian superfunds, and those who manage their portfolios and assets, are shifting their investments towards lower carbon ventures in order to lower their exposure to high-carbon power generation assets. In an illustration of this recent trend, Australian Fund Management, one of the largest infrastructure investors, has purchased from Con Edison a portfolio of five US-based power generating facilities fired by natural gas and hydro worth US$1.5 billion.23 Low-carbon ventures will start to become more and more attractive to large institutional investors seeking to lower their funds’ carbon exposure in a world that is constraining carbon emissions.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 205
26/2/09 10:19:02 PM
206 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
Not Just the Big End of Town Don’t think the low-carbon economic opportunities are the sole domain of multinational corporations and large wealthy investors—far from it. Penrith Leagues Club in Sydney is more than a clubhouse for the Penrith Panthers rugby league team—it is the southern hemisphere’s largest and most successful licensed club. Millions of visitors a year pack into its numerous bars, restaurants and gaming rooms, which are open to members 24 hours a day. With all the bright lights and air-conditioners it is a very energyintensive operation, with an annual electricity bill of $1 million. The club has invested $810,000 in energy-saving measures, which has resulted in cutting electricity costs by $287,000 a year, and achieving a 35 per cent return on investment within a payback period of less than three years.24 The resulting reductions in greenhouse gas emissions have been 3300 tonnes per year. From a business perspective, the energy savings are well worth the initial investment— but with a carbon price nearing introduction in the Australian economy, those carbon savings will be worth tens of thousands of dollars. If the carbon price is $20 per tonne then the Panthers retrofit will be worth $66,000 or if it is $40 per tonne it’ll be worth $132,000 in the carbon market. Although the Panthers club may not need carbon permits like energy or industry, those carbon savings act in a similar way. There will be many companies, such as brown coal energy producers or aluminium smelters, that won’t be able to reduce emissions quickly enough within the first couple of years and will have to buy carbon savings from other companies. This means a big energy company
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 206
26/2/09 10:19:02 PM
The Accidental Environmentalist • 207
could start to invest in energy efficiency projects, like that undertaken at Panthers, in order to achieve the carbon reductions necessary under the scheme. These companies will be investing in the cheapest forms of carbon savings across the economy—energy efficiency—before eventually investing in clean power supply for their businesses. CO2 will be a new commodity and some companies will not be able to reduce their emissions in the amount of time allocated, so for these companies investing in carbon offsets is an option. A carbon offset can be purchased by an individual or business to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Offsetting is particularly useful when a given activity (such as car or airplane travel) has, as yet, no low-carbon alternative. For example, if I take a Virgin Blue flight from Sydney to Brisbane, I can select to offset the 90 kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions produced during that flight by paying $1.40 to the airline. They then pay that money to one of a number of accredited companies that invest in carbon reduction schemes, whether it be planting of native Mallee eucalypt trees on degraded rural land or recovering methane gas from landfills. Upon the introduction of a carbon price within the economy, the mandatory carbon offsets market will grow significantly among certain greenhouse intensive industries, allowing them some breathing space to find more permanent ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions within their own operations. Some companies may even invest in your home or business to lower their greenhouse emissions. Retrofitting buildings and homes with insulation, efficient lighting and better ventilation is a very cost effective way to lower energy demand and therefore carbon emissions.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 207
26/2/09 10:19:02 PM
208 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
Carbon-intensive industries may fund your entire home or business retrofit to make it energy efficient, as long as the carbon savings are allocated to them. Depending on the capital costs, the carbon price and the potential savings, this type of carbon banking may be the cheapest way for some energy-intensive carbon polluters to reduce their emissions under an emissions trading scheme—especially if the carbon price is high. But the prerequisite for any of this investment is a carbon price. Without setting a strong carbon signal within the market, there is no incentive for companies to actively invest billions of dollars towards low-carbon activites. And only a limited opportunity for James Packer to become an accidental environmentalist.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 208
26/2/09 10:19:02 PM
13 More Jobs in Clean than Dirty More Jobs in Clean than Dirty
E
ach year the Lowy Institute, a respected Australian think-tank, conducts a broad annual survey in which Australians are asked to list their biggest worries about the outside world. Understandably, Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism were high up on their list in 2007—but climate change was found to be their biggest worry.1 When asked to rate the importance of the government’s foreign policy goals, protecting Australian workers and combating climate change were both rated equally as the most important objectives by the respondents by a wide margin.2 Many commentators would have you believe that protecting Australian jobs and combating climate change can’t occur together—it’s either one or the other. Putting a price on carbon will push production offshore to developing nations where there isn’t a carbon price yet, so the argument goes. Although some jobs in some sectors may be unprotectable, combating climate change and promoting the clean industrial revolution will offer more potential to grow new jobs in all sorts of industries, jobs that can’t be outsourced to countries with cheaper labour costs, which has occurred over the past couple of decades. 209
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 209
26/2/09 10:19:02 PM
210 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
The ‘Unflat’ World of Clean Technology In his wonderful book The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman takes us through some of the prospects and opportunities of the new 21st-century global economy.3 The opening up of old state-run economies after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the advent of multinational corporations, global outsourcing of manufacturing, lower trade barriers and instant global internet communication are levelling the playing field for all nations to become competitive. Someone in Fiji can set up an online store that sells goods that are shipped around the world. In this flat world, the historical and geographical divisions of the twentieth century become irrelevant and any country can gain a competitive edge. But this is not a fait accompli. Although a ‘Made in China’ label is found on nearly all clothing or electronics in your local Target or K-Mart, you’ll rarely find it on life-saving equipment in hospitals or in the technology used in an airport’s air traffic control tower. If a toaster breaks or falls apart, then it’s not a big deal, but if your brakes fail or life-support systems shut down, then people die. Although Friedman’s ‘flat world’ is occurring among low-value, low-quality goods, there is still a very ‘unflat’ world for innovative developed nations to produce and export high-quality goods. Combating climate change will require a new clean industrial revolution, which will provide an opportunity for nations like Australia to benefit from the burgeoning new markets and job growth that accompanies it. When my wife was pregnant with our first child, I remember vividly the exhilarating feeling of having the initial ultrasound scan at hospital. As the imaging specialist
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 210
26/2/09 10:19:02 PM
More Jobs in Clean than Dirty • 211
was getting ready to do the scan I looked around the room at the sea of high-tech instruments, probes, machines and displays. I noticed that all of these complex technologies in the lab came from the company General Electric (GE). The technician was using a LOGIQ advanced ultrasoundimaging machine that costs $30,000. Some mothers-to-be can even get a 3D image of their baby using the $750,000 Voluson 3D/4D ultrasound machine—also developed and manufactured by GE. General Electric is a massive conglomerate with a healthcare division that makes different types of medical instruments and technologies, from portable X-ray machines to $2 million CT scanners used for disease diagnosis—generating US$17 billion in sales each year.4 Virtually all the high-tech, high-quality medical equipment is manufactured in factories in the United States or Europe.5 GE manufactures its medical products mostly in the developed world rather than China so as to be close to the high-skilled designers, engineers and production workers who can rapidly and easily innovate its production lines. GE Healthcare is continually adding to its American medical manufacturing division; a recent addition was a digital X-ray detector plant in New York.6 High-tech medical manufacturing is bucking the general trend of outsourcing manufacturing production to lowcost labour nations. Like GE Healthcare, Cochlear, an Australian technology company, has developed an innovation-led business model perfectly suited to the 21st century. Cochlear is the global leader in implantable hearing aids and has a 70 per cent market share, employs 1700 people and exports to over 90 countries.7 Cochlear’s original ‘Nucleus’ design was
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 211
26/2/09 10:19:02 PM
212 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
implanted into patients in the mid-1980s; over 90,000 patients have received a Cochlear implant since then. But there have been considerable technological advances on the original design, including smaller microprocessors, enhanced stimulation and intricate speech-processing technology. In 2005, the fourth-generation Cochlear implant and speechprocessing technology were released.8 Like Cochlear implants or CT scanners, the most cutting-edge clean technologies are almost exclusively developed in innovative parts of the world. Clean-tech isn’t just wind and solar technologies but covers a range of technological innovations, including advanced batteries for energy storage, super-conductors for transmission lines, solar thermal systems and the development of purely electric vehicles. Clean technology is not about building bigger oil platforms or shovels; these things can be built anywhere. Rather, clean technology is built upon a basis of scientific and technological inventiveness and excellence. Nations that have an innovative capacity and a history of scientific intellectual capital will be those that will provide the platform and benefits in the global shift to a low-carbon economy. Cochlear has found that Australian innovation can grow a world-class company even in a world that copies and outsources manufacturing to cheap labour regions. A future clean-technology industry in Australia would ideally create numerous Cochlearstyle clean-technology companies in order to specialise in developing and manufacturing the cutting-edge climatechange-solving products required to forge the new clean industrial revolution.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 212
26/2/09 10:19:02 PM
More Jobs in Clean than Dirty • 213
A Green-collared Economy During the 2008 US presidential primaries, Democratic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton constantly talked about creating ‘green-collar’ jobs in America. It’s not blue-collar or white-collar, so what exactly is a green-collar job? It’s broadly defined as a job that reduces waste and pollution in some form or capacity and a job that can’t easily be outsourced to China or India.9 The green-collar worker could be a steel worker making advanced wind turbines, a construction worker refurbishing a building for energy efficiency, an electrical engineer fitting a new smart energy transmission grid, an assembly worker putting together advanced batteries for electric cars or a forklift driver in a metal recycling plant. In 2008, the CSIRO, in conjunction with Allen consultancy, released a report entitled ‘Growing the Green Collar Economy’ in which they used an economic model to estimate employment growth if Australia reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by between 60 and 100 per cent by 2050.10 They found that employment would grow by 28 to 34 per cent with the addition of between 2.5 and 3.3 million new jobs by the year 2025.11 A 2006 study commissioned by the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change found there would be hundreds of thousands of new jobs created if early action on carbon emissions was taken, as opposed to being delayed.12 Delaying action on climate change would in itself ship potential job opportunities to other countries that have taken early action. There are some 390,000 jobs in the clean-energy sector in the United States, even without including the employment
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 213
26/2/09 10:19:03 PM
214 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
from corn-based ethanol.13 Australia’s low-carbon economy will need hundreds of thousands of hands-on permanent jobs to build and maintain. Our current electricity grid will need a big overhaul in order to tap the cleanest and cheapest source of electricity on offer in the vast Australian interior. Retrofitting buildings and homes for insulation, solar panels, sensor lighting and automated ventilation controls will require many hands. Australia’s 150,000 new buildings each year14 and nine million existing buildings15 equate to millions of potential energy-efficient refurbishments, which will require millions of people to inspect and retrofit. The good thing about energy efficiency refurbishments is that the work can’t be outsourced overseas—it has to be done here in Australia because that’s where the building is located. A carbon price in the economy will drive efficiency measures and boost construction and builders to not only work on new buildings, but also the inefficient buildings built long ago. A national campaign of investing in energy efficiency in homes and other buildings is one of the most important elements in making the transition to a low-carbon economy for Australia. Most studies show that energy efficiency has a triple dividend: it lowers carbon emissions, increases economic savings and grows employment.16 In its report on mitigation, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests that ‘most studies agree that energyefficiency will have positive effects on employment, directly by creating new business opportunities and indirectly through the economic multiplier effects of spending the money saved on energy costs in other ways’.17 The European Commission suggests that more than 2000 full-time jobs
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 214
26/2/09 10:19:03 PM
More Jobs in Clean than Dirty • 215
could be created for each million tonnes of oil-equivalent energy saved by energy efficiency measures.18 The EC compared this to jobs created by capital investment in new energy production, and suggested that energy efficiency creates three to four times the level of employment as an equivalent investment in a new coal-fired power station. Other areas within the green-collar economy have a large potential to boost employment. Recycling of aluminium, glass and paper requires a lot of work; collecting, separating, transporting, melting and distributing. Recycling is performed in over 60 countries, employing over 1.5 million people—and that’s not even including the jobs counted in community recycling and composting programs. 19 Recycling is a relatively new industry that has sprung up over the past two decades. Just like the recycling industry, moving towards a cleanenergy economy will grow employment in new areas of the economy. Using fossil fuels for energy generation has a large fuel cost component, in contrast to the free fuel with renewable energy generation by wind, sun, geothermal, tides or waves. This means renewable energy costs are mostly driven by capital expenditure and labour costs rather than fluctuations in fuel costs. It has been found that renewable energy requires two to three times more people for operation than an equivalent coal-based energy project.20 It’s easy to see how clean energy offers greater domestic job growth when doing a simple comparison between Denmark’s wind industry and the New South Wales coal industry. Denmark has a smaller population (about 5.5 million) and economy than New South Wales (population, about 7 million). For
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 215
5/3/09 3:44:56 PM
216 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
New South Wales, coal provides over 90 per cent of electricity supply, whereas wind provides Denmark with 20 per cent of its electricity. The New South Wales coal industry directly employs 11,000 people.21 Denmark manufactures half the world’s wind turbines with a wind industry employing 20,000 people.22 Despite Denmark having a smaller economy and population, the Danish wind industry employs nearly double that of the New South Wales coal industry. Wind power manufacturing is also expanding globally to regions of high demand. Denmark’s largest wind turbine company, Vestas, has just built its first wind turbine blade factory in North America, in the state of Colorado. The 38,000 square metre plant will produce 1800 giant wind blades a year and employ 650 people permanently.23 Those who think dirty, old energy has greater employment prospects than the clean, new kind should also take a look at Germany. German clean-energy generation (wind, solar, biomass, hydro, geothermal) makes up 14 per cent of the country’s energy supply,24 and the goal is to make clean energy the source of half of Germany’s needs by 2050. Clean energy already makes up 5 per cent of German GDP, with sales of over US$40 billion in 2006.25 Over 55 solar companies have been set up and nearly 250,000 jobs have been created in the renewable energy industry—90,000 of them since 2004.26 The government are projecting that Germany’s clean-energy sector will employ 400,000 people by 2020.27 To get to this level the German government will need to lure a lot of foreign investment. Arise Technologies is a solar photovoltaic company based in Ontario, Canada. In 2006, the German government
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 216
26/2/09 10:19:03 PM
More Jobs in Clean than Dirty • 217
offered the company a multimillion-dollar grant to build its manufacturing facilities in Germany. Within two years this company was manufacturing solar cells in a factory in Berlin. The Germany agency, Invest in Germany, has been particularly successful at luring clean-tech companies, with firms such as Shell Solar, EverQ, First Solar, Nanosolar and Signet Solar all building factories in Germany and creating thousands of jobs.28 Ontario, once the manufacturing heartland of Canada, seems to have taken on Germany’s zeal in trying to lure new clean-tech firms to build a new manufacturing hub for North America. The Ontario government recently unveiled the Next Generation Jobs Fund, which has made over C$650 million available to companies looking to invest in the development of clean cars, clean fuels, and clean technologies and products. According to Ontario Premier Dalton McGinty, ‘with the world looking for innovative ways to conserve energy and fight global warming, some place is going to secure thousands of jobs by researching and developing new solutions, and we want that place to be Ontario’.29 It seems to be working, as now a German wind turbine manufacturer, Multibrid GmbH, has been lured to Ontario to make it its North American manufacturing hub.30 To create a new domestic industry such as clean technology there needs to be a thriving domestic market. In the early millennium, Vestas, the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturer, predicted a big demand for wind power in the windy southern part of Australia. In 2002, Vestas built a wind turbine manufacturing facility in Burnie after Hydro Tasmania commissioned the company to supply the Woolnorth wind farm in northeastern Tasmania. With
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 217
26/2/09 10:19:03 PM
218 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
65 permanent jobs at the facility, Vestas made the investment on the assumption that the Australian federal government would boost renewable energy sources such as wind, based on the very large potential capacity for wind power in southern Australia. However, the clean-energy boost never came and the industry was left without support or viable domestic demand. In 2006, Vestas dismantled the wind turbine plant in Tasmania.31 What about solar power? BP has had a solar division in Australia for a number of years—but it was the Sydney Olympics that gave the company a boost. In 2000, it moved to a new manufacturing facility at Sydney Olympic Park in Homebush to build the hundreds of solar panels to be used around the Olympic site. In 2002, it expanded the solar manufacturing plant and now employs 300 people and at least another 600 in the supply and value chain.32 Of its production, nearly 70 to 80 per cent is exported to Asia. Nine different companies in Australia, currently employing 300 people, manufacture 65,000 solar hot-water heaters. Nearly 40 per cent of these systems are exported, and employment is expected to grow to 2500 if manufacturing capacity increases to 400,000 units per year.33 To make sure these types of manufacturers don’t move their factories overseas, a strong domestic market must be in place. A carbon price within the Australian economy will help clean technology get a foothold in Australia. However, Germany and Denmark created a booming clean technology sector well before the European Emissions Trading Scheme because of direct government support and incentives for research and development and initiatives such as feed-intariffs. Australia’s clean-energy target of 20 per cent by
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 218
26/2/09 10:19:03 PM
More Jobs in Clean than Dirty • 219
2020 will most likely be more effective than waiting for a carbon price to take effect. But the biggest thing needed now is research and development to really drive down the cost of these traditional renewable technologies and make sure Australia commercialises and exports the new generation of low-carbon technologies such as carbon capture and storage, biomass technology, advanced biofuels, and geothermal and wave power.
Low-carbon Manufacturing Renewal In the early 1960s, agriculture and manufacturing contributed half of Australia’s total national income.34 Today, agriculture contributes about 4 per cent and manufacturing about 11 per cent to Australia’s income. Mining and resources account for only 7 per cent of total national income, despite the recent ‘mining boom’.35 The other three-quarters of national income comes from services and information36 which includes things like hospitality, tourism, banking and finance, marketing, information technology, engineering and health services. Australia, along with the entire developed world, has moved from an agricultural- and industrial-dominated economy to a services- and information-dominated economy.37 The lowwage giants in Asia and Australia’s rising manufacturing productivity have driven manufacturing to its lowest levels of contribution to the economy.38 Between 1975 and 2002, manufacturing had the slowest annual growth rate among 17 broad industry divisions, growing by just 1.7 per cent, in comparison to the economy at 3.3 per cent. Employment levels roughly follow the same pattern in relation to the
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 219
26/2/09 10:19:03 PM
220 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
proportion of GDP, with services maintaining over 80 per cent of employment, while manufacturing is at 10 per cent. In the last ten years, over 90,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.39 The rise of China, with its immense potential for lowcost production, sent a structural shockwave through Australia’s manufacturing sector. As the global economy started to open up and trade barriers were lowered, manufacturing was hit with a challenge. Textile and clothing manufacturing lost 17,000 jobs between 2001 and 2005,40 while machinery and equipment manufacturing grew 25,000 jobs over the same period. Like Cochlear implants and medical technologies, China can’t compete with high-value, high-quality goods made in Australia. Across the world, companies are forging ahead in the clean-tech market. Siemens is a massive German engineering company that specialises in industry, energy and healthcare technologies. In 2007, over 250 engineers and a further 500 production workers rolled out the world’s biggest and most efficient gas turbine for electricity generation.41 Manufactured in Berlin, the turbine has an output equivalent to 13 jumbo jet engines and is capable of producing enough electricity for a town of two million people. Natural gas turbines produce electricity with well under half the greenhouse gas emissions of an equivalent coal-fired power station. Despite Germany’s large coal reserves, natural gas turbines have become the ‘default option’ for new power stations in Europe because of the much lower carbon emissions.42 The shift from old coal to natural gas will be one of the important ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 220
26/2/09 10:19:03 PM
More Jobs in Clean than Dirty • 221
over the coming decade. The Siemens plant in Germany has produced 550 turbines for customers from Saudia Arabia to Australia and will continue to grow in a carbonconstrained world. General Electric wants to sell US$25 billion of lowcarbon products such as portable solar panels and compact fluorescent light bulbs by 2010, while both GE and Siemens are expanding their carbon-neutral energy technologies such as wind turbines, fuel cells and hydro-powered turbines. Siemens is expanding its wind manufacturing activities within the United States due to thriving local demand with new multimillion-dollar wind turbine factories in separate locations in the state of Illinois.43 The newest plant will open in 2009 and will create 355 permanent jobs in the area.44 Siemens have gone even further and developed technological solutions for business through energy efficiency services. A suite of intelligent building automation systems for lighting and air-conditioning have been developed, which can cut energy use in commercial buildings by up to 30 per cent. To grow their clean-tech prospects, these engineering companies have been investing heavily in research and development in order to maintain their innovative edge. GE has already invested more than US$2.5 billion in clean-technology research and development and will be investing US$1.5 billion annually in R&D by 2010.45 Both GE and Siemens are pursuing the huge climate-change market, which ideally plays right into their innovation bottom lines. Australia has no behemoths like GE or Siemens, but thousands of small engineering and design companies should thrive in the new clean, low-carbon economy. Solar
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 221
26/2/09 10:19:03 PM
222 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
Systems is one of those companies. Founded in 1991, the company has worked on developing solar concentrator dishes that could be used on high-performance photovoltaic panels for greater power output. After putting $50 million into research and development, and building four small separate demonstration sites for the solar concentrator photovoltaic technology, the company was awarded a $420 million project in 2007 to build a 154 megawatt solar power station in north-west Victoria by 2013.46 A field of 20,000 mirrors will concentrate the power of sunlight by 500 times onto high-performance solar cells, with each cell generating 1500 times more power than a typical rooftop solar panel. The construction will also generate 950 temporary and 44 permanent jobs to maintain the site. With the 20,000 mirrors, 246 receivers and nearly 63,000 solar panel modules, there is a lot of high-tech manufacturing involved. The company has established a Melbourne-based manufacturing plant to facilitate this. The company estimates that by 2030 up to $8 billion of these solar power stations could be rolled out across Australia with a total capacity of 5000 megawatts, generating more than 10,000 new jobs in manufacturing and construction, and 1870 permanent jobs in maintenance and operation.47 Combating climate change will create new markets for innovative products. This innovation, if boosted, will lead directly to increased Australian competitiveness and skilled domestic employment. The new jobs created by shifting Australia to a low-carbon economy aren’t just for engineers, designers and innovators. The bulk of the work is actually concentrated in manufacturing, construction and building—so will already tap into the skills found within
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 222
26/2/09 10:19:03 PM
More Jobs in Clean than Dirty • 223
our people instead of needing millions of dollars to re-skill workers. In a small town in Pennsylvania, an old steel plant that employed thousands has been transformed into three wind turbine factories that employ 1300.48 There is no reason that this low-carbon manufacturing renewal can’t occur in old steel towns like Whyalla in South Australia or Newcastle in New South Wales. The estimated wind resources in New South Wales have the capacity to generate 1000 megawatts of energy, whereas there is currently only 17 megawatts installed.49 Up to 6000 additional jobs could be created in just wind and solar manufacturing over the next decade.50 Towns like Whyalla and Newcastle may thrive with new clean manufacturing industries. China has been blamed for much of Australia’s manufacturing decline over the past decade, but in some sectors there is more to it than cheap Asian labour. Bad strategic decisions by companies have definitely not helped the cause. Australia’s car manufacturers have been dying a slow death. According to the ABS, car manufacturing and components employed nearly 80,000 in 2004.51 Since then, however, production has been decimated and nearly 8000 jobs have been lost.52 In 2004, Mitsubishi Australia’s engine assembly plant at Lonsdale in Adelaide’s south was shut down, resulting in 700 job losses,53 which were coupled with closures across the world from the lone Japanese maker of fuel-guzzling cars.54 In 2002, a global survey of the top car manufacturers showed that 58 per cent of consumers rated fuel economy as an important criterion for choosing a car. In 2007, that figure reached 89 per cent and fuel economy was by far the number-one factor influencing people’s choice of car. KPMG, the consultancy firm that conducted
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 223
26/2/09 10:19:03 PM
224 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
the survey, called this a ‘tectonic shift’.55 Mitsubishi was manufacturing a V6 380 sedan in Australia, which, given the record oil prices and emerging carbon price, seems like a project the market would hardly respond to. Holden, which is owned by General Motors, spent $400 million on a V6 engine plant in Melbourne which started up in 2003.56 From Mitsubishi to Holden to Ford,production has been cut and thousands of jobs lost over the last four years.57 Australian car manufacturing has attracted fuel-guzzling vehicle varieties because Australia still has cheap petrol in comparison to other parts of the developed world. If they don’t adapt, Australian car-makers will continue to have an uncertain future in a world of record oil prices and a future carbon constraint. The only Australian car manufacturer not to go through pain is Toyota, whose Altona plant in Melbourne builds the very popular four-cylinder Camry. According to the government’s fuel economy guide, the manual-drive Toyota Camry has a fuel economy of 9 litres per 100 kilometres, while the Holden VE Commodore series and Mitsubishi 380 get about 11 litres per 100 kilometres.58 An Australian family can get 20 per cent better fuel efficiency from a Camry than others cars, so it’s no wonder Toyota is more economically sustainable. The growth in fuel-efficient vehicles is already surging and will continue to do so as a carbon price is imposed on the Australian economy. Toyota has picked the Melbourne Altona factory to produce its new hybrid Camry, with an expected production of 10,000 cars by 2010.59 Australia’s car industry is dependent on cars that are not the way of the future. Petrol-guzzling V6 vehicles, while still in demand, have such a poor fuel economy that for
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 224
26/2/09 10:19:03 PM
More Jobs in Clean than Dirty • 225
the broader market they have little long-term future unless something radical happens to oil supply and climate change. Low-wage competition and outsourcing has nothing to do with the demise of Holden, Mitsubishi and Ford car manufacturing in Australia, just bad strategies coming down from the boardroom—from which no job can ever be protected. When the strategies of car manufacturers prove to be horribly misguided, government should step in. The federal Labor government has put forward a $500 million green car fund, which will attempt to resurrect Australia’s car manufacturing industry so that it produces what that the world wants—fuel-efficient and low-carbon vehicles.60 The car market will continue to grow, and each nation will be in competition to obtain that market—it’s now a matter of who provides the best fuel-efficient and innovative framework for achieving it. As the world moves away from conventional oil, the car will move towards next-generation biofuels and highperformance batteries that can be easily charged. By 2030, the cars on the road will most likely be a combination of hybrids with biofuels or LPG and electric vehicles. The future of the car industry is going to be totally transformed over the next two decades. There’s been a mad rush by car manufacturers to produce wholly or partially electric motor vehicles with battery packs within the cars the primary energy source. Some predict there will be about 3 billion cars by the middle of this century. If half of those have a battery built in, it means there will be billions of highperformance batteries that will need to be made. According to the World Bank, biofuels require about 100 times more workers per joule of energy content
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 225
26/2/09 10:19:03 PM
226 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
produced than the fossil-fuel industry.61 Biofuel employment is very dependent on the types of feedstock. Brazil’s sugarcane ethanol industry employs half a million people, with rural and regional agricultural communities the largest beneficiaries. One of the first plants in the world producing cellulosic ethanol is being constructed in Harwood, on the north coast of New South Wales, by Ethtec. This type of ethanol will be produced from a non-food source: leftover wood fibres. Advanced biofuel production is something that could provide thousands of rural and regional jobs in the future. The CSIRO conducted a study on the job impact of a new medium-capacity biofuel plant in New South Wales and showed there would be 150 jobs during construction of the plant and up to 350 permanent direct and indirect jobs during operation.62 Sugar producer CSR produces 32 million litres of ethanol from molasses (a low value by-product of sugar harvesting) at its Carina plant near Mackay in Queensland. The CSIRO reports that this plant has created over 250 permanent jobs and added $7.7 million to household income in the region.63 • Certain sectors of the economy provide more jobs than others. For example, the world’s biggest corporation, Exxon Mobil, employs 88,000 people, while the world’s second biggest, Wal-Mart, employs 1.7 million people. Given the vastly different employment capacities of various companies and sectors, it always perplexes me when some politician so forthrightly argues that deep reductions in emissions will cost Australia jobs. Boosting Cochlear-style clean
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 226
26/2/09 10:19:03 PM
More Jobs in Clean than Dirty • 227
technology companies in Australia will, to some extent, erode job growth in the coal industry. But if Australia loses one job in the coal industry but creates two new jobs in the clean-energy sector, then how can that be said to be a bad thing? Even more importantly, as discussed previously, Australia’s coal industry is far more dependent on actions taken by foreign nations, as 80 per cent of Australian coal is exported. The Australian coal industry is utterly vulnerable to the global shifts away from coal, which must come about in the coming decades if places such as Japan and Europe have any chance of achieving their greenhouse gas reduction targets. Instead of political rhetoric, shouldn’t Australian politicians be looking to new job creation in future growth industries like clean technology? An unfortunate truth is that in a market economy that is deeply linked to changes within global forces, there is no sector that can be completely protected forever. All types of businesses around Australia fold due to a variety of reasons, while new businesses emerge; it is the basis for a creative and dynamic economy. Those politicians who say they want to protect coal jobs by not reducing greenhouse gas emissions are doing a disservice to the very industry they seek to protect. Not only that, but they are also forgoing the massive potential for new job growth in the broader Australian economy by not fostering a vibrant domestic clean-technology sector in Australia. Peering into the future global energy economy, the viability of Australia’s high-carbon resources (in particular coal) and manufacturing are at a crossroads. To assure long-term prosperity, the question needs to be asked: what are the goods most relevant to Australian skills and what
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 227
26/2/09 10:19:03 PM
228 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
are the goods that will be needed this century for a world combating climate change and moving away from oil? Inefficient products and carbon-intensive resources are finite, whereas clean technologies built and designed by Australian innovation, rather than just by simply digging up the ground, are not. The key for an Australian clean-tech industry is innovation that will build upon the initial discoveries and adapt to the global market’s needs. If Australia sets strong greenhouse gas emission targets and invests in unleashing clean-technology innovation, not only will Australia help the world as it makes the transition towards a low-carbon development pathway to solve climate change, it will bring new prosperity and employment growth to a country desperately needing economic reform in its energy economy.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 228
26/2/09 10:19:03 PM
Notes Notes
Introduction 1 Harry Winston/Aber Diamond Corporation, Annual Report 2007, Toronto, 2007. The actual cost is listed as US$16.2 million, or roughly A$20 million. 2 IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Working Group I Synthesis Report, Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2007. 3 DeBeers, Snap Lake Project Factsheet, 2008, available from: www. debeerscanada.com/files_2/snap_lake/factsheet.html. 4 ‘Howard has no plans to meet Al Gore’, Sydney Morning Herald, 10 September 2006.
Chapter 1 The Blind Threat 1 CSIRO, Climate Change in Australia—Technical Report 2007, CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, Canberra, 2007; IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Working Group I, Synthesis Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, 2007. 2 IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Working Group I, Synthesis Report. 3 K. Lambeck and J. Chappell, ‘Sea level change through the last glacial cycle’, Science, no. 292, 2001, pp. 681–5; Y. Yokoyama et al., ‘Shore-line reconstruction around Australia during the Last Glacial Maximum and Late Glacial Stage’, Quaternary International, no. 83, 2001, pp. 9–18. 4 M. Raupach et al., ‘Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions’, Proceedings of the National Academcy of the United States of America, 2007; S. Rahmstorf et al., ‘Recent climate observations compared to projections’, Science, vol. 316. no. 5825, 2007, pp. 709–9. 229
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 229
26/2/09 10:19:03 PM
230 • The Clean Industrial Revolution 5 IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Working Group I, Synthesis Report. 6 D.R. Williams, Planetary Fact Sheet: Table, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Maryland, USA, 2007, website: llnssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ planteray/factsheet/index.html. 7 ibid. 8 IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Working Group I, Synthesis Report. 9 ibid. 10 ibid. 11 K.M. Campbell et al., The Age of Consequences: The foreign policy and national security implications of global climate change, Center for Strategic & International Studies, Center for a New American Security, Washington DC, 2007. 12 A. Elliott, ‘Bars and restaurants thrive amid smoking ban, study says’, New York Times, 29 March 2004; NYC, The State of Smoke-Free New York City: A one-year review, New York City Department of Finance, New York City Department of Health, New York City Department of Small Business Services, New York City Economic Development Corporation, New York, 2004. 13 J. Keaten, ‘French revolution in cafe society’, Sydney Morning Herald, 2 January 2008. 14 J. Rutenberg and L. Koppel, ‘In bar-rooms, smoking ban is less reviled’, New York Times, 6 February 2005. 15 DEH, State of the Air: Community Summary 1991–2001, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra, 2004. 16 ABS, Survey of Motor Vehicle Use, Australia, Oct 2004, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 2006; P. Manins et al., Australian State of the Environment Report 2001: Urban air quality, prepared for the Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra, 2001. 17 OECD, OECD Factbook 2007: Economic, environmental and social statistics, Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 2006. 18 UNEP, The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, 1987. 19 B. Lieberman, The High Cost of Cool: The economic impact of the CFC phaseout in the United States, Competetive Enterprise Institute, Washington DC, June 1994. 20 J. Armstrong, ‘Global benefits and costs of the Montreal Protocol’, in Protecting the Ozone Layer: Lessons, models and prospects, eds P.G. Le Prestre, J.D. Reid, and E.T. Morehouse, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 230
26/2/09 10:19:04 PM
Notes • 231
21 22
23 24 25
26
27
28 29 30
31
Boston, 1998; EC, Global Costs and Benefits of the Montreal Protocol, Environment Canada, Ottawa, 1997. ibid. ‘PM refuses to risk coal jobs to combat global warming’, ABC Online, 28 March 2007; ‘Nelson slams Aussie greenhouse gas goal’, The Age, 6 December 2007. N. Stern, The Economics of Climate Change, prepared for HM Treasury Department of the UK Government, London, 2006. ibid. N. Stern, The Economics of Climate Change; T.P. Barnett, J.C. Adam and D.P. Lettenmaier, ‘Potential impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions’, Nature, no. 438, 2005, pp. 303–9. CNA, National Security and the Threat of Climate Change, CNA Corporation, Washington DC, 2007; R. Norton-Taylor, ‘Climate change a bigger security threat than terrorism, says report’, The Guardian, 12 June 2006; M. Townsend and P. Harris, ‘Now the Pentagon tells Bush: Climate change will destroy us’, The Guardian, 22 February 2004. ABARE, Climate Change: Impacts on Australian agriculture, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, taken from ‘Australian Commodities’, vol. 14, no. 4, Canberra, 2007. K. Hennessy et al., The Impact of Climate Change on Snow Conditions in Mainland Australia, CSIRO, Melbourne, 2003. B.I. McNeil and R.J. Matear, ‘Climate change feedbacks on future oceanic acidification’, Tellus, no. 59B, 2007, pp. 191–8. R. Garnaut, Garnaut Climate Change Review, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2008, and the Garnaut Climate Change Review, www.garnautreview.org.au. G. Brown, speech by the Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the G7 Energy and Environment Ministerial Roundtable, London, 2005.
Chapter 2 Climate Battlers 1 J. Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel: The fates of human societies, W.W. Norton, New York, 1997. 2 ‘Cyclone Nargis embodied the “perfect storm”’, Associated Press, 8 May 2008. 3 CSIRO, Climate Change in Australia—Technical report 2007, CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, Canberra, 2007.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 231
26/2/09 10:19:04 PM
232 • The Clean Industrial Revolution 4 ibid. 5 ICA, A National Coastal Vulnerability Study, prepared by Risk Frontiers for the Insurance Council of Australia, Sydney, 2006. 6 J. Leake, ‘Med Brewing up for a hurricane’, Sunday Times, 15 July 2007. 7 M.A. Gaertner et al., ‘Tropical cyclones over the Mediterranean Sea in climate change simulations’, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 34. no. 14, 2007. 8 Munich Re, Annual Review: Natural Catastrophes 2006, Munich Re Group, Munich, 2007. 9 CSIRO, Climate Change in Australia—Technical report 2007. 10 E. Mills, ‘Insurance in a climate of change’, Science, 2006, no. 309, pp. 1040–4. 11 ‘Larry to cost $1.5b, Beattie says’, ABC News, 26 March 2006. 12 ICA, Financial Services for Managing Risk, submission to the Garnaut Climate Change Review on the contribution and role of general insurance industry, February 2008. 13 Munich Re, Annual Review: Natural Catastrophes 2006; E. Mills, ‘Insurance in a climate of change’. 14 E. Mills, ‘Insurance in a climate of change’. 15 J. Jimenex and F. Chong, ‘Insurers sinking after being holed by Hunter storm’, The Australian, 13 June 2007; D. John, ‘Winter storm bill expected to reach $1.5b’, Sydney Morning Herald, 25 August 2007. 16 A. Hall, ‘Climate chage raising insurance premiums’, ABC Online, 21 December 2007. 17 Blown Away: How global warming is eroding the availability od Insurance coverage in America’s coastal states, Environmental Defense, New York, 2007. 18 E. Mills, R.J. Roth and E. Lecomte, Availability and Affordability of Insurance Under Climate Change: A growing challenge for the U.S., Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, 2006. 19 ibid. 20 ICA, Submission to the Prime Minister’s Task Group on Emissions Trading, Insurance Council of Australia, Canberra, 2007. 21 COAG, Australia’s Infrastructure—National Overview Report, Council of Australian Governments, Canberra, 2007. 22 ABS, Australian System of National Accounts, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 2007. 23 Austroads, Impact of Climate Change on Road Infrastructure, Austroads, Sydney, 2004; CSIRO, Infrastructure and Climate Change Risk Assessment for Victoria, CSIRO, Melbourne, 2007.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 232
26/2/09 10:19:04 PM
Notes • 233 24 CSIRO, Infrastructure and Climate Change Risk Assessment for Victoria; L. Minchin, ‘Climate change: Shock findings for Victorians’, The Age, 16 May 2007. 25 ‘Railroads seek remedies for “sun kinks”’, Associated Press, 2002; ATSB, Two Freight Train Derailments West of Kalgoorlie in January 2005, Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Canberra, 2006. 26 COAG, Australia’s Infrastructure—National Overview Report. 27 Sydney Water, Fact Sheet No. SW171 05/06, Sydney Water, Sydney, 2007. 28 ibid. 29 PMSEIC, Climate Change in Australia, Prime Minister’s Science Engineering and Innovation Council Working Group on Climate Change, Canberra, 2007. 30 CSIRO, Climate Change in Australia—Technical report 2007. 31 WSAA, The WSAA Report Card for 2006/07, Water Services Association of Australia, Melbourne, 2007. 32 South-East Queensland Water Strategy, draft, Queensland Water Commission, Brisbane, March 2008. 33 ‘Drought puts pressure on electricity’, The Age, 19 May 2007. 34 T. Ann and M. Batchelor, ‘Rio to cut coal jobs as drought bites into power’, The Age, 17 May 2007. 35 South-East Queensland Water Strateg y, Queensland Water Commission 36 R. Barrett, C. Griffith and T. Thompson, ‘Land of the four-minute shower’, The Courier Mail, 9 March 2007. 37 UNSW, Fire in the Snow: Thirsty gum trees put alpine water yields at risk, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2007, available from: www2.science.umsw.edu.au/news/2007/bushfire.html. 38 ABARE, Agricultural Economies of Australia and New Zealand. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra, 2006. 39 L. Lu and D. Hedley, ‘The impact of the 2002–03 drought on the economy and agricultural employment’, Economic Roundup Autumn Report, Treasury, Canberra, 2004. 40 ABARE, ‘Australian coal exports: outlook to 2025 and the role of infrastructure’, ABARE Research Report, 06.15, October 2006. 41 ‘Food Price Rises’, Sunday Mail, 19 August 2007. 42 D. Lewis, ‘Farmers brace for decade-low wheat harvest’, Sydney Morning Herald, 27 October 2007. 43 ABS, A Guide to the Consumer Price Index: 15th Series, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 2005.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 233
26/2/09 10:19:04 PM
234 • The Clean Industrial Revolution 44 A. Ramachandran, ‘Sorry about rate rise: PM’, Sydney Morning Herald, 7 November 2007. 45 ‘Riots, instability spread as food prices skyrocket’, CNN, 14 April 2008. 46 A. Topping, ‘Food crisis threatens security, says UN chief ’, The Guardian, 21 April 2008. 47 ibid.
Chapter 3 Australia’s Carbon Obesity 1 National Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2006, Department of Climate Change, Canberra, 2008. 2 ibid. 3 M.R. Raupach, Carbon, Climate and Humans: Australia in the Earth system, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research Papers (Series), Canberra, 2007. 4 ibid. 5 EIA, International Energy Annual 2005, Energy Information Administration, US Department of Energy, Washington DC, 2007. 6 WB, World Development Indicators Online, World Bank Development Data Group, Washington DC, 2007. 7 IMF, World Economic Outlook Database, International Monetary Fund, Washington DC, 2007. 8 ibid. 9 ABS, Australia’s Year Book 2005–06, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 2007. 10 EIA, International Energy Annual 2005. 11 ibid. 12 ibid. 13 ibid. 14 M.R. Raupach, Carbon, Climate and Humans: Australia in the Earth system. 15 EIA, World Carbon Intensity: International Energy Annual 2005. 16 Treasury, Australia’s Century since Federation at a Glance, The Treasury Department, Canberra, 2002. 17 ibid. 18 Verve, Kwinana Power Station—Environmental Improvement Plan 2008/2009, Verve Energy, 2008. 19 ABARE, Australian Energy: National and State Projections to 2029– 2030, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra, 2007.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 234
26/2/09 10:19:04 PM
Notes • 235
Chapter 4 The Future Shock 1 J. Ball, ‘Wall Street shows skepticism over coal’, Wall Street Journal, 4 February 2008. 2 ibid. 3 ibid. 4 M. Clayton, ‘US Coal Power Boom Suddenly Wanes’, Christian Science Monitor, 4 March 2008. 5 ibid. 6 J. Ball, ‘Wall Street shows skepticism over coal’. 7 M. Clayton, ‘US Coal Power Boom Suddenly Wanes’. 8 D. Bleizeffer, ‘Utility snuffs coal projects’, Star-Tribune, 11 December 2007. 9 N. Potter, ‘Biggest buyout ever has green tinge’, ABC News, 26 February 2007. 10 J. Ball, ‘Wall Street shows skepticism over coal’. 11 ABARE, Electricity Generation: Major Development Projects, October 2008 listing, Canberra, November 2008. 12 ABARE, Australian Mineral Statistics, June quarter 2008, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra, 2008. 13 ACA, Australia’s Black Coal Exports by Destination, Australian Coal Association, Canberra, 2007. 14 ibid. 15 ibid. 16 G8, G8 Statement on Climate Change, Group of 8 Nations through the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hokkaido, 2008; L. Sieg, ‘Japan urges global target to halve emissions by 2050’, Reuters, 24 May 2007. 17 ACA, Australia’s Black Coal Exports by Destination. 18 G8, G8 Statement on Climate Change; ‘G8 leaders agree to climate deal’, BBC News, 7 June 2008; C. Brahic, ‘EU agrees to cut greenhouse emissions by 20%’, New Scientist, 20 February 2007; L. Elliott, ‘G8 agrees “substantial” climate deal’, The Guardian, 7 June 2007. 19 IEA, World Energy Outlook, International Energy Agency, Paris, 2006. 20 ibid. 21 UNFCCC, Bali Action Plan, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Conference of Parties 13, Bali, 15 December 2007; ‘At a glance: Bali climate deal’, BBC News, 15 December 2007. 22 G8, G8 Statement on Climate Change; ‘G8 leaders agree to climate deal’, BBC News; L. Elliott, ‘G8 agrees “substantial” climate deal’.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 235
26/2/09 10:19:04 PM
236 • The Clean Industrial Revolution 23 B. Obama, New Energy for American Plan, 3 August 2008. 24 A. Schwarzenegger, Gov Schwarzenegger Signs Landmark Legislation to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Californian Government media release, Sacramento, 27 September 2006. 25 CCP, Cities for Climate Protection, ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, New York 2007; USCMCPA, U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, The United States Conference of Mayors, Washington DC, 2007. 26 ACUPCC, American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment, Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, Boston, 2007. 27 E. Conway, ‘Stern favours world carbon tax to avoid “biggest market failure”’, The Telegraph (London), 26 January 2007. 28 J. Warner and J. Lieberman, America’s Climate Security Act of 2008, US Congress, Washington DC, 2008. 29 K. Bennhold, ‘France tells U.S. to sign climate pacts or face tax’, New York Times, 1 February 2007. 30 ‘EU ponders carbon tariff on imports’, BusinessWeek, 8 January 2008. 31 A. Schwarzenegger, Speech to the Georgetown University Environmental Conference, Office of the Governor, 2007. 32 DFAT, Australian Wine: Fact sheet, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Canberra, April 2008. 33 ‘Attempting to “kick the carbon habit”’, BBC News, 9 June 2008. 34 ABARE, Australian Commodities—June quarter 2008, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra, 2007. 35 D. Gross, ‘Iceland has power to burn’, Newsweek, 5 April 2008. 36 J. Libbenga, ‘Microsoft and Cisco eye Iceland for green server farms’, The Register, 10 April 2007. 37 DFAT, Economic Country Briefs for China, European Union, USA and New Zealand, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Canberra, 2008. 38 ABS, International Investment Position, Australia: Supplementary statistics, 2007, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 2007; $315 billion and rising—foreign direct investment into Australia up by 11.3% in 2006, Australian Consulate-General media release, Guangzhou, China, 2007. 39 ABS, International Investment Position, Australia: Supplementary statistics, 2007. 40 L. Elliott, ‘G8 agrees “substantial” climate deal’; B. Obama, ‘New energy for America plan’, 3 August 2008; ‘Japan to cut greenhouse gases by 60 to 80 percent’, USA Today, 9 June 2008; ‘Party policies
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 236
26/2/09 10:19:04 PM
Notes • 237
41 42 43 44
45
46
47 48
49 50
51
52 53 54
compared in the New Zealand 2008 election: environment’, New Zealand Herald, 24 October 2008. BP, BP Statistical Review of World Energy, British Petroleum, London, 2008. ibid. ABARE, Electricity Generation: Major Development Projects, October 2008 Listing, Canberra, November 2008. ABARE, Electricity Generation: Major Development Projects, October 2008 Listing; Australia’s Future Oil Supply and Alternative Transport Fuels, Australian Senate, Canberra, 2007. APPEA, Submission to the Inquiry into Australia’s Future Oil Supply and Alternative Transport Fuels, Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, Canberra, 2006. DPMC, Securing Australia’s Energy Future, Australian Government White Paper, Energy Taskforce for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra, 2004. M. Ferguson, Speech to the 2008 APPEA Conference, Minister for Resources and Energy, Perth, 2008. M.K. Hubbert, ‘Nuclear energy and the fossil fuels’, Spring Meeting of the Southern District, American Petroleum Institute, San Antonio, 1956. IEA, World Energy Outlook 2005, International Energy Agency, Paris, 2005. IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of climate change, Working Group III Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, New York, 2007. J.L. Hallock et al., ‘Forecasting the limits to the availability and diversity of global conventional oil supply’, Energy, vol. 29, 2004, pp. 1673–96. IEA, World Energy Outlook 2005. C. Mortished, ‘World cannot meet oil demand’, The Times, 8 April 2008. P. Tertzakian, A Thousand Barrels a Second, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2006.
Chapter 5 Beyond Polar Bears 1 R. Doll and A. Bradford, ‘Smoking and carcinoma of the lung’, British Medical Journal, vol. 2, no. 739, 1950; R. Doll and A. Bradford, ‘The mortality of doctors in relation to their smoking habits’, British Medical Journal, vol. 2, no. 1451, 1954.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 237
26/2/09 10:19:04 PM
238 • The Clean Industrial Revolution 2 ABS, Tobacco Smoking in Australia: A Snapshot, 2004–05, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 2006. 3 D. Collins, and H. Lapsley, Counting the Cost: Estimates of the social costs of drug abuse in Australia 1998–9, Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra, 2002. 4 MCDS, National Tobacco Strategy, 2004–2009: The strategy, Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, Canberra, 2004. 5 IPCC, Climate Change 2007, Working Group I Synthesis Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, New York, 2007. 6 ‘PM refuses to risk coal jobs to combat global warming,’ ABC Online, 28 March 2007; ‘Kyoto would have wrecked economy: Bush,’ The Age, 1 July 2005; ‘Nelson slams Aussie greenhouse gas goal,’ The Age, 6 December 2007.
Chapter 6 Becoming the New Saudi Arabia 1 CIE, Evaluation of Australia’s HFR Geothermal Energy Industry, Centre for International Economics, Canberra, 2006. 2 J. Mouawad, ‘The construction site called Saudi Arabia’, New York Times, 20 January 2008. 3 H. Samuel, ‘Plans to build Lyon in Dubai, bistros and all’, The Telegraph, 7 January 2008. 4 EIA, World Energy Intensity, Energy Information Agency, Washington DC, 2006; F. Thadeusz, ‘New Tower Creates All its Own Energy’, Der Spiegel, 11 May 2007. 5 UNCHS, Urbanization: A turning point in history, United Nations Human Settlements Programme—UN Habitat Backgrounder, Nairobi, 2007. 6 Vestas, Annual Report for 2007, Denmark. 7 Vestas, Annual Report 2007, Randers, Denmark, 2007. 8 WWEA, WWEA expects 160 6W to be installed by 2010, World Energy Association statistics, Bonn, Germany, 2007. 9 COP15, The Danish Example—Towards an energy efficient and climate friendly economy, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Copenhagen, 2008. 10 World Bank, World Development Indicators Online, World Bank Development Data Group, Washington DC, 2007; OECD, OECD Factbook 2007: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics, Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 2006. 11 EIA, International Energy Annual 2005, Energy Information Administration, Washington DC, 2007.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 238
26/2/09 10:19:04 PM
Notes • 239 12 P. McKenna, ‘China on target to meet renewable energy goal’, New Scientist, 15 November 2007. 13 J. Hua and J. Chiu, ‘Chinese power company raises renewable-energy goals by 50 percent’, International Herald Tribune, 19 May 2008. 14 P. McKenna, ‘China on target to meet renewable energy goal’; ‘Melting Asia’, The Economist, 5 June 2007. 15 J. Makower, R. Pernick and C. Wilder, Clean Energy Trends 2008, Clean-Edge Inc., San Francisco, 2008.
Chapter 7 How Science Must Save Us 1 UNDP, The 21st Century Climate Challenge: Human development report 2007/2008, United Nations Development Programme, Geneva, 2007. 2 S. Schifferers, ‘Cracking China’s car market’, BBC, 17 May 2007. 3 ‘The Art of the Possible: The question is not whether the world can cope with three billion cars, but how’, The Economist, 15 November 2008. 4 UNDP, The 21st Century Climate Challenge: Human Development Report 2007/2008. 5 IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of climate change, Working Group III Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, New York, 2007. 6 P.R. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, Ballantine Books, New York, 1968. 7 H. Leon, The Man Who Fed the World: Nobel Peace Prize laureate Norman Borlaug and his battle to end world hunger, Durban House Publishing, Dallas, 2006. 8 FAO, FAO Statistical Databases, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2006. 9 USDA, Production, Supply and Distribution, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington DC, 2006. 10 FAO, FAO Statistical Databases. 11 Nokia in Brief, Nokia Corporation, Espoo, Finland, 2008. 12 R. Macey, ‘Quantum leap for solar cells’, Sydney Morning Herald, 23 October 2008. 13 ‘Arise the Sun King’, Sydney Morning Herald, 12 September 2006. 14 E. Streff, ‘Curing lessons learned from plants’, National Geographic, 14 March 2001. 15 J. Goodman and V. Walsh, The Story of Taxol: Nature and Politics in the Pursuit of an Anti-Cancer Drug, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 239
26/2/09 10:19:04 PM
240 • The Clean Industrial Revolution 16 D. Newman and G.M. Cragg, ‘Natural products as sources of new drugs over the last 25 years’, Journal of Natural Products, vol. 70, no.3, 2007, pp. 461–5; Y. Chin, M. Balunas, H. Chai and A. Kinghorn, ‘Drug discovery form natural sources’, The AAPS Journal, vol. 8, no. 2, 2006, pp. 239–53. 17 DPI, Wallaby Milk Contains Powerful Weapon Against Human Superbugs, Department of Primary Industries Victoria media release, Melbourne, 2006. 18 DCC, Agriculuture Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Projections 2007, Department of Climate Change, Canberra, 2008. 19 S.J. Robinson and R.E. Collins, Evacuated windows—theory and practice, ISES Solar World Congress, International Solar Energy Society, Kobe, Japan, 1989; R.E. Collins and T.M. Simko, ‘Current status of the science and technology of vacuum glazing’, Solar Energy, vol. 62, 1998, pp. 189–213. 20 DEST, Australian Science and Innovation System: A Statistical Snapshot 2006, Science and Innovation Analysis Section of the Department of Education, Science and Training, Canberra, 2006. 21 ibid. 22 DEST, Australian Science and Innovation System. 23 G. Gereffi and V. Wadhwa, Framing the Engineering Outsourcing Debate: Placing the United States on a level playing field with China and India, Duke University School of Engineering, Durham, North Carolina, 2005. 24 EA, Fixing Australia’s Engineering Skills Shortage is an Urgent and Shared Responsibility, Engineers Australia media release, Canberra, 2008. 25 DEST, Australian Science and Innovation System. 26 PC, Public Support for Science and Innovation, Productivity Commission Research Report for the Australian Government, Canberra, 2007. 27 ABS, Research and Experimental Development in Australia, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 2006. 28 ibid. 29 PC, Public Support for Science and Innovation; ABS, Research and Experimental Development in Australia. 30 PC, Public Support for Science and Innovation. 31 ibid. 32 IEA, Energy R&D Statistics Online Indicators, International Energy Agency, Paris, 2007. 33 B. Jaruzelski and K. Dehoff, The Customer Connection: The global innovation 1000, Booz Allen Hamilton, New York, 2007.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 240
26/2/09 10:19:04 PM
Notes • 241 34 35 36 37 38
39 40 41
42 43
44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52
53 54
‘Global 500’, Fortune, 2008. B. Jaruzelski and K. Dehoff, The Customer Connection. IEA, Energy R&D Statistics Online Indicators. OMB, FY 2006 Congressional Budget Request for Department of Energy, United States Congress, Washington DC, 2006. J. Koomey and N.E. Hultman, ‘A reactor-level analysis of busbar costs for US nuclear plants, 1970–2005’, Energy Policy, vol. 35. no. 11, 2007. S. Thomas, The Economics of Nuclear Power, Public Services International Research Unit, Greenwich, 2005. WNA, Energy Subsidies and External Costs, World Nuclear Association, London, 2006. Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review Taskforce, Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra, 2006; WNA, Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors, World Nuclear Association, London, 2006. ABS, Research and Experimental Development in Australia. Senate, Government Advertising and Accountability, Finance and Public Administration References Committee of the Senate, Canberra, 2005. Snowy Hydro Ltd, The Snowy Hydro Scheme: The history, Sydney, 2008. ibid. B. Collins, Snowy: The Making of Modern Australia, Tabletop Press, Palmerston, ACT, 1990. B. Obama, ‘New Energy for America’, campaign policy, 3 August, 2008. ABARE, Energy in Australia, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra, 2008. ibid. R. Garnaut, Garnaut Climate Change Review, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2008, and the Garnaut Climate Change Review, www.garnautreview.org.au. N. Stern, The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern review, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2006. ABS, Australia’s Year Book 2005-06. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 2007; APRA, Half Yearly General Insurance Bulletin Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, Sydney, 2007. McKinsey, ‘A Cost Curve for Greenhouse Gas Reduction’, McKinsey Quarterly, New York, 2007. P. Hartcher, ‘Cool heads missing in the pressure cooker’, Sydney Morning Herald, 7 April 2007.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 241
26/2/09 10:19:04 PM
242 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
Chapter 8 Breaking Our Coal Addiction 1 EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2006, Energy Information Administration, US Department of Energy, Washington DC, June 2006. 2 IPCC, Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, special report, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2005. 3 B. Jaruzelski and K. Dehoff, The Customer Connection: The Global Innovation 1000, Booz Allen Hamilton, New York, 2007. 4 ibid. 5 ibid. 6 COAL21, A Plan of Action for Australia, COAL21, Deakin, 2005. 7 ABARE, Australian Energy: National and State Projections to 2029– 30, Research Report 06.26, Canberra, December 2006. 8 ZeroGen, Reconfigured Zerogen Project to Deliver Large-scale Clean Coal Power Plant by 2017, ZeroGen media release, Brisbane, 18 March 2008. 9 ‘BHP Billiton makes $357m climate change pledge’, The Age, 18 June 2007. 10 J. Brumby, $127.4 Million to Secure Victoria’s Clean Coal Future, Premier of Victoria, Melbourne, 30 April 2008; ‘NSW Govt grants $100m for clean coal research’, ABC News-Online, April 10 2008. 11 ‘Clean coal council to determine funding directions’, ABC NewsOnline, 18 May 2008. 12 DPMC, Securing Australia’s Energy Future, Australian Government White Paper, Energy Taskforce for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra, 2004. 13 J. Bradshaw et al., ‘Australia’s CO2 geological storage potential and matching of emission sources to potential sinks’, Energy, vol. 9, nos 9–10, 2004. 14 ibid. 15 MIT, The Future of Coal, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, 2007. 16 ibid. 17 House Standing Committee on Science and Innovation, Inquiry into Geosequestration Technology, Canberra, 2007. 18 APL, Australia’s Natural Gas: Issues and trends, Australian Parliamentary Library Research Paper no. 25, Canberra, 2008; GA, Oil & Gas Resources of Australia 2004, Geoscience Australia, Canberra, 2004; M. Roarty, Cogeneration—Combined Heat and Power (Electricity) Generation, Australian Parliamentary Library Research Note 21, Canberra, 1999.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 242
26/2/09 10:19:04 PM
Notes • 243 19 M. Roarty, Cogeneration—Combined Heat and Power (Electricity) Generation, Australian Parliamentary Library Research Note 21, Canberra, 1999. 20 ABARE, Energy in Australia, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra, 2008. 21 H. Saddler, M. Diesendorf and R. Denniss, A Clean Energy Future for Australia, Energy Strategies Pty Ltd, Canberra, 2004. 22 I.B. Fridleifsson et al., ‘The possible role and contribution of geothermal energy to the mitigation of climate change’, Proceedings of the IPCC Scoping Meeting on Renewable Energy Sources, Luebeck, 2008. 23 ibid. 24 R. Louthean, ‘Big energy role for central Australia’s hot rocks’, Mineweb, 2 May 2007; J. McCulloch, ‘Hot rock potential bubbles up Down Under’, BusinessGreen, 19 June 2008. 25 CIE, Evaluation of Australia’s HFR Geothermal Energy Industry, Centre for International Economics, Canberra, 2006; Geodynamics, Annual Report 2007, Geodynamics Pty Ltd, Brisbane, 2008. 26 H. Saddler et al., A Clean Energy Future for Australia. 27 ‘Iberdrola and Mitsui to build solar thermal plant in Egypt’, Energy Business Review, 3 October 2007; PG&E, PG&E and Ausra Announce 177 Megawatt Solar Thermal Power Agreement, PG&E media release, San Francisco, 5 November 2007; R. Barron, ‘Masdar heats up concentrating solar’, GreenTech Media, 3 August 2008; M. Kanellos, ‘BrightSource Energy signs whopper solar contract with PG&E’, CNET, 31 March 2008. 28 ‘Cloncurry to run on solar alone: Bligh’, The Age, 4 November 2007. 29 Solar Systems, World-leading Mega Scale Solar Power Station for Victoria, Solar Systems media release, Melbourne, 2006. 30 CPUC, CPUC Approves Feed-In Tariffs to Support Development of Onsite Renewable Generation, California Public Utilities Commission media release, San Francisco, 2008; P. Batchelor, Premium Rate to SolarPowered Victorian Households, Minister for Energy and Resources of the Victorian Government, Melbourne, 2008. 31 M. Landler, ‘Germany Debates Subsidies for Solar Industry’, New York Times, 16 May 2008; A. Seager, ‘Germany sets shining example in providing a harvest for the world’, The Guardian, 23 July 2007. 32 A. Seager, ‘Germany sets shining example in providing a harvest for the world’.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 243
26/2/09 10:19:04 PM
244 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
Chapter 9 The Crude Truth 1 MMN, ‘Fuel Prices’, Motor Mouth News, no. 78, 2008. 2 FCAI, 2007: A Milestone Year for Motor Vehicle Sales, Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries media release, Canberra, 2008. 3 FCAI, ‘SUV’s and Light Trucks Drive Strong First Quarter’, Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries media release, Canberra, 2008. 4 ABS, Australian Social Trends 2007, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 2007. 5 US Congress, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, US Congress, Washington DC, 2007. 6 EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2008 with Projections to 2030, Energy Information Administration, US Department of Energy, Washington DC, 2008. 7 UN, Sustainable Bioenergy: A framework for decision makers, United Nations Energy Program, New York, 2007. 8 L. Rohter, ‘With big boost from sugar cane, Brazil is satisfying its fuel needs’, New York Times, 10 April 2006. 9 GAO, Biofuels: DOE Lacks a Strategic Approach to Coordinate Increasing Production with Infrastructure Development and Vehicle Needs, US Government Accountability Office, Washington DC, 2007. 10 ibid. 11 RFA, Industry Statistics: Annual world ethanol production by country, Renewable Fuels Association, Washington DC, 2007. 12 WB, Agricultural and Rural Development: Issue brief, The World Bank, Washington DC, 2007. 13 APEC, APEC Biofuels Task Force: Report to the eighth energy ministers meeting, Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, Darwin, 2007. 14 S. Mufson, ‘Ethanol Industry Gets a Boost From Bush’, Washington Post, 25 January 2007. 15 GAO, Biofuels: DOE Lacks a Strategic Approach to Coordinate Increasing Production with Infrastructure Development and Vehicle Needs; ORNL, Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industy: The technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply, Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, 2005; US Congress, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. 16 M. Wang, ‘Learning from the Brazilian biofuel experience’, Environmental Research Letters, vol. 1, 2006. 17 APEC, APEC Biofuels Task Force: Report to the eighth energy ministers meeting.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 244
26/2/09 10:19:04 PM
Notes • 245 18 RIRDC, Biofuels in Australia—An overview of issues and prospects, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and CSIRO, Canberra, 2007. 19 ibid. 20 GAO, Biofuels: DOE Lacks a Strategic Approach to Coordinate Increasing Production with Infrastructure Development and Vehicle Needs. 21 M. Roig-Franzia, ‘A culinary and cultural staple in crisis’, Washington Post, 27 January 2007. 22 C.F. Runge and B. Senauer, ‘How biofuels could starve the poor’, Foreign Affairs, May 2007. 23 ‘Food riots turn deadly in Haiti’, BBC, 5 April 2008. 24 ORNL, Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry, Report prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Department of Agriculture, USA, 2005. 25 ‘Grow Your Own: Biofuels of the Future’, The Economist, 21 June 2008. 26 G. Monbiot, ‘Worse Than Fossil Fuel’, The Guardian, 6 December 2005. 27 D. Tilman, J. Hill, and C. Lehman, ‘Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass’, Science, vol. 314, no. 5805, 2006, pp. 1598–1600. 28 M.S. Rosenwald, ‘J. Craig Venter’s next little thing’, Washington Post, 27 February 2006. 29 A. Brune, ‘Microbiology: woodworkers digest’, Nature, no. 450, 2007, pp. 487–8. 30 A. Hind, ‘Could jatropha be a biofuel panacea?’, BBC, 7 July 2007. 31 ibid. 32 J.A. Mathews, Prospects for a Biofuels Industry in Australia, Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Sydney, 2007. 33 COGEN3, Dan Change Bio-Energy Project, EC–ASEAN Business Facilitator, Bangkok, 2004. 34 ABARE, Australian Energy: National and State Projections to 2029– 2030, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra, 2007. 35 DOE, The Early Days of Coal Research, US Department of Energy, Washington DC, 2007. 36 ibid. 37 IEA, Energy to 2050: Scenarios for a sustainable future, International Energy Agency, Paris, 2005; IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of climate change, Working Group III Contribution to the Fourth
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 245
26/2/09 10:19:04 PM
246 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, New York, 2007. EIA, International Energy Outlook, Energy Information Administration, US Department of Energy, Washington DC, 2007. ibid. IEA, Energy to 2050: Scenarios for a sustainable future; IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of climate change. EIA, U.S. Natural Gas Imports and Exports: 2006, Energy Information Administration, US Department of Energy, Washington DC, 2008. G.R. Timilsina, N. LeBlanc and T. Walden, Economic impact of Alberta’s Oil Sands, Canadian Energy Research Institute, Calgary, 2005. IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of climate change. AIMR, Shale Oil, Australian Atlas of Minerals, Resources, Mines & Processing Centres, Geoscience Australia, Canberra, 2007. IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of climate change.
Chapter 10 Fitting Carbon Shock-absorbers 1 J. Markoff and S. Hansell, ‘Hiding in plain sight, Google seeks more power’, New York Times, 14 June 2006. 2 Nielsen, World Internet Users, Nielsen Net Ratings, 2008. 3 EPA, Report to Congress on Server and Data Center Energy Efficiency, Environmental Protection Agency Report to Congress, Washington DC, 2007. 4 J. Best, ‘Google to go carbon neutral by 2008’, ZDNet, 20 June 2007. 5 J. Markoff and S. Hansell, ‘Hiding in plain sight, Google seeks more power’. 6 C. Melloe, ‘IBM spends US$1 billion on ‘green’ data centers’, Network World Asia, 5 July 2007. 7 Google, ‘Powering a clean energy revolution’, Google corporate website, 2008. 8 AGO, National Greenhouse Gas Inventory by Economic Sector 2005, Australian Greenhouse Office, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra, 2006. 9 R. Garnaut, Emissions Trading Scheme Discussion Paper, Garnaut Climate Change Review, Canberra, 2008. 10 ibid. 11 ABS, Australian Economic Indicators, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 2008. 12 IEA, Oil Crises and Climate Challenges: 30 years of energy use in IEA countries, International Energy Agency, Paris, 2004.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 246
26/2/09 10:19:04 PM
Notes • 247 13 ABS, Australian Economic Indicators. 14 ABARE, Economic Impact of Climate Change Policy: The role of technology and economic instruments, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra, 2006; Allens, Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Economic, social and environmental impacts for Australia, Allens Consulting Group, Sydney, 2006; CSIRO, The Heat Is On: The future of energy in Australia, A Report by the Energy Futures Forum, Sydney, 2006; S. Hatfield-Dodds et al., Leader, Follower or Free Rider: The economic impacts of different Australian emissions targets, commissioned by the Climate Institute, Sydney, 2007. 15 Australia’s Low Pollution Future: The economics of climate change mitigation, Department of Treasury, Commonwealth of Australia, 30 October 2008. 16 ibid. 17 ABARE, Economic Impact of Climate Change Policy: The role of technology and economic instruments; Allens, Deep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Economic, social and environmental impacts for Australia; CSIRO, The Heat Is On: The future of energy in Australia; S. HatfieldDodds et al., Leader, Follower or Free Rider: The economic impacts of different Australian emissions targets; R. Garnaut, Garnaut Climate Change Review, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2008, and the Garnaut Climate Change Review, www.garnautreview.org.au; IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of climate change, Working Group III Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, New York, 2007. 18 R. Garnaut, Garnaut Climate Change Review, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2008, and the Garnaut Climate Change Review, www.garnautreview.org.au. 19 S. Hatfield-Dodds et al., Leader, Follower or Free Rider: The economic impacts of different Australian emissions targets. 20 ibid. 21 McKinsey, Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How much at what cost?, McKinsey Consultants, New York, 2007. 22 McKinsey, An Australian Cost Curve for Greenhouse Gas Reduction, McKinsey & Company Australia, Sydney, 2008. 23 ibid. 24 WB, World Development Indicators Online, World Bank Development Data Group, Washington DC, 2007. 25 DEFRA, UK Emissions Figures Down, but ‘Much More Must Be Done’, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, 2008.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 247
26/2/09 10:19:05 PM
248 • The Clean Industrial Revolution 26 Australia’s Low Pollution Future: The economics of climate change mitigation, Department of Treasury, Commonwealth of Australia, 30 October 2008. 27 ibid. 28 ibid. 29 ibid. 30 ibid. 31 P. Costello, Australians set for more tax cuts and benefits from 1 July 2006, Treasurer of Australia press release, Canberra, 29 June 2006. 32 W. Swan, Tax relief starts tomorrow, Treasurer of Australia press release, Canberra, 30 June 2008. 33 Australia’s Low Pollution Future: The economics of climate change mitigation, Department of Treasury, Commonwealth of Australia, 30 October 2008.
Chapter 11 Carbon Economics 1 EPA, Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 through 2007, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, 2007. 2 U.S. Auto Sales Chart: Sales and share of total market by manufacturer for the Big Five, Wall Street Journal Online, 3 November 2008. 3 J. Flint, ‘Pumping on the Brakes’, Forbes Magazine, 2 January 2007. 4 U.S. Auto Sales Chart: Sales and share of total market by manufacturer for the Big Five. 5 OICA, World Motor Production Statistics, International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, Paris, 2007. 6 ‘“Green” Automaker Honda Quietly Building US Market Share’, Detroit News, 9 March 2007. 7 EIA, US Regular Weekly Retail Gasoline Price, Energy Information Agency, Washington DC, 2008; Yahoo Finance, ‘Weekly Historical Stock Prices’, 3 November 2008. 8 AB, The Emergence of Hybrid Vehicles, AllianceBernstein, New York, 2006. 9 Toyota, Worldwide Prius Sales Top 1 Million Mark, Toyota Motor Corporation, Aichi, 2008. 10 AB, The Emergence of Hybrid Vehicles. 11 Y.M. Ardenti and S. Gilardi, The Carbon Intensity of Car Manufacturers, Centre Info SA, Fribourg, 2007. 12 ‘CAFE Society’, The Economist, 5 December 2007.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 248
26/2/09 10:19:05 PM
Notes • 249 13 GVG, Green Vehicle Guide: www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Canberra, 2008. 14 J. Dowling, ‘Market downsize as Corolla overtakes Commodore’, Sydney Morning Herald, 4 April 2008. 15 GE, GE’s 2008 Ecomagination revenues up 21% to US$17bn, General Electric media release, 30 October 2008. 16 L. Roner, ‘GE: Runaway Ecomagination is not enough’, ClimateChangeCorp, 4 June 2008. 17 A. Little, ‘It Was Just My Ecomagination’, Grist, 10 May 2005. 18 R. Petkewich, ‘Cold-water laundry detergent is a hot idea’, Environmental Science & Technology, 21 September 2005. 19 M. Gunther, ‘Buy toilet paper, save the planet’, Fortune, 26 February 2008. 20 EPA, Federal Electronics Challenge: Maximising office equipment energy savings with Energy Star, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, 2007. 21 HP, HP Introduces Energy-efficient Business Desktop PCs, Including Industry’s First with Solid-state Drive, HP media release, Palo Alto, 2008. 22 HP, Go Green PC Power Play, HP, Washington DC, 2007. 23 TCG, Smart 2020: Enabling the Low Carbon Economy in the Information Age, a report by The Climate Group on behalf of the Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI), London, 2008. 24 ibid. 25 CR, Towards a High-Bandwidth, Low-Carbon Future, Climate Risk Pty Ltd, Sydney, 2007. 26 ‘Travelling green tonight’, The Economist, 14 June 2007; D. Gow and D. Milmo, ‘Airbus and easyJet float radical plan to cut emissions by half’, The Guardian, 15 June 2007. 27 ‘Travelling green tonight’, The Economist. 28 S. McCartney, ‘Virgin’s biofuel demo more than a stunt’, The Australian, 29 February 2008. 29 Wal-Mart, Sustainability Progress to Date 2007–2008, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Bentonville, 2007. 30 WB, World Development Indicators Online, World Bank Development Data Group, Washington DC, 2007. 31 J. Birchall, ‘Wal-Mart’s green push in China’, Financial Times, 6 April 2008. 32 Wal-Mart, Sustainability Progress to Date 2007–2008. 33 ibid.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 249
26/2/09 10:19:05 PM
250 • The Clean Industrial Revolution 34 J. Birchall, ‘Wal-Mart’s green push in China’ 35 ‘Fortune Magazine’s Global 500’, Fortune, 2007. 36 G. Hueston, BP’s Commitment, Action and Solutions to Climate Change, speech by President of BP Australasia, Sydney, 2005. 37 ibid. 38 BP, BP Sustainability Report 2005, British Petroleum, London, 2006. 39 J. Llewellyn, The Business of Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities, Lehman Brothers, New York, 2007. 40 J. Llewellyn and C. Chaix, The Business of Climate Change II: Policy is accelerating, with major implications for companies and investors, Lehman Brothers, New York, 2007. 41 USCAP, A Call for Action, US Climate Action Partnership, Washington DC, 2008. 42 BRCC, The Business Case for Early Action, Business Roundtable on Climate Change, Sydney, 2006. 43 PWC, Carbon Countdown: A survey of executive opinion on climate change in the countdown to a carbon economy, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Sydney, 2008. 44 CDP, Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2007—Global FT500, Carbon Disclosure Project, New York, 2007. 45 CDP, The $31.5 Trillion Question: Is your company prepared for climate change?, Carbon Disclosure Project, New York, 2006. 46 CDP, Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2007—Global FT500.
Chapter 12 The Accidental Environmentalist 1 ATIA, Taxi Statistics for 2006, Australian Taxi Industry Association, Brisbane, 2007. 2 DEWHA, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculator, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, 2008. 3 ANCAP, ANCAP Crash Test Update Australian New Car Assessment Program, Australasian New Car Assessment Program, Canberra, 2004. 4 ‘New York’s yellow cabs go green’, CNN, 22 May 2007. 5 S. Ebert, ‘For cabs, higher fares and hybrid future’, Boston Globe, 30 August 2008. 6 ‘The World’s Billionaires’, Forbes, 5 March 2008. 7 E. Mills, ‘Google search share down globally, up in US’, CNET, 2008.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 250
26/2/09 10:19:05 PM
Notes • 251 8 IEA, World Energy Outlook 2008, International Energy Agency, Paris, 2008. 9 S.D. Harris, ‘Kleiner Perkins raises big money to fuel clean tech’, Mercury News, 2 May 2008. 10 E. Brown, ‘Growing Up Green’, Forbes, 11 February 2008. 11 J. Makower, R. Pernick and C. Wilder, Clean-Energy Trends 2008, Clean-Edge Inc., 2008. 12 A. Quong, ‘Aussie Solar Startup Takes on Silicon Valley’, RedHerring, Palo Alto, 2007; P. Sheehan, ‘Cloudy future for solar innovators’, Sydney Morning Herald, 29 Jan 2007; ‘Ausra to open first U.S. solar manufacturing plant’, Reuters, New York, 2007. 13 ‘PG&E and Ausra Announce 177 Megawatt Solar Thermal Power Agreement’, PG&E, San Francisco, 2007. 14 Smarter energy storage for solar and wind power, CSIRO Energy Technology, Canberra, 2007. 15 Turning Green into Gold: Australian Cleantech Venture Capital and Private Equity Investments, CleanTech Ventures, Melbourne, 2007. 16 ‘With grants set, renewable energy is all the go’, The Age, 29 Dec 2005. 17 J. Makower et al., Clean-Energy Trends 2008. 18 Turning Green into Gold: Australian Cleantech Venture Capital and Private Equity Investments. 19 ibid. 20 ibid. 21 APRA, Statistics: Quarterly Superannuation Performance, Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, Canberra, 2008. 22 ‘Australia “tops” in managed funds’, Sydney Morning Herald, 23 January 2006. 23 BNET, ‘Industry Funds Management Completes US$1.477 Billion Con Edison Electricity Generation Facilities Investment’, BNET, Melbourne, 2008. 24 Penrith Rugby League Club: A big consumer counts the cost, EnergySmart, NSW government initiative, Sydney, 2005.
Chapter 13 More Jobs in Clean than Dirty 1 A. Gyngell, Australia and the World: Public opinion and foreign policy, Lowy Institute for International Policy, Sydney, 2007. 2 ibid. 3 T. Friedman, The World Is Flat: A brief history of the 21st century, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2005.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 251
26/2/09 10:19:05 PM
252 • The Clean Industrial Revolution 4 ‘GE Healthcare profits up 16%’, Business Journal of Milwaukee, 20 January 2006. 5 K.A. Dolan, ‘Made In America’, Forbes, 12 April 2004. 6 R.A. D’Errico, ‘New GE manufacturing plant to employ 150 people’, Business Review, 30 May 2007. 7 Cochlear, Cochlear Wins 2007 DHL Australian Exporter of the Year Award, Cochlear media release, Sydney, 2007. 8 Cochlear, Cochlear Timeline, Cochlear Ltd, Sydney, 2007. 9 B. Walsh, ‘What is a green-collar job, exactly?’, Time, 26 May 2008. 10 S. Hatfield-Dobbs, et al., Growing the Green Collar Economy: Skills and labour challenges in reducing our greenhouse emissions and national environmental footprint, CSIRO and the Allen Consulting Group, Canberra, 2008. 11 ibid. 12 BRCC, The Business Case for Early Action, Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change, Sydney, 2006. 13 UNEP, Green Jobs: Towards sustainable work in a low-carbon world, United Nations Environment Program, Geneva, 2007. 14 HIA, Housing Starts by State and Territory for 2007, Housing Industry Association Economics Group, Canberra, November 2008. 15 DEWHA, Energy use in the Australian residential sector 1986–2020, Department of Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, 2008. 16 OECD, The Forgotten Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation: Innovation, technological leapfrogging, employment, and sustainable development, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, 2003. 17 IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change, Working Group III Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, New York, 2007. 18 EC, Doing More with less, Green Paper on energy efficiency, European Commission, Brussels, 2005. 19 UNEP, Green Jobs: Towards sustainable work in a low-carbon world. 20 I. MacGill, M. Watt and R. Passey, The Economic Development Potential and Job Creation Potential of Renewable Energy: Australian case studies, CRC for Renewable Energy Policy Group, Sydney, 2002. 21 W. Frew, ‘Reserves to dry up as clean coal becomes viable’, Sydney Morning Herald, 10 April 2007. 22 COP15, The Danish Example—Towards an energy efficient and climate friendly economy, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Copenhagen, 2008.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 252
26/2/09 10:19:05 PM
Notes • 253 23 B. Ritter, Gov. Ritter Celebrates Opening of Vestas Plant, Governor of Colorado media release, Denver, 5 March 2008. 24 E. Reguly, ‘Lessons from Germany’s Energy Renaissance’, The Globe Advisor, 22 March 2008. 25 ibid. 26 J. Burgermeister, Renewable Energy Jobs Soar in Germany, Renewable Energy World, Vienna, 8 April 2008. 27 ibid. 28 E. Reguly, ‘Lessons from Germany’s Energy Renaissance’. 29 D. McGinty, Creating Jobs by Going Green: $650-million fund will create the next generation of green technologies and good, high paying jobs, Governor of Ontario media release, Oshawa, 2007. 30 T. Hamilton, ‘Company blown away by Ontario’, The Star, 20 June 2008. 31 ‘Govt blamed for wind turbine plant closure’, ABC News, 25 August 2006. 32 Made In Australia: No sound, no smoke, no CO2, just pure power, BP Solar, Sydney, 2006. 33 MMA, Renewable Energy—A contribution to Australia’s environmental and economic sustainability, McLennan Magasanik Associates Pty Ltd for Renewable Energy Generators Australia Ltd, Melbourne, 2006 34 ABS, Year Book Australia, 2005: 100 years of change in Australian industry, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 2005. 35 ABS, Year Book Australia, 2008, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 2008. 36 ABS, Year Book Australia, 2008; ASR, Australian Services Industries— Definition and Data Australian Services Roundtable, Canberra, 2007. 37 D. Bell, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, Harper Colophon Books, New York, 1974. 38 Rand, High-technology Manufacturing and U.S. Competitiveness, Rand Corporation prepared for the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Santa Monica, 2004. 39 ABS, Year Book Australia, 2008; M. Shaw, ‘State bears brunt of manufacturing job losses’, The Age, 26 May 2008. 40 ABS, Manufacturing Industry, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 2007. 41 Siemens, Siemens Plant in Berlin Celebrates Completion of the World’s Largest Gas Turbine, Siemens media release, Berlin, 19 June 2007. 42 IEA, Natural Gas Market Review, International Energy Agency, Paris, 2007.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 253
26/2/09 10:19:05 PM
254 • The Clean Industrial Revolution 43 M. McDermott, ‘Second Siemens wind turbine plant to open in Illinois’, Science & Technology, 24 June 2008; Siemens, New Multimillion Dollar Siemens Plant Will Increase Producution of Mechanical Drives for Wind Turbine Industry, Seimens media release, Elgin, 2008. 44 Siemens, New Multi-million Dollar Siemens Plant Will Increase Producution of Mechanical Drives for Wind Turbine Industry. 45 M. LaMonica, ‘GE to plow $1 billion into clean tech research’, CNET, 23 October 2007. 46 Solar Systems, World-leading Mega Scale Solar Power Station for Victoria, Solar Systems media release, Melbourne, 2006. 47 Solar Systems, Solar Concentrator Power Plants: Economic Fact Sheet, Solar Systems media release, Melbourne, 2008. 48 S. Greenhouse, ‘Millions of jobs of a different collar’, New York Times, 26 March 26 2008; E. Rendell, Governor Rendell announces Bucks County as Site of Gamesa’s three New Wind Manufacturing Facilities, Governor of Pennsylvania media release, Philadelphia, 2005. 49 DEUS, Wind Energy: Fact Sheet, Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability, Sydney, 2008. 50 MMA, Renewable Energy—A contribution to Australia’s environmental and economic sustainability. 51 ABS, Australian Automotive Industry, 2005, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, 2005. 52 P. Alford and P. Akerman, ‘Adelaide car plant facing closure’, The Australian, 5 February 2008; C. Zappone, ‘531 jobs to go at Holden’, The Age, 6 June 2008. 53 ‘Mitsubishi to close plant, cut jobs’, Sydney Morning Herald, 21 May 2004. 54 ‘Mitsubishi to cut 1,200 jobs at Illinois plant’, New York Times, 10 September 2004. 55 KPMG, ‘Momentum: KPMG’s 2008 Global Auto Executive Survey’, Germany, 2008. 56 C. Zappone, ‘531 jobs to go at Holden’. 57 P. Alford and P. Akerman, ‘Adelaide car plant facing closure’; C. Zappone, ‘531 jobs to go at Holden’; ‘Ford’s Geelong plant to close, 600 jobs lost’, ABC, 18 July 2007. 58 Green Vehicle Guide, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Canberra, 2008. 59 T. Arup, ‘Workers welcome hybrid Camry’, The Age, 6 June 2008. 60 K. Rudd, Leadership For Long Term Sustainability: The roles of government, business and the international community, Address to
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 254
26/2/09 10:19:05 PM
Notes • 255 the National Business Leaders’ Forum on Sustainable Development, Prime Minister, Canberra, 2008. 61 UNEP, Green Jobs: Towards sustainable work in a low-carbon world. 62 RIRDC, Biofuels in Australia—An overview of issues and prospects, Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and CSIRO, Canberra, 2007. 63 ibid.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 255
26/2/09 10:19:05 PM
Index Index
Abu Dhabi, 92–94, 139 Active Reactor, 204 agricultural yields, 108–9 Airbus, 187–88 aircraft industry, 187–88 anti-discrimination, 72 anti-smoking laws, 20–22, 72–73 Arctic region, warming of, 1–3 Arise Technologies, 216 Ausra (company), 203 Australia 2046 clean energy scenario, 88–91 carbon intensity, 10, 45–51 clean-technology venture capital, 205 decline in car manufacturing, 223–25 energy trade deficit, 64–66 impact on clean-energy technology, 111–12 shortage of science/ engineering graduates, 114–16 status-quo thinking, 101 ‘X per cent’ argument, 109–10 Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change, 192, 213
automobiles carbon intensity, 182 decline of car manufacturing in Australia, 223–25 demand for fuel-efficient vehicles, 223–25 effect of petrol-price increases on sales of, 142–43 fuel-efficient technology, 9–10, 177–83 global R&D in, 129–30 green car fund, Australia, 225 hybrid vehicles, 181 reduced non-greenhouse gas pollution, 22 bagasse, as fuel, 151 Bahrain, 97 Bali Action Plan, 58 BHP Billiton, 119, 132 biodiesel, 144–45, 150–51 biofuels for airlines, 188 carbon reductions from, 145– 46, 149 definition and types, 144–45 and ecosystem destruction, 148 effect on food supply, 147–48
256
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 256
26/2/09 10:19:05 PM
Index • 257 employment opportunities, 226 first-generation, 143–49 government promotion of, 144 second-generation, 149–53 biomass-fuelled electricity, 151–52 biomimicry, 77 Boeing, 187–88 Borlaug, Norman, 108 Branson, Richard, 201 Brazil biomass electricity, 151 ethanol production, 146, 148 Brisbane water shortage, 36–37 British Petroleum (BP), 190 Brown, Gordon, 26 Burj al-Taqa tower, 92–94 bushfires, 38–39 California carbon tariffs mooted, 60–61 feed-in tariffs, 140 solar thermal power plant, 203 Canada clean-technology manufacturing, 217 natural gas exports, 154–55 tar sands CO2 emissions, 154 capitalism, and climate change, 198–99 carbon capture and storage (CCS), 127–28, 133–34 carbon dioxide. see also carbon capture and storage; carbon dioxide emissions continuous measurement of air samples, 107 growing atmospheric concentration, 15–16, 18 heat trap effects, 17–18
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 257
carbon dioxide emissions. see also carbon intensity; greenhouse gas emissions after oil shocks, 164–66 Australian companies’ ignorance, 192–93 Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), 193–94 coal-to-oil production, 153–54 Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), 193–94 carbon intensity Australia, 10, 45–51 Australian wine industry, 61–62 defined, 44 international comparisons, 44–48, 45fig, 47fig world’s car manufacturers, 182 carbon-neutral energy supply, 134–41 carbon offsets, 207–8 carbon pricing domestic job creation under, 213–15 early-mover advantages, 172–73 impact on clean-energy innovation, 204 impact on coal-fired power generation, 52–56, 170 impact on fuel prices, 156 impact on households, 170–72 and market opportunities, 200–201 carbon protectionism, 59–62 Carson, Rachel, 76 cellulosic ethanol, 91, 149, 226 China carbon intensity, 45fig, 48
26/2/09 10:19:05 PM
258 • The Clean Industrial Revolution clean energy developments, 100 as importer of Australian coal, 57–58 Wal-Mart’s greenhousereduction demands, 188–89 Chirac, Jacques, 60 chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), 22–23 clean-coal technology Australian investment in, 130–31 defined, 127 retro-fitting to coal-fired power stations, 133–34 through carbon capture and storage, 127–28 clean energy Australia’s as potential superpower in, 88–91 clean-energy investment Australia, 123 as insurance premium, 124 clean-energy technology Australian leadership, 111–12 Australian R&D, 118–21, 123 Danish R&D, 96–98 export opportunities, 95–96 investment opportunities, 201–8 clean industrial revolution, need for, 80–81 clean-technology industry Australian opportunities, 212 job creation opportunities, 213–16, 226–28 climate change. see also cyclones and hurricanes; droughts; global warming Australian public opinion, 209
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 258
awareness raising, 162 costs of inaction, 23–26 danger of rapid changes, 17 as economic imperative, 75–81 effect on food supply and prices, 40–41 as electoral issue, 78–79 human implications, 70–71 impact on ecosystems, 112–13 impact on infrastructure, 34–36 insurance availability and affordability, 32–34 rising temperatures, #3 as ‘threat multiplier’, 24 climate dependence ancient societies, 28 Australia, 29 Climate Security Act 2008 (US), 60 Cloncurry, 139 CO2 emissions. see carbon dioxide emissions co-generation, 136 coal. see also coal-fired power stations Australia’s dependence on, 50–51 Australia’s export vulnerability, 52–56, 64 carbon intensity, 49 clean coal, 127–28 future global demand, 58 COAL21, 130–31 coal-fired power stations Australia’s reliance on, 50–51, 135fig carbon capture and storage, 128 economic viability under carbon pricing, 52–56 list of Australian, 135fig
26/2/09 10:19:05 PM
Index • 259 coal-to-oil production, 152–53 Cochlear, 211–12 Conergy, 100 CSG Solar AG, 112 CSIRO economic effects of zero greenhouse gas emissions, 167 effects of climate change on Australia, 25 Cyclone Nargis, 29–30 Cyclone Sidr, 29 Cyclone Tracy, 31 cyclones and hurricanes, 29–33 Australia’s vulnerability, 31–32 economic costs and insurance losses, 32–34 and storm surges, 30 data centres, energy consumption, 157–60 Denmark carbon intensity, 98 wind power technology, 96, 216 desalination plants, 36–37 Diamond, Jared, 28 droughts damage to buildings, 27–28 effect on Australian economy, 39 effect on food supply and prices, 40–41 effect on water supplies, 36–38 impact on inflation, 40–41 drug discovery, 113 Dubai, 92 Dupont, 184 early-mover advantages carbon pricing and, 172–73
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 259
in embracing low-carbon economy, 161, 183–92 economic growth impact of reduced greenhouse gas emissions on, 166–70 impact on energy consumption, 103–6 ecosystem destruction, 148 Ehrlich, Paul, 107 electricity generation from agricultural wastes, 151–52 combined heat and power (CHP) process, 136 solar power, Germany, 99 emissions trading scheme (ETS) national early-mover advantages, 161 emissions trading schemes (ETS) effects, 162–63 procedure, 161–62 energy-efficient products, race to manufacture, 183–92 Energy Independence and Security Act 2007 (US), 144 energy shocks, 68–69 ‘environment versus economy’ argument, 7–11, 20–23, 74–75, 79–80 environmental movement attitude to markets and technology, 77–81 naturalist tradition, 76–77 Ersol, 100 ethanol, 144–51, 226 Ethtec (company), 226 Europe carbon tariffs, 60 as importer of Australian coal, 58 move to clean energy, 96–98
26/2/09 10:19:06 PM
260 • The Clean Industrial Revolution promotion of biofuels, 144 exports, Australian effect of carbon pricing on, 59–62 vulnerability of coal exports, 52–56 Faisal, King, 48–50, 163–66 feed-in tariffs, 99, 140–41 Finland, 110 first-generation biofuels, 145 food riots, 41 food supply and prices effect of biofuel production on, 147–48 effect of climate change on, 39–42 improved agricultural productivity, 108–9 scarcity predictions, 107–8 Ford, 178–83 foreign investment, 62–64 France, nuclear energy, 96 fuel-efficient vehicle technology, 9–10, 178–79 G8 nations, 53–54 Garnaut Climate Change Review, 25, 123, 167 General Electric (GE), 211 General Motors, 8–10, 178–83 geothermal electricity generation using natural gas, 134–36 zero-carbon transition, 137 geothermal energy, 90, 137–38 Germany clean-technology manufacturing, 217 employment in clean-energy sector, 216–17 ‘Hitler fuel’, 153
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 260
low-carbon energy technologies, 220–21 use of ‘feed-in tariffs’ for renewables, 140–41 use of renewable energy, 98–100 global warming Arctic region, 1–3 evidence, 18 as human induced, 18 impact on insurance premiums, 33–34 intense weather effects, 29–32 scientific evidence, 79 storm effects, 29–30 Google, 157–60, 202 Gore, Al, 163 government intervention, argument for, 69, 198–99 Green, Martin, 111–12 ‘green-collar’ jobs, 213 greenhouse gas concentrations as cause of global warming, 18 greenhouse gas emissions Australia, 43–44, 168–70 Australia as minor contributor, 109–10 from coal-to-oil production, 153–54 from livestock, 113 from oil shale processing, 155 from tar sands oil production, 154 from taxis, 195–97 greenhouse gas emissions, reductions in compatible with economic growth, 166–70 economic and health benefits, 6–7, 22–23 G8 nations’ plan, 53–54
26/2/09 10:19:06 PM
Index • 261 investment opportunities, 201–8 by Japanese car makers, 177–83 modelling the economic effects, 166–68 need for government action, 6 options for achieving, 166–68 projected employment growth, 213 through carbon offsets, 207–8 ‘growth versus environment’ argument, 7–11, 20–23, 74–75, 79–80 Guns, Germs and Steel (Jared), 28 Hansen, Jim, 163 ‘Hitler fuel’, 153 Honda, 178–83 hot-rock energy, 138 Hurricane Katrina, 29, 33 hurricanes. see cyclones and hurricanes hybrid vehicles, 181 ice age, 16 icecap melting, 1–3 Iceland, 62–63 India, jatropha biodiesel, 150–51 infrastructure, effect of climate change on, 34–36 insurance for sea-level rise, 31 weather-related losses, 32–34 intense weather events, 29–32 Ireland carbon intensity, 46 Japan energy R&D, 120
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 261
as importer of Australian coal, 57 jatropha biodiesel, 150–51 job creation in clean technology, 226–27 in renewable energy generation, 215–16 through energy-efficiency measures, 214–15 Kwinana power station, 50 low carbon advantage, race for, 183–92 low-carbon economies, 62–63 Malthus, Thomas, 107–8 Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET), 139–40 manufacturing clean-technology opportunities, 210–23 manufacturing, Australia biofuel production, 226 Cochlear implants, 211–12 decline of car manufacturing, 223–25 failed wind turbine project, 217–18 of high-tech high-quality clean technology, 210–12 loss of jobs in, 219–20 low-carbon renewal, 219–26 solar energy products, 218, 222 Masdar Initiative, 94 McKinsey, 167–68 medical research, 111 drug discoveries, 113 medical technology, 210–12 Mercury, 17–18
26/2/09 10:19:06 PM
262 • The Clean Industrial Revolution methane animal emissions, 113 Mexico carbon intensity, 45fig, 46 Mills, David, 203 Monash Energy, 153 Montreal Protocol, 22–23, 183 natural gas electricity generation, 220–21 use in electricity generation, 134–36 natural gas production carbon capture and storage in, 128 Nokia, 110 Norwin, 97 nuclear energy France, 96 R&D expenditure, 119–20 oil Australia’s foreign oil deficit, 64–65 Australia’s over-dependence, 143 produced from coal, 152–53 shale oil, 155 from tar sands, 154 oil shock (1973), 49–50, 164–65. see also energy shocks ozone layer, 22 Pacific Solar Pty Ltd, 111–12 ‘peak oil’, 66–67 personal computers, energy efficiency, 186–87 Perth water shortage, 36–37 petrol price increases effect on car sales, 142–43
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 262
The Population Bomb (Ehrlich), 107–8 population growth and food production, 107–9 impact on energy consumption, 106 Prius hybrid car, 181, 196–97 public opinion, on climate change, 209 Q-Cells, 100 railtracks, 35 recycling industry, 215 recycling of water, 36, 38 renewable energy China’s investment in, 100 government promotion, Australia, 139–40 government promotion, Germany, 140–41 investment opportunities, 203–4 projected global investment in, 101 renewable energy generation job creation in, 215–16 ‘renewables premium’, 140 research and development, Australia attracting world’s best researchers, 117–18 business investment in, 117, 119, 123 clean-coal technology, 130–31 coal industry, 131 in energy, 118–19, 121, 123 government investment in, 117, 118, 123 international comparisons, 117, 119
26/2/09 10:19:06 PM
Index • 263 need for government support, 218–19 resources sector, 131–32 research and development, international in energy and resources, 117, 119, 129–30, 130fig global business investment, 128 major companies, 130fig major sectors, 129 nuclear energy, 119–20 retrofitting coal-fired power stations retrofitting clean-coal technology, 133–34 water consumption, 37 Sarkozy, Nicolas, 60 Saudi Arabia in 2046 scenario, 85–87 carbon intensity, 44, 45fig oil reliance, 95 Schwarzenegger, Arnold, 60–61 scientific R&D, 111–14 scientific research, Australia clean-energy technology, 111– 12, 114 medical, 111 shortage of science/ engineering graduates, 114–16 sea-ice melt, 1–3, 18 sea-level rise, 30–31 second-generation biofuels, 149–50 Shi, Zhengrong, 112, 201 Siemens, 220–21 Silent Spring (Carson), 76 Smart Storage Devices, 204
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 263
Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme, 121–22 social change, adaptation to, 71–75 solar arrays, 90 Solar Heat and Power Pty Ltd, 203 solar power 2046 scenario, 86–91 Australian R&D, 111–12 Australia’s potential role, 88–91, 139 electricity generating potential in Australia, 139–40 German technological leadership, 98–100 investment opportunities, 203–4 projected global investment in, 101 solar thermal technology, 139, 203 storage devices, 203–4 SolarWorld, 100 Stern, Nicholas, 24, 59–60, 123, 163 storm surges, 29–30 street and stadium lighting, 204 sugar cane, in ethanol production, 145, 151 ‘sun kinks’, 35 Suntech Pty Ltd, 112 syngas, 153 Synthetic Genomics, 150 tar sands, oil from, 154–55 technological innovation Australian contributions, 109–14 Australia’s failure to commercialise, 112, 114
26/2/09 10:19:06 PM
264 • The Clean Industrial Revolution Australia’s lack of science/ engineering graduates, 114–16 importance of, 106–9 termites, 150 tipping points, 18 tobacco. see anti-smoking laws Toyota, 129, 178–83, 196–97, 224 TXU buyout, 54
promotion of biofuels, 144 urbanisation, 94–96 USCAP (United States Climate Action Partnership), 191
uncertainty, 18–19 United Arab Emirates 2046 clean energy scenario, 85–87 zero-carbon projects, 92–94 United Kingdom carbon intensity, 44, 45fig greenhouse gas emissions reductions, 168–70 United States carbon intensity, 45fig, 47–48, 51 carbon tariffs, 60 clean-coal investment, 132 effect of oil shocks, 164 energy R&D, 120 fuel-dependent automobiles, 179 post-oil shock CO2 emissions, 164–66
Wal-Mart, 188–89 washing machines, 185 water supply, 36–39 wind power Danish technological leadership, 96–98, 216 electricity generating potential in Australia, 138 projected global investment in, 101 wind-power equipment failed Tasmanian venture, 217–18 Multibrid GmbH, 217 Vestas, 216 wine industry, carbon intensity, 61–62 The World is Flat (Friedman), 210
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 264
V-fuel (company), 204 vacuum-glazed glass, 93–94, 114 venture capital, 202–3, 205 Venus, 17–18 Vestas, 97, 216–18
zero-carbon transition, 137
26/2/09 10:19:06 PM
Acknowledgments Acknowledgments
I
t could not have been possible for a young scientist to write a general non-fiction book for a wider audience without the help and support of many friends and colleagues. The central thesis of this book came about through my discussions with many different people from science, academia and business over a number of years. However, the most important driving force for writing this book has come from discussions with citizens during town hall forums and community meetings. The palpable anxiety in communities over the need for real solutions to our common global challenges has convinced me of the importance of scientists taking a much more active role in the public policy debate on many issues. I would like to thank all those passionate citizens I met whose enthusiasm inspired me to be an active scientist rather than a passive one. I’d like to thank Bob Beale, who gave me initial guidance and encouraged me to write the book. To Matt England and Andy Pitman at the CCRC for giving me the latitude to work on something parallel to my day-to-day scientific research. To my close friend Steve O’Farrell whose creative skills and advice were called on in numerous calls at all hours. Long discussions and debates with my effervescent 265
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 265
26/2/09 10:19:06 PM
266 • The Clean Industrial Revolution
friend Michael Molitor provided the basis for many of the arguments. Thanks to Badin Gibbes, a close friend and colleague at the University of Queensland, who provided detailed and valuable reviews of many chapters. I would also like to thank Mike Raupach from the CSIRO and Bradley Smith from FASTS for additional reviews. Thanks to Sean Kidney, Ryan Heath, Julie Macken, Damien Hogan and Kate O’Brien, who all offered helpful feedback. Thanks to my friend Pete Lander, who introduced me to the Canadian diamond mines story. Thanks also to Benython Oldfield, who went well beyond the call of duty in representing me, and to Elizabeth Weiss at Allen & Unwin for giving me the opportunity and providing much-needed advice to a first-time author. Immense gratitude goes to the editorial staff at Allen & Unwin, particularly Aziza Kuypers and Ann Lennox, for their work in making the book the best it could be. Thanks to Nerida McMurray for taking the author photo; I’m lucky to have a professional photographer as a great friend. I want to thank all my family and friends who encouraged me along the way. Finally, thanks to Nathalie, who has put up with the inordinate hours required to work on the book beyond my ‘day job’, along with being a fantastic sounding board for concepts and structure. Her confidence and encouragement allows me to pursue things I would not normally pursue— this book could not have been written without her.
Bh1589M-PressProofs.indd 266
26/2/09 10:19:06 PM
