ABC Q&A
Blog Post | Blog of Christine Milne
Tuesday 8th July 2008, 3:10pm
by TimHollo in
ABC TV watchers amongst you may have seen the promos already for Christine Milne on the newish Q&A program this Thursday night, July 10, at 9.30 pm.
She will be on the panel, focussed on 'Welcome the new Senate', with Senator Helen Coonan, Minister Craig Emerson, author Linda Jaivin and everybody's favourite opinionated columnist, Andrew Bolt.
As well as watching the program, please think about asking questions of Christine and the other panellists - about the Senate and balance of power, about the Garnaut Review, about appropriate responses to climate change, peak oil and the transport crisis, or anything at all that interests you!
Go here to submit a question online. Or you can SMS a question during the program to 197 55 222 - costs 55c including GST.
Enjoy the program and let us know what you think!
PDF version
Bookmark, email and share
Comments
Gerard Henderson was out in
Gerard Henderson was out in the SMH today claiming that his dull, anti-intellectual desire for the two big parties to line up against the Senate Greens is "unconventional" and "wisdom".
He is so boring!
Its no wonder that some people at the SMH want to see the opinion page shaken up a bit...
Oh no! I was looking forward
Oh no! I was looking forward to watching it until I read that Bolt was going to be on there too. Ah well, give 'em hell, Senator Milne :)
Its obvious for Lab+Lib to
Its obvious for Lab+Lib to line against against Greens, they are much more closely aligned these days, and making business as usual sound new is G.Hendersons job. As for the Dolt on the Hun, i expect him to recite the usual right think lies - don't stand on your manners, Ms Milne!
I was on the show a few
I was on the show a few weeks ago when Bob Brown was on the panel. Great show highly controlled however. Didnt get a chance to ask my question to Tony Abbott.
The ABC is highly
The ABC is highly controlled. Questions will be controlled. Nevertheless I have submitted a question online but expect the ABC will continue to boycott marine ecosystem devastation and solutions. The question is here 'on notice' :
Is the southern boundary of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority set by economic policy or environment policy, because the jurisdiction is stopping marine science understanding southern city nutrient pollution flowing into GBR waters where algae blooms are linked to coral bleaching?
We have just seen an economist try to deal with environment climate change. The entire GBR ecosystem needs dire urgent management by biologists, not by economists.
Australia is polluting the marine environment in a big way. The southern GBRMPA boundary must be amended to allow scientific study of the primary food supply source that feeds the GBR. The same source now supplies nutrient pollution that is killing the GBR but scientific study of the situation is blocked by the GBRMPA southern boundary.
Failure to address southern city sewage nutrient pollution and downstream impact is causing the GBR and other coral and seagrass to die with very significant destructive impact on the Asia - Pacific Ocean food web ecosystem.
I got a question! Why
I got a question!
Why should we believe a report that grossly exaggerates the effects of climate change?
There are very serious
There are very serious questions that need urgent answers concerning economic policy that is damaging the marine environment. See:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/08/asia/coral.php
Algae feeds on available nutrient supply.
Congratulations to Bob
Congratulations to Bob Brown!
I’ve just watched him give one of his most brilliant speeches ever to the National Press Club on ABC 1 TV (9th July) . I was also thrilled to see the respect given to Bob by members of the media who asked him questions at the end. Let’s hope some of that respect is reflected in their future editorials.
I loved hearing Bob referring to the “old” parties.
Yes just finished reading
Yes just finished reading that speech right now. Lets hope this press club respect materialises into some main stream media coverage for the Greens as an alternative government in Australia because up to now there has been a concerted effort to exclude the Greens from any media coverage as much as the major parties.
Over fifty percent of world
Over fifty percent of world oxygen comes from the ocean. Why is the world ocean environment excluded from debate about climate change policy?
Liam - Please name for me
Liam -
Please name for me one verified lie that Andrew Bolt has told either in his articles, on his blog or on a televised appearance.
Or consider retracting your statement.
Ahhhh how good is it for
Ahhhh how good is it for Andrew Bolt to be on Q and A tomorrow night.
No doubt would be good watching to see, considering how up in the air the debate on GW is.
All I can hope is that people out there realize that carbon emissions do NOT contribute to GW, then again, thats probably asking too much.
Michael @ 11 - have a look
Michael @ 11 - have a look at this piece on Deltoid for a start.
Deliberately abusing the evidence.
Andrew Bolt likes to argue
Andrew Bolt likes to argue that reducing our 1.5% will make no global difference. It is amazing that so many people happily buy this invitation to free riding.
The problem that is not seen, and that I hope that Christene points out is that free such riding comes at a cost that has nothing to do with the climate change risk.
The cost of free riding is the risk of being punished for doing so. Typically a free rider punishment is double the cost of the savings attempted to be made by a free rider.
This punishment arises regardless of whether global warming eventuates. The punishment arises because people who have the capacity to penalise us in some way *believe* that global warming may happen. They don't even need to be sure.
I am quite sure Andrew would be apalled if his own children engaged in free riding because he would not want them to be social pariahs.
I simply switch off to
I simply switch off to anything Andrew Bolt says. I do this nealry every Sunday watching "Insiders" on the ABC.
I watched as much of that
I watched as much of that meelie as I could.
We're........toast......
One piece of greenery in that toxic soup can't make the mix edible.
If that is the recipe that we go with then it will be Jonestown all over again.
Here is a thought for those
Here is a thought for those sad people who keep bringing up the 1.5% of total emissions issue. Under our law a persons responsibility is proportional to their ability to act. It is constantly claimed that other countries are not doing anything about global warming. I challenge that perception. It is my observation that global warming is as big an issue in most other countries as it is here. Different countries have differing education standards, political systems, and standards of living. It is my belief that other countries are creating awareness and effecting change within the limits of their abilities. As a country that scores highly in all of standard of living, education standard, and political stability, Australia has a much higher responsibility to act on climate change mitigation than most other countries in the world. And we will be judged if we do not.
BilB@16, ditto. Watched as
BilB@16, ditto. Watched as much as I could stomach and also concluded that we're stuffed. Hard to see us avoiding runaway global warming if that was representative of public opinion.
The thing that bothered me
The thing that bothered me the most was the minister's line that solar energy couldn't handle baseload and was eight times the price of coal.
It seemed to me he didn't understand the difference between CST and PV. It seems we need to stop simply saying solar and be more specific. When discussing baseload we need to keep saying "CST NOT PV".
PV is great and is well suited for small scale installations. It is flexible and modular. However existing commercially available PV is not strong enough to win a contest with coal in a ruthless very short term economic analysis. This means it is a disaster if decision makers continue to confuse PV with CST as the minister did.
This suggests we need an education program for ministers. Should take all of about 5 minutes of their time to become educated on this topic. Its pretty simple really. We can't afford for our future to hang on such basic misunderstandings.
John G, I shuddered at that
John G,
I shuddered at that as well. It shows how missinformed they are. And being that wide of the mark in their information the decisions being made are laughable. It is John Howard in red. I certainly hope that Christine Milne and Bob Brown will force a renewable energy build plan into the agreement when it comes to the vote on the way forward. My reading of Christine's words in the Q&A programme certainly suggest that that is what is afoot. As I have said over and over again recently applying pressure to change without providing the alternative will only push prices up without creating the desired change. Look at how robust demand for petrol has been. It took the mandating of 2% of ethanol in petrol to get the ethanol ball rolling because nobody would budge without the certinty that legislation produces. Now it looks as thaough with oil projected to be $8 per litre within ten years the ethanol producers will be pressed to keep up.
Talking about this with my friend who is an economist and an ex Labour ministerial aid today, he pointed out that the Ord River sugar refinery went broke and was bought by the Indonesians. Now the sugar from that part of Australia is sent to Indonesia as stock feed. So the Ord Rivers net value to Australia is for watermellons, pumpkins and squashes (his information, I haven't checked it out). Talk about misalocated resources. Ord river in cane ethanol has the capacity to provide Australia with E30, and this will be pivotal in helping Australians cope with peak oil. But wait for the howl about the starving millions when the change is made. What? People starving from watermellon deprivation? Please.
Well done Senator Milne,
Well done Senator Milne, thought you did well and so obviously did the studio audience.
Thanks Tim Hollo for doing my homework for me, providing Michael with an example of Andrew Bolt deceit. The most memorable example for me of the Dolts hubris was his stoush with Jeff Severinghaus of Scripps Institute
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1867444.htm
The Dolts final position was "i know your research (from reading half of one paper) better than you do".. News Corp must be proud!
And thanks John Griffen for two excellent points, about the consequences of free-riding, and CST vs. PV. I believe concentrated solar thermal has much lower embodied energy cost too, which will matter alot if total available energy supply contracts.
BilB, In terms of CO2
BilB,
In terms of CO2 abatement, effect on world food prices, cost of production not all ethanols are the same.
Sugar cane ethanol is much preferred over that produced from the conversion of grain.
The proposed 2010 E10 mandate in NSW will have to filled by grain ethanol unless we import it from Brazil.
Your Ord option will not be on line by 2010.
The impact of supplying about 1.5 million tonnes of grain to be converted to ethanol in NSW from the drying MDBasin will be a disaster.
I hope the Greens see reality on this E10 mandate and any grain biofuel industry in Australia.
Two Bob and BilB, the Greens
Two Bob and BilB, the Greens do not support an expansion of first generation biofuels, as the impacts of such on global food supplies are impossible to justify. Not to speak of significant environmental impacts along the way in various forms of their production - notably palm oil and sugar cane.
However, we do strongly advocate research and development of second generation biofuels as well as the roll-out of plug-in electric cars to be powered by an expanded renewably-powered grid. In the meantime, mass transit, car-pooling, riding and walking are the primary solutions...
Tim H, I think that that is
Tim H,
I think that that is an uncharateristic under informed decision for the Greens to make. Ethanol will be pivotal in allowing communities to survive the vagaries of peak oil and global warming, particularly at village and local level. Consider a small agricultural community who rely on a pump to irrigate farming plots. Methanol and ethanol are the 2 best fuel sources to allow existing machinery to keep running and provide independence. For Australia Cane ethanol is a natural, as there is land that has marginal value for anything other than sugar cane (a weed) which has the capacity to take Australia to E30 at least if not E85 substantially. Businesses that set up to produce ethanol from grain have admitted to me that they made a mistake, and establishing in the Ord would have been a far better proposition. These were people who set out to create a business where they lived, and that is how it came out. No great strategy, very typically Australian.
As for rural communities else where, this ill conceived international vendeta against ethanol completely misses the need for these communities to have a cash crop for money to buy all of the other things that people need other than food. These communities have been pleading for decades to gain agricultural access to western markets and suddenly an opportunity arises through the need for an agricultural product (ethanol), a product that can be traded bypassing all tarrif barriers, and the door is slammed firmly shut by misperception.
The real issue here is where western countries use their economic muscle to rape lands that should be controlled by local inhabitants.... That is the issue..... It is not bio fuels. I am amazed that the Greens cannot see through this. But then nothing is making much sense these days.
Two Bob, You are correct to
Two Bob,
You are correct to say that ethanols are not created equally, and that is a good way of putting this issue. Unfortunately those who would like to see the ethanol industry limited to Whiskey making have focussed their attentions on corn and grain ethanol to debase the entire industry.
Quick facts: Australian cane ethanol is yielding 9500 to 12500 litres of ethanol per hectare (actual current industry sourced information) for a field and transport (fuel) cost of around 3% (extremely efficient) with further energy (biomass electricity) available from the bagasse. With the full combined cycle the potential is for 20,000 litres per hectare. Further, cane for ethanol returns to the farmers twice what cane for sugar production does. This is an important boost to failing rural economies.
Grain ethanol: I was told by an insider, has a very high ethanol per tonne yield (cannot remember how much) but not so good on the per hectrare yield. But the most important point to make here is that (I was told) they use grains that are not commercial for food ie the type of grain that becomes bird seed, etc. Not all grains are created equal. But no doubt there is always the risk that other grain would be used to make up quotas.
On world food
On world food shortages.
The real cause of this phenomenon, other than global warming drought (west Timor) and land inundation (Bangladesh) is China's (and India's) need to feed more people with less land as they convert huge tracts of land to industrial complexes taking millions of people from agricultural support to industrial occupation in the process. This food demand is marching out from China to surrounding Asian countries powered by China's industrial wealth and is distorting the local food price structures as the Chinese buy all of the same types of crops only at a higher price.
There are some solutions. And this from a guy who has just returned from living in China for 3 years (and visited my factory on Friday), the Chinese are converting many rice fields to potatoes. Why? Higher yields for lower water consumption.
This is the value of ethanol as a cash crop. it does not compete with local foods, it only competes for land. And this can be regulated from the end user country. Another example is where Kenya grows flowers for the European market. This does not distort Kenyan food prices, other than through local prosperity. So, Tim Hollo, if the Greens are to boycott ethanol production are they also boycotting flower production? There is no difference between the two.
This is not about Q&A, but
This is not about Q&A, but instead about comments by Bob Brown on channel 10 this morning.
I was impressed by his reference to "baseload solar". This phrasing is a step in the right of the direction as it confronts the misapprehension of some.
On the other hand I thought it was very unlikely we would ever realise his expectation that by taking a lead in renewables we might become meaningful exporters of SHWS and such. There are at least three reasons this will never happen:
a) Rising transport costs (peak oil, carbon taxes, etc) mean manufacturing is reversing its past trend and is now deglobalising in favour of local manufacturing in each market.
b) Our resource wealth will maintain a strong Australian dollar putting any manufacturing exports at a serious disadvantage.
c) Our very high salaries (in a global sense) and expectation of uncompromising (and thus expensive) workplace practices make it very hard for Australians to compete with manufacturing in countries with less favourable workplace arrangements than we enjoy.
However there is a way in which our adoption of renewables might still lend us an advantage. We have a unique opportunity to become experts at GW scale CST projects. Australia probably needs somewhere in the vicinity of 50 to 100 such GW scale plants over the next 30 years or so (allowing for increases in demand from emerging plug in electric vehicles). We have the financial and solar resources to do it comfortably.
Building this many plants here will create significant, unique and valuable expertise in the process. If we do this ahead of other nations we will have the opportunity and expertise to build and even own such plants in foreign countries and thus derive significant national income.
Jonh Griffin, what do you
Jonh Griffin, what do you mean by CST and PV?
Concerned, what is meant by "GW scale CST projects"?
I'm one of the ones who needs educating as I don't understand what these letters stand for. However, there may be others like me.
Would you be willing to spell out full the meaning of these initials when you post blogs? With thanks.
IF there is impact of
IF there is impact of climate change already and the dry devastated state of the Murray Darling Coorong is part of it, surely the environment should take priority by blocking off the man-made Menindee Lakes immediately. See:
http://search.abc.net.au/search/search.cgi?query=upstream+release+earmar...
Surely the people of Broken Hill will understand, for example how toxic algae particles from devastated river systems can dry and become airborne. Devastation of the water environment coincides with increased asthma attacks. At least one toxic algae is known to cause asthma-like attacks in humans.
I think the ABC Q&A program should urgently focus on whether to close Menindee Lakes, and, also question experts whether or not airborne toxic algae particle dust might have links to asthma.
Other questions come to mind. Is river water needed in the marine environment, and if so, why?
Brenda M CST is
Brenda M
CST is concentrating solar thermal. GW is global warming. So GW scale CST means installing CST in gigawatt (1 million kilowatts or 1 million 1 bar radiators or about 8 million solar roof panels) sized facilities. CST uses reflectors to direct the suns rays onto pipes which contain oil, heating the oil to 400 degrees centigrade. This oil is pumped to a steam turbine house where water is heated to produce steam to drive turbines in the same way as electricity is generated now but using the sun's energy instead of coal. Coal being the main substance which is producing the surplus CO2 which is causing the Global Warming problem.
To give you an idea on scale 1 square kilometer of CST collectors produces 50 megawatts of electricity, so 20 square kilometers (4 kilometers by 5 kilometers) produces 1 gigawatt. The average coal power station produces 1 to 2 gigawatts. So to produce all of Australia's electricity needs of around 80 (120 in future) gigawatts peak load would require a collector area of 1600 square kilometers. This might sound like a lot but when you consider that the Hunter Valley coal mine alone is a massive hole 600 square kilometers large.
Cost for CST using the European design is around 2 billion dollars per gigawatt for the hybride CST plant which provides electrity 24 hours by storing surplus daytime heat to generate steam at night when the sun is not around, and uses gas to generate steam for the few times when the heat runs out. So the key ingredient in solving Australia's future electricity needs is a mix of CST and geo thermal power. The advantage of geothermal power is that it is not dependent on the sun's presence (good for night time or extended periods of cloud cover).
In a nutshell to reduce our CO2 emissions by half is a 160 billion dollar capital cost problem. As this is to be solved over a 20 year period and considering that much of Australia's electricity generating machinery is due for replacement now, the problem is not so great.
The cost of the electricity from CST is at present projections about twice that of coal powered electrity. But all of the projections have been based on very small less efficient installations. With the installation of very large plants the cost of CST is projected to match the cost of coal powered electricity. So from the end users point of view there will be little change to the present. With solar water heating on every Australian roof and electric powered vehicles charged from the garage wall socket
http://www.bev.com.au/ (for example)
your overall fuel and electricity bill combined may actually be lower than it is today.
So what is all of the fuss about? Big business protecting their position. Some years ago in New Zealand the aluminium smelter powered by Lake Munmora hydro power tried to use a period of weak government to buy the lake dam and power facility threatening all manor of dire consequences if they could not get it. The public aoutcry caused the government to hold firm. The smelter is still there (I believe) and with the energy turmoil present in the world it will be the most cost effective smelter in the world in the near future.
This is not a period when governments should be caving into business pressure as business decissions are based on next year's balance sheet. An even shorter outlook than government (3 years).
Post new comment