Here is a transcript of a lecture by George Monbiot about climate change and what we need to do. The latest scientific evidence suggests that we need to cut emissions to zero by 2030 to avoid significant increases in the sea level over the next century, George describes some options that will form part of a solution to this problem. Below are my comments on what I consider the most interesting (the ideas that I hadn’t heard of before), I recommend reading the full article for the rest.

1. Have a carbon ration for each citizen. Wealthy people who want to use more resources could buy carbon rations from poorer people on an open market. That way people who use less than their ration still have an incentive to save more because the extra savings are worth money! As everyone would then have a financial incentive to reduce emissions there would be a lot of new development of methods and technologies for eliminating or compensating for carbon emissions, capitalism works!
2. Build battery powered cars with interchangeable batteries. The idea is that you rent a battery from a fuel company, and whenever it runs low you go to a service station and swap it for a fully charged battery (for a small fee). If doing this the service station could use cheap night-time electricity to charge the batteries, and the batteries that are charged could be used to put electricity back into the grid at times of peak demand. A common idea is to have Prius+ type vehicles charge from the grid when not being used and then sell electricity back to the grid at peak times. Implementing such a system for millions of homes is technically challenging and expensive. But having a much smaller number of service stations sell larger quantities of electricity back to the grid is easier to manage.
3. Reduce air travel by 90%. I wonder how much of this can be achieved by using high-speed trains for all national travel systems and for most travel within the EU. I have often travelled between Amsterdam and London by train, it’s much more civilised than flying.
4. Classic quote from George on John Howard: “if Howard believes a slight reduction in consumption is a recessionary measure he ought to see what a total reduction of land area would be as a result of the melting of the west Antarctic ice sheet. The two things are just completely out of proportion..”

George Monbiot also has recently released a new book Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning.

The Australian has a new Environment writer named Matthew Warren who has a history of doing PR work for the coal industry. This has the potential for insightful articles based on knowledge of what the industry is doing or for PR work for the coal industry masquerading as journalism. Unfortunately it seems like the latter is what we are getting.

Matthew’s latest effort is an article claiming a $6.5 billion cost to home-owners because of an “effective ban” on electric hot water systems that Labor might impose. Unfortunately he doesn’t clearly state what an effective ban is, but does note that apartments are exempt.

The specific claim that is used as the basis for the article is that solar hot-water systems cost $2,800 more than electric systems, and that after the solar hot-water rebate ($1,000) the additional cost would be $650,000,000 per annum, and that a period of 10 years would be required to replace all hot-water systems thus giving a cost of $6,500,000,000. So I presume that he expects that there would be 650,000,000/1,800 hot water systems installed per year which would be about 361,111.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics there were 6,744,800 households in Australia in 2003. Matthew’s article states that about 40% of homes can have gas hot-water systems fitted that comply with the proposed new regulations, given that and the exemption for apartment buildings let’s assume for the sake of discussion that 50% of homes would require a solar hot-water system. Assuming that each household has a separate hot-water system that means that for these claims to hole we need an average expected lifetime for a hot water system of 6,744,800/2/361,111 = about 9.3 years. If the currently installed hot-water systems are expected to be replaced in 9.3 years then we can expect that hot water systems tend to survive for an average of about 18.6 years. I wonder if that number is correct (some google searching didn’t turn up an answer). One of the disadvantages of old-fashioned media is that they tend not to include calculations or cite sources adequately so we can’t easily verify or disprove their claims, I wonder if this is deliberate…

Matthew admits that using a solar hot water system can be expected to save households $300 per annum in electricity expenses, I presume that this is based on current energy prices and that the savings can therefore be expected to increase as energy prices increase (we have a lack of water which is increasing the cost of producing electricity from coal).

Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that the typical home-owner has a mortgage, the Commonwealth Bank is currently advertising mortgages with a rate of just over 8%, the way things work is that there are various criteria for getting a discount rate which most borrowers can meet so the result will be slightly below 8%. If a solar hot water system costs $1,800 extra to install and the money comes from a mortgage then every year it will cost the home owner about 8% of $1,800 which is about $144 (a saving of $156 per annum). If the solar hot water system saves the home owner $300 per annum then at any interest rate below 300/1800 (16.66%) they will make money.

If there was no government subsidy and the entire $2,800 extra was paid by the home owner then at 8% interest it will cost $224 per annum (a saving of $76 per annum) and the interest rate would need to increase to 300/2800 = 10.7% to make it break even.

So for solar hot water to not save the home-owner money we need to have a significant increase in interest rates (which incidentally would bankrupt many home owners), AND to have electricity prices remain the same (which would require even more of our tax money to be spent on supporting the coal industry).

Finally Matthew complains that the solar hot-water rebate could cost the government $4 billion over the course of the scheme (the next 10 years). This sounds like a lot of money until you think about the 9 billion dollars a year that the government spends on subsidies for the coal, oil, and gas industries! On the current course the government would spend 90 billion dollars of our tax money subsidising polluting industries that cause climate change, but Matthew opposes spending 4 billion subsidising technology that prevents pollution and reduces climate change.

A frequent criticism of solar power is that the sun only shines brightly for part of the day, and that many of the times when there is significant electrical load (EG when people get home from work in winter) the sun light will be weak. One interesting solution to this problem is to store the solar power by splitting ammonia into nitrogen and hydrogen gases, storing them separately, and then reacting them to produce super-heated steam for power generation at any time that power is needed. The technology is based on three decades of research at ANU and the Federal government has allocated $7,400,000 for building a power station near Whyalla in South Australia.

The down-side to this is that it needs water for the steam part of the electricity generation process which is a minor problem as we are having water shortages in most parts of Australia. But the up-side is that the process of combining nitrogen and hydrogen to produce heat should be something that can be turned on rapidly. So it seems that there is potential for having a wind power plant designed to satisfy all the power requirements on windy days and store hydrogen and nitrogen for times when there the combination of sunlight and wind is not adequate to satisfy the power requirements.

Previous plans for the maximum possible use of renewable energy in producing electricity have included gas fired power plants for times when wind and solar power can’t meet the demand. It seems that with technology such as this one it will be practical to have all electricity produced from renewable sources of energy.

Due to climate change and population increases we are having increasing problems with the water supply in Australia. Peter Lieverdink suggests that we have more options for water supply including treated sewage similar to the Netherlands here he grew up. However I believe that in Australia we already do what he proposes (put treated sewage in rivers and then use the same rivers for the water supply). It’s just removing the middle step (of having the treated sewage in a river) that is controversial.

I recently examined a water bill for my house. Among other things it said that my water use was slightly above the average for houses that use water efficiently and significantly below the average for typical water use. The funny thing was that most of the expenses on the bill were not actually related to the amount of water used. My bill for a quarter was $54 service charges for sewerage and water (of which $39 was sewerage), $30 for sewage disposal, $26 for water, and $14 for drainage. So the cost of disposing of sewage was greater than the cost of getting fresh water and the sewerage service charge was the largest single item on the bill.

Australia supposedly has a capitalist economic system in place (except for the communist policies related to farming and the protection of some industries such as car manufacture and coal mining). Surely the right thing to do is to make water expensive enough that people have a financial incentive to conserve it!

The first thing that should be done is to make the majority of the value of a water bill received by a typical household be determined by the amount of water used. This could be achieved by reducing the fixed components of the bill to something small (EG $20 per quarter instead of $98 for me) and then increasing the cost per kilo-litre (EG from $0.85 to $2.50). The end result would be that people who use average amounts of water would pay about the same amount as they do now and people who use less than the average amount would get smaller bills, while government revenue would remain the same.

The next thing to do is to have different tarriffs for different quantities of water used. The first 50L per day could be free (water for drinking and cooking is a right), between 50 and 450L per day (451L per day being regarded as efficient water use for a house with four occupants and a medium garden) could be at slightly more than current prices, and usage greater than 450L per day could be significantly more expensive.

The current situation is that everyone is going to pay through taxes for desalination plants and other expensive methods of producing new fresh water. Having people pay for what they use is the capitalist way.

boston.com reports that Germany now has 55% of the world’s photo-Voltaic (PV) power generation.

The German solar power industry has created tens of thousands of jobs including significant exports – so much for the Australian government claims that supporting the dirty coal industry is necessary for the economy! The renewable power industry in Germany employs over 250,000 people.

Australia has much more sun-light than Germany, the same programs of creating solar power could give better results here!

Last year I spent several months living on one side of Melbourne and working on the other and travelling by train to work. Every day I had to catch two trains each way with an average wait of 5 to 10 minutes for each train to arrive giving a total of at least half an hour a day spent waiting for trains.

The obvious solution to this problem is to have trains not go back and forth on one line but instead go from one side of the city to the other. This map shows that there are 14 train lines out of the city with about 5 major lines. The smart thing to do would be to have every major line have one train every 5 minutes during peak hours and to have every train go back out on a different line. Then if you are on one of the major lines and want to travel out on one of the other major lines then every 20 minutes there would have a train that would take you straight there without changing trains!

Currently we don’t even have such frequent trains, during peak hour the trains on most lines run no more often than 5 per hour, the Sydenham line has trains 4 times per hour during peak hours and the trains are crammed full before they get half-way to the city.

If the trains ran more frequently and were routed through the city then commuters who travel through the city would save 20+ minutes per day without going to any effort and 30+ minutes a day if they chose to start their journey at a time to avoid changing trains. This would be a significant incentive for catching the train instead of driving!

For the commuters who travel to work via a single journey then having trains run every 5 minutes at peak times would mean that an average of 2.5 minutes was spent waiting for a train each way (an average of 5 minutes per day) instead of the current situation of 15 minutes per day or more. This would mean triple the number of trains on the Sydenham line which may sound excessive. However the trains are currently so crowded that there could be twice as many trains and all seats would still be full. If there were three times as many trains then I expect that more people would catch the train (surely some people would be convinced to drive to work by the idea of spending 20 minutes with barely room to stand), it’s not inconceivable that there could be three times as many trains and all seats could still be full!

The next issue I have been considering is the time taken for a tram ride to/from the central city areas in peak hours. Peak hour trams stop at every stop because there are always people getting on and off. If a tram could stop less frequently then it could make a slightly higher average speed. One way of achieving this would be for the peak hour trams to stop at every second stop outside the center of the city. On the way in half the trams would accept passengers at each stop (each tram would be designated as either odd or even and labelled as such – the tram stops are already numbered). But if you have twice as many trams then the average wait would be the same while the duration of the trip would be reduced. On the way out of the city the tram driver would announce that after stop 10 (to pick a random number that might work) the tram would only allow passengers to get on or off at even/odd stops. If you knew that your stop was on an even number and the tram was an odd-numbered tram then you would change trams to an even tram. The small delay in changing trams would be made up by a faster trip overall.

Politicians are always talking about ways to alleviate the water shortage caused by climate change and to improve the economy. Having people spend an extra 10 minutes a day working because of saved time on the trains would help the economy. Encouraging people to catch the trains via more frequent and efficient service as well as less overcrowding would help reduce climate change – which is the best way of improving our water supply and the only way of helping the farmers long-term!