It’s snowing here in Copenhagen, as leaders feel the heat over climate change.

No snow job: let's keep Copenhagen cold.

In the winter gloom, the flashing lights of police motorcades snake through the city. Is it Obama, Gordon Brown, or Kevin Rudd? It’s certainly not the President of the tiny, vulnerable Maldives, the shock troops of rising sea levels.

Walkouts by developing nations, angry clashes between protesters and police, people dressed as polar bears, Greenpeace ships moored in the canal not far from The Little Mermaid statue, business leaders selling wind power, electric vehicles, even shoes with recycled rubber soles.

A circus? A tale by Hans Christian Andersen?  Maybe, but there’s more than one conference taking place here in Copenhagen, and one of them has already reached agreement, struck a deal and got developed and developing regions working co-operatively together rather than sniping at each other.

I’m attending and co-chairing the Conference of State and Regional leaders brought together by the Climate Group, an international non-government organisation with great links to business as well as governments.

A year ago we met in Poznan, Poland. Rather than issue another bland, aspirational statement expressing concern about a world in peril, each regional leader in Poznan committed to ambitious, verifiable targets to increase renewable energy production and to lower emissions.

Importantly, each of us also committed to support and mentor a region in the developing world to help them with their climate change strategies.

South Australia is working closely with our region’s newest nation, East Timor.

So why are states, regions and provinces so important? It’s because between 50 and 80 per cent of decisions affecting climate change are made at regional level.

So what came out of our meeting in Copenhagen?

For a start, we collectively committed to planting one billion trees by 2015. This will remove hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere. Rapid deforestation is a cancer on the lungs of our planet. We must do more than slow it down. We have to commit to re-afforestation.

Our conference also unanimously called on the world leaders meeting being held down the road to commit to planting one tree for every person on the planet. By my count, that’s around 6.8 billion trees.

It’s still not enough, but such a commitment would be a tangible endowment - or “green dividend” - from the Copenhagen COP15 summit.

We also dealt with issues ranging from building efficiency to the rollout of electric vehicles, clean energy technologies and, of course, renewable energy.

So what is my State doing to put its money where its mouth is on climate change? Between the Poznan and Copenhagen summits, South Australia committed to matching California’s target of producing 33 per cent of our power from renewables by 2020.

That’s a big, but achievable, ask for a State that has no hydro-electric power. We are well on our way, with SA home to around 50 per cent of Australia’s wind power, 93 per cent of the nation’s geothermal development, and a clear lead in solar power.

We were the first to introduce solar feed-in laws to increase the take-up of rooftop solar panels, and in 2007 we passed greenhouse gas reduction legislation that includes voluntary agreements with industry sectors that are committed to reducing their carbon footprints.

The first cab off the rank was our wine industry, and many other sectors and even individual companies are signing up. They know it’s smart business, as well as being good for the environment.

The SA government is, itself, a big purchaser of electricity to power our hospitals, schools and government buildings. So by 2014, 50 per cent of this electricity will come from renewable sources. Even our new $1.8 billion desalination plant will be totally powered by renewable energy.

And we are investing $2 billion in public transport to vastly improve our suburban rail and tram network.

In Copenhagen this week, I have also announced a round of new initiatives. Every new State Government building will be mandated to have solar power systems plugged in from the middle of next year. In an Australian first, we will also rebate payroll tax for new renewable energy projects that are established in South Australia.

This initiative attracted considerable interest from business leaders in Copenhagen, and I have invited them to attend the CleverGreen Conference and Showcase being held in Adelaide next February.

We’re also getting tough with power-hungry appliances. For us, the villains are inefficient air conditioners that cause a massive hike in power consumption on our hottest days, which are becoming increasingly frequent. Some of these models represent the worst possible deals for consumers, who then face enormous power bills. So we’re introducing Australia’s toughest standards from next July, and the worst offending models will be banned from sale.

Instead of talk, we’re taking action. And it was clear from our meeting in Copenhagen that, around the world, state and regional governments are often way ahead of their national counterparts. In Australia, there couldn’t be a sharper division at the national level with the climate change deniers now in charge of the Opposition.

This fact, and the defeat of the Emissions Trading Bill in the Senate, has been highlighted repeatedly here in Copenhagen.

But we wish our leaders well. The bottom line is we want them to agree to commit to ambitious targets, so that average global temperatures rise by no more than two degrees.

We want it to continue to snow in the Danish capital.

57 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      06:11am | 17/12/09

      It’s nice to see a few positive steps being taken - not extreme panic measures as proposed by some people. Even if, as seems possible, the climate alarmists are wrong, no harm will be done by planting trees.

      Oddly, as Premier of a state with vast uranium resources, nuclear energy is not on your list. This is a rather glaring error if reducing carbon emissions is the goal.

      Of course, we all must remember that with the release of the Climategate evidence, the global warming scenario seems much less likely than previously thought.

    • Lyndon says:

      06:58am | 17/12/09

      where are we going to plant these trees?

    • Steve Parker says:

      07:02am | 17/12/09

      Dear Premier - does the term every “State Government building” include all schools buildings or just the city citadels? Also - I love these organised think tanks - I remember a few years back attending a seminar organised by SA Government with David Suzuki. His message - clever environmental management including water harvesting. Net result here in Adelaide - nothing! No wonder the polls out today show the Libs have cut your lead by half.

    • paul says:

      07:57am | 17/12/09

      Complete nonsense Mike - you have longstanding CSIRO advice, that well* over a billion trees had to planted in SA just to tackle serious accelerating salinity in the Murray Darling river system and save key farming districts. Why the unlaziness now? Also given Labors policies of not recycling water or managing water resources sustainably, and given Labors addiction to costly and carbon heavy desalination plants in several states - why don’t you tell us how many millions of trees per desal plant will be required Mike? How many millions of trees are required to counter the hundreds of thousands of carbon -heavy plasma TVs, Labor invested in with it’s $900 cash giveaways? You run from the truth and can’t solve or hide these issues with spin Mike - although Conroys net censorship might make at least your life easier! If you can’t tackle the issue of the death of the states largest river system and farming district, how can you mentor smaller countries in your incompetence &  tackle much larger issues of climate change?

    • Joe says:

      08:46am | 17/12/09

      What are you doing off at this polluting talk fest? Did you get a limo or have they realy run out as the press reports. The global warming science is totally unraveling. You need to fix your own state and its water issues before you start preaching overseas.

    • Pete says:

      09:06am | 17/12/09

      Your comment:

      How’s the Bar staff over there Mr Premier?

    • Joy Brown says:

      09:17am | 17/12/09

      Filanderer! I dont believe anything you say anymore..

    • David C says:

      09:20am | 17/12/09

      Why do we have all these people at this gabfest?

    • watty says:

      09:23am | 17/12/09

      Spoken like a true Greenpeace veteran.

      “We want it to continue to snow in Copenhagen”?

      You mean if Rudd doesn’t fund the “developing “countries with $millions of Australian taxpayers dollarsfor 20 years it will stop snowing in Copenhagen?

      Get real Rann ....if that is possible.

    • Brett says:

      09:35am | 17/12/09

      The sooner State Government is abolished the better.

    • Moggy says:

      09:44am | 17/12/09

      Labor has been in power in all Australian states for several years & they have done piss all to tackle c.o.2 emissions but now that climate change is really really sexy we now hear them patting themselves on the back for their “initiatives??” Initiatives mean friggin’ nothing you moron….action is what counts….& I mean REAL action….not just releasing feel good statements to the press which mean stuff all because most of them aren’t followed up on. Planting trees should have been going on fifty years ago….but no….all you politicians are more interested in sucking up to big business & why??? Because big business make big donations to political parties…...which pay for election advertising….which keeps YOU in power!! And that’s what this article is all about.

    • Sherlock says:

      09:45am | 17/12/09

      One more story for the main-stream media environmental reporters to ignore has surfaced today. Soon they will have more issue they are ignoring then they have to report on.

      The Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

      First we had the CRU emails and since then we have had report after report where it appears that temperature data, if not outright falsified, has at least been massaged to arrive at a pre-ordained conclusion.

      New Zealand, Darwin and now Russia who, by the way, represents 12.5% of the world’s land mass so it’s not insignificant..The scandal just keeps getting bigger and bigger yet it’s ignored by the mainstream press.

      This could be the greatest scientific scandal of all time. We have world leaders meeting to decide on outcomes that could literally change the way all people on this planet live their lives as well as completely redesigning the global financial system all based on data that’s looking dodgier and dodgier by the minute. Please forgive me if I think that decisions as world changing as these should be based on data that’s fairly clear cut and not as questionable as this data is looking.

      Is the data wrong. I have no idea but I’ll tell you what I do know. This is news in fact it’s big news. Blog sites around the world are reporting visitor numbers never before seen yet the mainstream press, who are supposedly desperate for readers, are, as one united front,  completely ignoring the story. That alone doesn’t make commercial sense

      Those that do mention it are simply saying it’s nothing but a beat up designed to disrupt the Copenhagen talks. Go to Australia’s mainstream papers and read the stories. They will have different by-lines but they may as well have been written by the same person.

      This is one of the biggest news stories of the decade yet it’s not being reported by the Australian press. I for one want to know why. I’m surprised you don’t.

    • Ian F says:

      09:47am | 17/12/09

      I’m wondering if the SA Premier has met the Mayor of Copenhagen, whose popularity among the COP15 delegates might now be soaring.  Concerned about the potential influx of sex workers from all over Europe, the office of the Mayor reportedly issued advice that COP15 delegates should refrain from using the services of prostitutes while in Copenhagen.  The local sex workers union apparently responded by offering to provide free services to COP15 delegates upon presentation of the UN badge.  I think it provides an elegant example of unintended consequences.

    • Charles says:

      09:59am | 17/12/09

      Mike Rann has overseen the the squandering of an extraordinary amount of resources and treasure from SA, in building these monuments to his ideology in the form of wind farms.

      The problem is that most of the $ millions being spent, actually goes to offshore interests, and as everyone knows, wind farms are not effective generators of power, so the reduction of fossil fuels being burnt with the advent of these wind farms is zero.

      Consequently, for the privilege of destroying our sky-lines, paying exorbitant amounts of money for an intermittent electricity supply, which requires a replicate fossil fuelled back up, South Australians are producing a warm inner glow in the pockets of shareholders in mainly Scandinavia and China.  What an outstanding outcome!!!  (/sarc off)

      Weel done Mike Rann, overseeing the destruction of the economy of SA so that you can worship at the alter of your latest shibboleth.

    • Craig james says:

      10:52am | 17/12/09

      To all you knockers, instead of winging how about getting off your own asses and doing something on a personal level for once in your lives.
      Its not about governments and expecting them to make all the changes, its time individuals take up some of the responsibility.

      and for that person that said”
        Lyndon says:
      where are we going to plant these trees?

      Wipe your own ass for a change and start using a little bit of that grey matter you have between your ears, if you cant work out what this man has said then truly we have little hope for our childrens, childrens future.

      Every day that passes I am becoming more and more disgusted to be a member of the human race.

      Wallow in your own misery and finger pointing, I’m off outside to plant some trees and will plant a couple more for those that dont know how to dig a hole.

    • strop says:

      11:00am | 17/12/09

      if these so called leaders cant reach an agreement by the designated timeline, they ought to be refused entry back to their respective homes until they get something sorted. the whole idea of putting a time limit on something like this is a sure way to ensure not all voices will be heard or taken into consideration.

    • Gus Choueiri says:

      11:47am | 17/12/09

      Hi Mike,

      It is Ironic that it is snowing in Copenhagen just as these Misguided and BRAIN washed World Leaders are discussing “Global Warming” or as I prefer to call it “HOT AIR”..... and by the way Mr Premier speaking of snowing, you did a pretty good “snow JOB” yourself of that “office desk affair” as our old mate Darren Hinch used to say, SHAME!!! SHAME!!! SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      P.S, I ‘ll bet, that you will not allow this comment to be published, or will you ???

    • paul says:

      12:09pm | 17/12/09

      @eric Nuclear is not on the list because there is not even enough water to wet down the thousands of acres of radioactive dust in the currently proposed uranium mine. We shouldn’t let something like that or the media silence around that, act as an obstacle when our religon is: Nuclear at any cost! Nuclear is Safe -like Mike Rann! But hell who believes scientists Eric? (Weird how BHPs boffins admitted that hey?)

    • Lyndon says:

      12:26pm | 17/12/09

      Craig james: wow your an angry man.
      It’s a fair question to ask, where are we going to plant these trees, national parks? crown land? or private properties farms etc? will subsidies be provided for primary produces that plant trees on their properties which would normally be used for grazing.
      I’m not opposing tree planting, im simply asking where will we plant them. Is there a plan in place for tree planting.

    • Raj says:

      12:32pm | 17/12/09

      Climate change needs to be debated in a fair, open, and honest fashion. There are many untruths which are now floating to the surface. Thank God we didn’t sign our ETS Tax before we left out shores, what a joke we would have looked like… PS If we are serious we would be investing more into Nuc power & we all exporting to India. It’s quite funny how we sell to China and Russia but not India..

    • thatmosis says:

      12:59pm | 17/12/09

      The theme for the Copenhagen talk fest was to be “were off to see the Wizard the wonderful wizard of Oz” but unfortunately he’s been branded a, shock horror, skeptic and an iotallah. Weve known that for years but now the whole world knows it too. Go nuclear and forget about the airy fairy alternative alternatives until they can show that they are able to take a base load and are cheaper or the same price as the power we consume now. For Solar to work on the base load required today we would need to turn SA into one big solar array and the NT into one big battery bank, works for me. Not a bad idea.

    • Peanut Hunter says:

      01:16pm | 17/12/09

      This is what should be happening….not the time wasting egomanical grandstanding by KRudd and Wong. Boots on the ground at the community level is how change will be made, not with a sinister ETS tax grab from a desperate Labor party. The Climate Change Loonies are going to do more damage to the cause of saving our planet because of the lies and cover ups going on with Climategate. If the perverted mainstream media could only focus on the great advances at the state and regional level reported here we would be better off. But that doesn’t sell papers or buy votes now does it???

    • Google CLIMATEGATE says:

      01:46pm | 17/12/09

      Have you read the draft treaty? Why don’t you comment on the issues of ceding Australian sovereignty to global bureaucracies like the UN? Not important enough, or don’t you think us working slaves deserve to know the truth?

      Copenhagen is a big fat FRAUD and you should be hiding your face in shame. More and more information is coming to light about deception, lies and manipulation by climate scientists. Copenhagen is nothing more than a show - all the deals have been done by international banksters like Goldman Sachs.

    • SthAussie says:

      01:48pm | 17/12/09

      Good stuff! All important but we also need to save the Murray River from imminent death and stop logging old growth forests,100 billion new trees will not replace them.
      Good to see you taking a lead Onya Mike!

    • DWest says:

      01:52pm | 17/12/09

      @thatmosis 12.59 Strange how you want to go nuclear, at a time in nuclear history, when relatively few reactors are being built? Do you know something that big business doesn’t? Have you investigated the reasons for this slower build rate or is it a green conspiracy?

    • DWest says:

      01:54pm | 17/12/09

      @thatmosis 12.59 Strange how you want to go nuclear, at a time in nuclear history, when relatively few reactors are being built? Do you know something that big business doesn’t? (And who told you we would need solar arrays as big as SA - your grandmother?) Have you investigated the reasons for this slower nuclear-plant build rate or is it a green conspiracy?

    • Justan Oz says:

      02:15pm | 17/12/09

      I am amazed and saddened by the bitterness and rudeness of so many of the people who blog..To call all of the worlds leaders “brainwashed” is quite pathetic…Maybe that blogger could be wrong !! To harp on about a persons private life is also very poor indeed. People who disagree with you may not be “loonies.. .......Grow up!!!

    • Free Thinker says:

      02:29pm | 17/12/09

      Climate Change - the new Millenium Bug.

    • Ian F says:

      02:43pm | 17/12/09

      How about that crazy Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez receiving a standing ovation from COP15 delegates for his rant that Copenhagen was not democratic and generally attacking capitalism.  Chavez probably neglected to mention that his oil-rich country is a founding member of OPEC.

    • Jim Fletcher says:

      03:07pm | 17/12/09

      Mr Rann wants SA to lead Australia in wind and solar powered electricity generation.
      One can only hope that on his latest junket, he recieved advice from two leaders in this area, namely California and Spain on how to handle the consequence of such policies.
      Between them they have the highest unemployment figures, and the highest power costs in their respective areas. In the case of California, they have resorted to paying some of their bills with IOU’s.
      The published figures by the Australian Productivity Commission to produce one megawatt hour of electricity, are:
      Coal $30-35, Wind $55-80, and Solar $200-400
      Mr Rann boasts that our desalination will be powered by only renewables, and he expects applause as he plunders the state’s coffers - ye gods.
      .

    • Max says:

      03:22pm | 17/12/09

      Here is a practical way to understand Mr Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

      Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere, and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Ok let’s go for a walk along it.

      The first 770 meters are Nitrogen.

      The next 210 meters are Oxygen.

      That’s 980 meters of the 1 kilometer 20 meters to go.

      The next 10 meters are Water Vapor.  10 meters left.

      9 meters are Argon. Just one more meter.

      A few gasses make up the first bit of that last meter.

      The last 38 centimeters of the kilometer – that’s carbon dioxide. A bit over 1 foot.

      97% of that is produced by mother nature. It’s natural.

      Out of our journey of 1 kilometer, there are just 12 millimeters left. Just over a centimeter
      about half an inch.

      That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.

      And of those 12 millimeters Australia puts in approx .18 of a millimeter.

      Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of 1 kilometer!.

      As a hair is to a kilometer – so is Australia’s contribution to what Mr Rudd calls Carbon Pollution.

      Imagine Brisbane’s new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Mr Rudd.
      It’s been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till it’s 1 kilometer of length is surgically clean. Except that Mr Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - 
      there is a human hair on the roadway. We’d laugh ourselves silly.

      There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about.

    • DWest says:

      03:40pm | 17/12/09

      @jim The coal price doesn’t include massive taxpayer subsidies and other conveniently overlooked costs. (Including the massive loss of water catchments and large scale loss of good quality farming and grazing lands ie Hunter Valley NSW) Do you know of any more realistic studies?

    • Jamers Hunter says:

      03:44pm | 17/12/09

      calls to cut meat comsumption to cut methane produced by cow is a load of bullshit. if we humans eat more beans and veggies we ,without the proper digewstive system will make loads more meathane ourselves. just think 6.2 billion cases of “blazing saddles” !!!

    • Bruce says:

      05:50pm | 17/12/09

      Are you the 133rd Australian delegate in Kobenhaven ? I hope I am not paying for this trip ?

    • Eric says:

      05:57pm | 17/12/09

      @paul: There is plenty of water on the coast, which is where our major cities are located. Nuclear plants could provide both energy and desalinated water, carbon-free! It’s a win-win.

      @DWest: Nuclear power is in fashion again. Many countries are building new projects, and developing and selling cleaner, safer and smaller nuclear solutions.

      Australia should be leading in this boom industry, but we’re not even in the race. We just sell uranium ore to other countries who reap the rewards.

    • steve says:

      06:01pm | 17/12/09

      New nuclear technology is the pathway forward. Whether you believe in AGW itself or not, the development of non polluting energy sources is important. This scaremongering from no-nukes-at-any-cost is saddening really and a massive lost opportunity.

      Please, please do some research and look into new developments in the area of nuclear power.  Below is a paper to get you started thinking, which discusses a potentially amazing development using an abundant mineral called Thorium and a reactor design known as LFTR and what benefits it could bring to this great country of ours.

      Deployment plan for LFTR across Australia:

      http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/12/17/lftr-in-australia/

      A 16 minute video overview of LFTR on YouTube is here:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk

      Why LFTR?

      This is not your traditional nuclear technology.

      It’s a different way of running at a nuclear reactor using fluid based fuel.  Dissolve Thorium into it into a fluid, kick start a reaction using existing nuclear waste (yes it reduces nuclear waste piles) and it’s off and running. 

      LFTR uses a low pressure system, so no high pressure steam leakages and therefore no large concrete containment vessel required thus its both cheaper AND a lot smaller.

      LFTR runs at high temperaturs so if a leak occurs, the dissolved salts freeze and it naturally closes down.  Running at high temp, it is more efficient than coal generators.

      LFTR can be cooled with air, so doesn’t need to be located by a water supply.

      LFTR is very efficient —your entire lifetime use of electricity can be serviced by a ball of thorium the size of a golf ball!  What about the waste you say? Your golf ball sized supply of energy will produce long term waste of just 300 yrs only, the size of a couple of tic-tacs.  Contrasting with traditional nuclear, to produce 1GW of electricity, theory estimates it will take 1t of Thorium, versus 250t of mined Uranium processed down to 35t of enriched Uranium.

      Why hasn’t LFTR been done before?  Well it has, but the program was shut down in the US.  Experimental reactors have been developer to prove the theeory.  Also worth considering here is that LFTR offers such an alternative approach to nuclear reactors, which isn’t based on the old war thinking of how can I get the most fissile material to make a bomb, so its early development was stifled.

      If we want to reduce emissions and/or simply reduce pollution while having a bountiful energy supply LFTR offers the promise to do that.

      Read up on it.  Ask our leaders whether they have heard of this technology and why aren’t we looking into it, why we aren’t researching and sinking all our research money into CCS instead.

    • paul says:

      08:28pm | 17/12/09

      @eric you missed my original point ,that BHP are saying they don’t have enough water for safe nuclear mining operations. One bad dust storm with radioactive dust would make climategate like mouse squeaks. And a desal plant is no use to farming operations when the farmland is now salinated because the water tables have risen due to extensive deforestation. What good is water when we don’t know how to manage the land anyway? I know you don’t believe in science or logic eric, but get past your nuclear religon and check the facts and consequences yourself @steve yeah lets not get excited about Thorium it’s just small scale experimental.

    • MJ says:

      09:18pm | 17/12/09

      @Eric with the first point. Yeah SA has vast amounts of uranium deposits, however Nuclear Power Plants, are not needed to supply our energy. We are able to function without the need of nuclear. It would make no sense to build nuclear power plants, just for the sake of it. Other states it may be needed, but thats where SA will do the supplying, and internationally as well. IMO SA should invest in developing a scientific hub of Australia in dealing with Uranium, and if anything build plants that are able enrich uranium.

    • Max Bolton says:

      09:45pm | 17/12/09

      Mike Rann, your child-like idea of planting a billion trees is a joke! You went all the way over to Copenhagen to share this pearler of an idea? What a crock!
      Perhaps, aswell as everyone on the planet planting a tree, maybe we could make a commitment that we will all only flush the toilet once a day. While we’re at it, if we are really serious about reducing emissions, how about everyone try really hard to cut down on flatulence…shall we say..1 fart per person allowed per day?
      Mike , please refrain from any more hair-brain schemes, obviously designed for a quick media grab to help yourself get re-elected. You already lost all your credibility with me when you stood on a wind-swept oval and denied the undeniable!

    • jacketts says:

      11:55pm | 17/12/09

      rann you and your cronies are idiots. if you and your mates stopped spending our money on jettsetting around the the world and instead concentrated on diverting the water being wasted in the top end of oz and created a pipeline into the centre of oz we would not only solve our drought problems but would create a great workforce. we could plant those trees and feed half of asia

    • Annoyed at lack of foresight says:

      01:38am | 18/12/09

      1 billion trees are going to require a lot of water to survive being planted and maintained.
      Oh wait, what’s that? We have water shortages?  Uh oh.

      I wonder who is going to take care of these trees. They will probably like to be paid for it.  You know, for planting, watering, fertilizer, irrigation, and maintaining them (eg from pests, disease, weeds, and other factors).

      And where exactly, are we going to find land to plant these 1 billion trees?
      Guess this will require a large amount of land to be bought to plant them.  I doubt anyone is going to give up land for free for this.

      Where will all this money, land, and water come from exactly? Did anyone even think about this?

      And trees do not grow in all places for that matter, best place to grow them is in high rainfall areas along the coastline… Oh dear, that happens to be the most densely populated part of Australia.

    • watto says:

      07:05am | 18/12/09

      @jacketts Alot of farming land is doomed by salinity in SA. Water can’t fix that.  Asia will be supplying much of our food needs if we continue trashing agriculture here.

    • steve says:

      09:26am | 18/12/09

      @paul—small scale experimental, yes. 

      Potentially massive in terms of what it can deliver; a low cost, low emission, low waste, low risk, low water using, modular approach to energy generation—yes, I plan to go and stay excited.  I’ll continue to discuss and raise the technology wherever I can.

    • Dave Rock says:

      09:46am | 18/12/09

      @steve@ericgate@others The sad elephantine opportunity you nuclear plant evangelists and climategaters overlook while parroting faith based solutions from bloggers or politicians. Look objectively at the number of countries and the amount of nuclear waste they need to get rid of globally. The market is huge and us Aussies are legends at digging holes. Apart from mining equipment, South Australia has a decent port and Premier Rann has already been flown to the U.S. to meet with one of the biggest nuclear waste companies in the world. Risks? South Australia has had several nuclear bombs dropped on it surgically and spotless cleanups of radioactive waste by our world class Nuclear Scientists. Don’t miss the lucrative forest for one wonky tree!

    • Kerry says:

      10:41am | 18/12/09

      1. 95% of SA has been cleared of its native vegetation, there is plenty of land to plant trees.
      2. Landowners buy Trees from the respected Non profit organisation in SA Trees For Life to plant on their properties so there are landowners willing to plant trees on their private property.
      3. Local plants have adapted to local conditions, water, soil type, pests and diseases so large amounts of water, fertillizer and pesticides are not needed.
      4. Planting trees not only reduces Carbon but also inproves soil condition, that is where dry land salinity came form in the first place, all the vegetation was cut down and caused the ground water level to rise. Trees also improve out environment in lots of other ways.
      5. SA only has enough uramium to power the state for 40 years. sure there is no carbon produced to boil the water to turn the turbines, but how much carbon will be produced in building and maintaing the plants, not to mention mining the uranium (trucks and machinery) then, safely storing the used uranium for 100 of years later? 
      6. The desal plant could have green power technology built into the design, using wave power, rather than the goverment paying extra for the power bill so that the power company can invest in solar and wind power.

    • steve says:

      11:07am | 18/12/09

      @daverock if I understand the abstract nature of what you are saying, then there’s even a bigger opportunity. 

      When you talk nuclear waste, it’s actually going to become very precious material in the future as ready made fuel source for Gen IV reactors; both as a primer for LFTR/MSR types, and as an actual fuel load for IFR type reactors. 

      The development and adoption of this new reactor technology will provide us with an abundant and source of low emissions energy, while at the same time actually reducing the current nuclear waste stockpile down by burning it up as fuel, resulting in a significantly lesser volume of waste that only has a dangerous radioactivity component for 300 years. 

      The process would be taking large amounts of long lived radioactive waste, using it to generate energy and producing a small amount of very short lived (relative to the 100k year input) waste. 

      I’m not a nuclear engineer, I don’t have all the answers, but I fail to see why we can’t have an open, honest discussion about these types of possibilties. 

      And if that’s parroting blind faith, based on readings from the experts in those fields, then so be it.  I don’t really care.

    • steve says:

      12:07pm | 18/12/09

      >5. SA only has enough uramium to power the state for 40 years.

      Perhaps that WAS true, using inefficient light water reactor designs from the 1960’s. 

      The current Generation III/+ designs that are in use are far more efficient already and that statement no longer holds true.

      And the Generation IV reactors being designed are a quantum shift again from there (100-300x more efficient than light water reactors) and will provide a virtually unlimitless supply of energy using either Uranium or the more naturally abundant Thorium. 

      Whereas early designs used about 1% of the fuel in the rod, the new designs can consume almost 100% of the fuel load, and they produce far less waste, predicted to only emit dangerous radioation levels for 300 years before they decay to background radiation levels.  Plus they can run from existing nuclear waste piles—so we can reduce the stockpile while creating energy at the same time, swapping for far less, much shorter lived waste.

      A Thorium based reactor design (LFTR) for example, is predicted to require 1t of mined Thorium to produce 1GW electricy, which compares very favourably to the current reactor designs that require 250t of yellowcake refined to 35t of enriched Uranium to produce the same output. 

      Have a read of the open letter than Dr James Hansen (NASA scientist, Professor of at Columbia University, his CV is here http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/HansenCV_200912.pdf) sent to Barrack Obama about his views on the planet , the fallibility of emissions trading schemes, and the necessity to invest in Generation IV nuclear technology: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20081229_Obama_revised.pdf

      Or have a look at this presentation from one of the eminent research scientists in the field of LFTR:  http://home.comcast.net/~robert.hargraves/public_html/AimHigh.ppt

      Or take a look at the very interesting and detailed presentation made by Dr Kirk Sorensen to Google on the topic of a “Nuclear Waste Burning Liquid Salt Thorium Reactor”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8.

      There are also short mashups from several different presentations on this topic from different scientists, which are available on YouTube:

      Thorium Remix 2009 - LFTR in 16 Minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk

    • Carl Palmer says:

      02:11pm | 18/12/09

      They seem reasonable, sensible and cost effective initiatives to me. If the writer is correct and accurate then I would be happy to support his plan. These are the sorts of debates we should be having as opposed to the complete waste of time, money and resources exhausted at this ridiculous Copenhagen conference. If anything is agreed at Copenhagen, then the end result, will, in all probability be a world bank / fund which will end up been managed by a corrupt UN bureaucracy.  If that is the case, then you can wave goodbye to your hard earned cash.

      @ Eric says:  06:11am | 17/12/09 – I’m with you – Nuclear power should be in the mix.  There is no reason why it isn’t. Could it be that it is too difficult for our PM to sell - surely not. If global warming is the “greatest moral dilemma of our time” then it must be in the mix and debated. It’s a no brainer.

    • Humbug says:

      04:55pm | 18/12/09

      That bloody MAx - duplicating posts. What a goose.

      That’s old stuffe, maxie, so old, so threadbare *its* laughin at yer.

    • wake up australia says:

      12:51am | 19/12/09

      You seem to be missing the most important basic fact:
      THE CLIMATE HAS COOLED NOT WARMED FOR THE PAST 8 YEARS
      Why don’t you scientists ... err I mean public servants, deal with this inconvenient issue first? Then give us all your ‘creative’ solutions.

      I mean for god sake, Mugabe got up and grandstanded about capitalism, The very same capitalism they want to hijack to ensure that there is a poverty transfer from the undeveloped to the developed nations as we give away monies that are borrowed from countries like China. Money-go-round doesn’t begin to describe this farce.

    • Eight! says:

      12:54pm | 19/12/09

      Aint a scientist. Aint a public servant. Ain’t nobody.

      Even I know 8 years ain’t enough to see trend from noise.

      But look not too much further and the trend is *up*, has been for decades, and even Fielding’s ludicrous graph shows it.

    • steve says:

      02:36pm | 19/12/09

      ERIC
      The Coalition did exhaustive financial exploration on nuclear reactors.
      They found the only way Aust. could afford them is with an ETS.
      Check out Ziggy’s interview with the Australian on the 4/12.
      Nuclear, he states was instrumental in Howard’s decision to go with an ETS.

    • G says:

      03:30pm | 19/12/09

      Really well then you should tell Combet and Rudd who seem to have thought that a hot day was enough to point out global warming, oops sorry climate change.
      Just makes me sick to my stomach all this Emporer’s new clothes stuff that the alarmist/denialists expect us to wear justr because they believe in something unproven.
      Well I hope you will kick in some cash when I start the class action to end all class actions to recoup the monies I’ve lost due to your believe in the unproven.

    • watto says:

      08:55am | 20/12/09

      The simple piece of evidence glaringly missing from you Thorium fans, is if it so promising, why isn’t big business behind it and lobbying to build such nuclear plants? Don’t they know how promising and profitable thorium is?

    • james Hunter says:

      12:13pm | 20/12/09

      what concerns me is the calls for people to stop eating meat and eat veggies and beans. The claim is that cows and sheep produce lots of methane. Well their digestive system is designed to process cellulose and so we gewt some methane. What these critics dont explain is how our digestive systems which do not process cellulose will do better. Any one who has shared an office or car with a veggie muncher will share my concern. Immagine the methane that 6.2 billion veggieand bean munchers will generate?? ^.2 billion cases of “blazing saddels”? How bad is that .

    • Uncle Buck says:

      08:48pm | 20/12/09

      Good on you Mike. What the desperate and deluded climate deniers don’t seem to realize is that there has been a massive shift within governments and business over the last few years. There is a growing momentum behind this, in spite of attempts by deniers and their pathetic attempts to lie distort and conceal the truth from ordinary people.

    • Davo says:

      04:49pm | 27/12/09

      Mike, I’m amazed you didn’t pick up on which Hans Anderson fairytale was floating about in the zeitgeist among all those snowflakes. Remember The Emperor’s New Clothes? AGW is the emperor, but where are his clothes? He’s going to catch his death of a cold. To put it another way, Uncle Buck: what were the Vikings doing in Greenland when it was a couple of degrees warmer than now? Now that was no fairytale - but The Hockey Stick was.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

RT @Prronto: @farrm51 if diesel rebates were cut from mines already operating at a profit what would the saving be? #auspol

Malcolm Farr

RT @SimonBanksHB: .@farrm51 Remember the means testing of family payments @tonyabbottmhr opposed in his Budget Reply but didn't vote against. More Noalition.

Malcolm Farr

Good question i can't give quick answer to.MT@GhostofSirJoh: @farrm51 If rebates were cut from Private Schools what would the savings be?

Malcolm Farr

TAbbott to fight PHI rebate cuts on behalf of 2.5 million to pay extra, but won't say what he'd do as PM. http://t.co/lXWpMXXF

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Would you kill for a job?

Would you kill for a job?

Who would work in an abattoir? Most of us have done jobs we didn’t want to do because we needed…

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

Parenting. It’s the new oneupmanship. Ah, how quaint the days now seem when parents could raise…

Hipsters with hip replacements

Hipsters with hip replacements

Someone once told me that when people reach a certain age they begin dressing in the manner they did…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012

marley says:

I'm one of the older ones, so I've certainly seen a few changes in my time. When I started school I learned to write with a nib pen, dipped in an inkwell (no, I'm not kidding). My mother became a dab hand at getting inkstains out of my clothes. Flicking ink at one another in the classroom was an essential… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

152 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter