Chinese drivers can now buy a hybrid vehicle, with an electric-only range of 100kms. The BYD auto F3-DM vehicle retails for around $22,000 USD. More details here and at the BYD site.

Toyota, who I recently commented on, have been leapfrogged by BYD when it comes to making a vehicle that can be used largely as an electric car - the Prius does not yet have the range of the F3-DM or the ability to plug its batteries in at home to recharge it. This is the only hybrid mass produced car that I am aware of that can effectively be operated on battery only.

As most city trips are much less than 100kms operation of this vehicle in electric only mode is viable. Recharging at home takes 7 hours. A home owner purchasing 100% green power via the grid or with sufficient solar panels and who owns a F3-DM can now be genuinely emissions neutral in his/her direct consumption of energy by charging the car at home. Neither the home nor the car (provided trips are less than 100km) will produce any greenhouse gas in use.

The BYD car will be available in the USA in 2011. Am unsure if it will make it to Australia.

This is a great example of a carbon positive approach to business, and a very exciting development.

Climate scientists are clear when they say that large cuts in human caused greenhouse gas emissions are needed to slow climate change. But there are two popular assumptions in Australia, probably replicated in other countries, that are preventing these large cuts from happening.

The first assumption is that government should take most of the responsibility for greenhouse gas abatement. This is well summarised by Stephen Lunn, social affairs commentator, who writes in the Weekend Australian, 20 December 2008, that “Most… accept human activity is changing the climate. And most see it as the Government’s role to find a way forward”.

The second assumption is that cuts to greenhouse gas emissions are bad for the economy. The Rudd government has commited to reduce Australia’s emissions by only 5% by 2020. This is much lower than the 25% to 40% the United Nations Framework Convention and Climate Change said the world needed in Bali twelve months ago. The rationale is that larger cuts would be bad for the economy, especially if other countries don’t follow suit.

Furthermore the governments carbon pollution reduction scheme has reinforced the belief that it’s the government who should take full responsibility, by providing compensation to households whose energy costs may go up, and free emissions permits to many major polluters.

These two assumptions are probably commonly held by most people around the world.

Lets say Barak Obama takes a strong lead on climate change. He slashes US greenhouse gas emissions, and demonstrates that human development is possible without loss of American jobs or quality of life. He will have discredited the belief that cuts to greenhouse gas emissions are bad for the economy. And other governments are likely to follow. We may well just get the emissions reductions the scientists say are needed. Many people are hoping for this.

On the other hand if most individuals, families, and businesses around the world change their mindset and take responsibility for the emissions resulting from their decisions we are also pretty likely to get large cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

But as long as our leaders believe cutting greenhouse gas emissions is bad for the economy, and as long as we continue to say it’s the government’s responsibility to do something, then dangerous climate change is inevitable.

East Sussex council in the UK has been running a program to support business resource efficiency since 2003 called BETRE. The program offers free energy audits to businesses and small grants to help reduce waste, water and energy use. Its assisted 1,800 businesses save over one million pounds sterling. Australian councils wishing to help local businesses improve their energy efficiency may be interested in learning from the BETRE experience. See www.betre.org.uk/.

LED lights are seen by many as the next big thing when it comes to lighting. But do they live up to their promise?

Over the last few months we have been researching and testing LED tubes. These tubes are the same shape as a fluorescent tube, and have hundreds of LEDs on them. To summarise our research results:

• The performance of LED tubes has improved greatly over the last 12 months, particularly in terms of total light output.
• Quality of manufacture is still of concern (one of the LED tubes in the photo has partially failed).
• Many tubes now have a very good “daylight” light colour, although some of the ones we tested were quite blue.
• We are not yet at the point where a LED tube can substitute a 36 watt tri-phosphor fluorescent, but if the technology continues to advance as it has the performance may match fluorescent tubes within the next three years, but with much lower power input.
• Pricing is still high, but as lighting performance improves the range of applications where LEDs can be used will increase. This should lead to economies of scale and price reductions.

The government clearly has underestimated the urgency of the need to cut carbon emissions. Evidence of this comes in the announcement today from Prime Minister Kevin Rudd that Australia would commit to reduce its emissions by 2020 by just 5% compared with 2000 levels.

After years of waiting now we finally have total clarity that we cannot rely on our government to drive the kind of carbon reductions the science says we urgently need.

A door has been closed. And whilst its hard to remain up-beat, lets consider the alternatives that will result in Australia significantly reducing its emissions. Alternatives such as:

• Voluntary action. My experience has been that individuals and companies who seriously try to reduce their carbon emissions can save much more than 5%, probably closer to 50%. It depends on their starting point and the type of industry they are in. But in general, if you have strong leadership commitment you can achieve big savings.
• Sexy carbon friendly technologies that are so cost effective they are a “no brainer”. Solar panels for example are very sexy. But expensive. Engineering ingenuity could solve this.
• The aggressive marketing of energy efficient technologies. Energy efficiency isn’t exciting, but it is cost effective. My business is energy efficiency. Any advice on making efficiency sexy and wildly popular would be welcome.