Many individuals and organisations – such as CarbonetiX – are passionate about reducing carbon emissions. CarbonetiX exists to reduce carbon emissions. And we have helped our customers cut their carbon. Many individuals and organisations are similar to us. We believe that Australia and the world must make massive cuts to greenhouse gas emissions not by 2050 but NOW.

But under the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme our passion, effort, intellect, capital, time, risk, over-time, learning, sleepless nights, stamina, ingenuity, research, education, sacrifice, persistence, investment appears as though it will come to nought. Zip. Nada. Zero.

We do a lot of work with local government. Many local governments have committed to ambitious carbon reduction targets, and some are making large investments to achieve this. There are some tremendously passionate and dedicated people in local government giving their all to this. I’m sorry to say this, but thanks to the ETS it appears as though your council’s efforts may be in vain. Given that your blood sweat and tears may make no difference how do you feel?

I’m grateful to Ian Westmore for commenting on a blog post I made earlier this week and making this clear to me.

For seven years I have slaved away under the impression that somehow my contribution was making a difference. That I, along with many others, could help Australia cut its greenhouse gas emissions significantly. Not by a paltry 5% by 2020.

Three or four years ago now I was very disappointed when the Victorian government extended the life of the Hazelwood Power Station – Australia’s most carbon inefficient major power generator, which produces between 12 to 15 million tonnes of greenhouse gas a year. That’s an awful lot of carbon. I had done quite a lot of work for the Sustainable Energy Authority Victoria (SEAV) on more efficient street lighting. It was great to be able to show how a well designed T5 fluorescent street light was viable as a substitute for a “flower pot” mercury vapour street light – yet only used one third the power. These T5s are now starting to be rolled out as mercury vapour replacements. But I remember feeling how all that effort – and in fact how the entire budget of the SEAV – was effectively futile if the same government had extended Hazelwood.

And now the ETS has come along. And in effect the way the ETS is designed its unlikely that anything more than a 5% carbon reduction on 2000 levels will be achieved. In effect any electricity voluntarily saved by anyone becomes tradeable by the nations power generators, which are part of the ETS. The electricity I help my customers save through energy efficiency and energy conservation, the electricity you might save by putting solar panels on your roof – this all translates into carbon savings at the point of generation – the power stations of the nation. The power stations – which are the nations largest carbon polluters – can then sell that carbon saved to other major industries under the carbon trading scheme, who may then chose to increase their emissions.

Ian Westmore has explained this in his comments on my blog post of 10 February, and Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute also provides an excellent explanation on the Inside Story blog. This explains it much better than I have. 

Right now I am in shock, and am still struggling to understand the immediate consequences of this to my customers, my business, my children and the last seven years of my life.

In effect the ETS is throwing down the gauntlet to anyone wanting to save the planet. Its saying “We, the government of Australia don’t believe Australia should cut its emissions by more than 5%. We dare you to try to achieve a bigger cut than this.”

Given the disincentive of the ETS, there are only two ways that I can see Australia achieving significant greenhouse gas savings. Both of them should be pursued.

1. It becomes accepted across Australia by the vast majority of individuals that producing carbon is morally repugnant. That the stigma associated with carbon pollution is such that the major polluters voluntarily aim to achieve large cuts, and do not take advantage of the ETS. 
2. We use our ingenuity and brains to come up with highly cost effective ways of saving energy, producing carbon-free energy, and marketing these solutions. Good looking technologies that are so cost effective that it’s a no-brainer not to install them. That its financially stupid not to use them. That are cool. A light bulb that uses half the power of a compact fluorescent light bulb, lasts twice as long, and costs as much as an incandescent. A solar system that costs $500 installed and powers your whole house. Electricity storage systems that are cheap. Electric cars, trucks and buses using all that cheap solar power that cost less to buy than petrol, diesel or LPG vehicles and much less to run. Building retrofits that take less than two years to pay off and halve power use.

There may be a third way that should also be pursued. I understand that the proposed ETS legislation has yet to go through parliament. This legislation should be amended so that it doesn’t limit our carbon savings to 5%. Lobby for this change.

For a small business such as ours maintaining a healthy cash flow is a must. Cash comes into the business when invoices are paid. A recent survey showed that Australian businesses were on average now waiting 58 days for invoices to be paid. This means that for most businesses the cash that will come into the business in April is dependent on what the business invoices now in February. There is lag between when the work is done and when it is paid for. Failure to invoice enough in February could result in a business running out of cash in April. And when there is no cash, there is no business.

Climate change is similar. The carbon we put into the atmosphere now influences the climate well into the future. However rather that a time span of weeks or months, its decades. Todays carbon emissions will influence the climate for decades to come. So to get a stable climate in the future we need to cut greenhouse gas pollution NOW.

Many years ago a friend “temporarily” left the shell of a model T Ford in my front yard as he had no space to store it. Its still there. I haven’t asked my friend to take it away because it reminds me that some of the carbon that car generated over its lifetime is still in the atmosphere driving climate change.

Since climate change is like cash flow, if we want a stable climate as we grow older, and for the sake of our children and grandchildren, we need to be acting now.

Black Saturday 7 February 2009: Melbourne’s temperature reached 46.4 degrees (116.5 deg F), fanned by strong hot winds 400 bushfires across the state killed over 170 people and destroyed 700 homes. And the dams supplying the state with water are at record lows.

If letters to the editor in the newspaper are any indication, many people are making the link between the terrible events of 7 February and climate change.

Fifteen years ago – on 21 March 1994 in Rio de Janeiro the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) came into existence. This document states that “The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures.”

Australia’s parliament ratified the convention in 1992 – before it came into force. The USA ratified it in 1992. China ratified it in 1993. 192 countries around the world have ratified the UNFCCC.

Yet fifteen years on global carbon emissions have ballooned. Clearly the parties have NOT undertaken precautionary measures to prevent of minimise the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects.

Based on my understanding of climate change science had there been concerted action to take precautionary measures fifteen years ago Victoria may have still experienced Black Saturday, although perhaps it might not have been quite as bad. This is because of the tremendous inertia in climatic systems. I’d be happy to stand corrected on this by someone suitably qualified.

However if we had managed to cut global carbon emissions from 1994 on I believe that the likely 50 degree temperatures that I have a feeling Victoria may be experiencing in the next twenty or thirty years probably could have been avoided. And that we may well have in our vocabulary then a complete set of Black days – a Black Sunday, a Black Monday, a Black Tuesday, a Black Wednesday, a Black Thursday, a Black Saturday and a Black Sunday.

Unfortunately based on what I read of the science of climate change this full suite of Black days could now well be locked in because of the great inertia of our climatic systems. However if we do manage to greatly cut emissions now we may avoid even worse weather.

Why, in 2009, are atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases still on the rise? I believe primarily because of fear of the economic costs that may arise if resources were put into cutting carbon pollution. Fear fanned by fossil fuel dependent industries.

Yet ever since former World Bank chief economist Nicolas Stern published the Stern Review of Climate Change in 2006 its been credibly shown that the future economic consequences of inaction far outweigh the economic costs of acting now to prevent dangerous climate change.

Whoever you are that is reading this – if you are shocked by the events of Black Saturday -  let me put it to you that you should consider cutting your carbon emissions to lessen the number of future black Tuesdays. Don’t just say this is the government’s problem and leave it at that. You see most governments around the world are not doing enough to drive the sorts of carbon cuts we need. The Australian federal government is an example of this – the 5% carbon reduction target by 2020 is laughable given what the science is saying.

So it is up to all of us to do something – both at home and also at work. Don’t just bitch and moan about how the government isn’t doing enough. Do something yourself. Take whatever assistance you can get from your government - but don’t stop at that - go beyond that. People of the world – unite to cut our carbon emissions – hopefully our government’s will one day start to genuinely lead instead of just continuing to play the prisoner’s dilemma.  (That is saying they recognise there is a problem, but aren’t willing to act unless other countries act because acting alone would be bad for the economy and that acting along wouldn’t reduce carbon emissions sufficiently to actually make much of a difference). And if you live in Victoria, make a fire plan.

And let me also suggest that choosing to act may not be of that much economic cost now, that in fact if you are particularly wasteful in your use of fossil fuel sourced energy that you may still be in front financially by cutting your carbon pollution - even after you’ve spend some of your savings to buy 100% greenpower.  And that choosing to act now may well be of great benefit to you and your family in the future.

At home get a smaller car. Then substitute a drive with a phone call, a walk or a cycle. Switch off stuff not in use - at the wall. Insulate. Get rid of those horribly wasteful halogen downlights.

At work do an energy audit, or get one done, and act on it. Delamp. Optimise your cooling and heating. Turn off stuff not in use - at the wall. Get energy efficient computers and equipment.

At home and work buy 100% certified green power, or get solar panels (make sure you aren’t selling the carbon savings in exchange for a discount from the supplier).

Climate change demands a vigorous, positive response - the more of us who do this, the greater the likelihood of climate stability in the future.

As part of an international effort to combat climate change, researchers worldwide are exploring new ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. One such method is Biochar, which takes organaic matter and burns it in a pyrolysis oven with no oxygen to produce a charcoal form and a renewable gas fuel by-product called Syngas. Carbon that would otherwise be released from the breakdown of organic matter is trapped in the biochar for hundreds of years and if returned to the ground has been shown to increase the fertility of soil.

Countries including Canada, Spain, Portugal and Denmark have already decided to go ahead with biochar as a way of reducing their carbon footprint. In Australia however, the federal government does not recognise biochar as a method of sequestering carbon, claiming the science is unproven. The Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong has stated that “soil carbon (including biochar) does not fit within the scope of the current Kyoto Protocol accounts, so is not included at this time in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”.

In NSW a renewable energy company called Best Energies has setup a pilot scheme to validate the technical feasibility of biochar. So far Scientists believe biochar has the potential to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions by 1 gigatonne, which is around to 20 percent of Australia’s total carbon emissions. This is a very significant reduction, however without recognising biochar within Australia’s future emissions trading scheme there is little financial incentive for the commercial sector to invest in this technology.

The government is already spending millions in carbon capture research in the coal sector, but compared to biochar is a technology not yet in existence. The CSIRO are also researching the potential merits of biochar and its affect in different soil types, however are dependent on overseas funding. Biochar is an exciting prospect and with gaining momentum worldwide it is questionable as to why the Australian government is taking a sceptical stance. Hopefully new light on the properties of biochar will be in favour of Australian conditions and government support turned around. With increasing drought and a large agricultural sector in Australia the potential benefits of biochar should not be overlooked.

What do you think?

For more information have a read of the CSIRO biochar fact sheet at, http://www.csiro.au/resources/Biochar-Factsheet.html

A recent video report is also available from The ABC’s 7:30 Report website, http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/

T5 fluorescent lighting has been around for a while now, but is not yet widely used in the manufacturing or warehouse sectors. Paul Smith has compared T5s with metal halide, and is interested in how T5s compare in terms of their total environmental impact.

As Paul writes, T5s strike faster, have good colour rendition, and a well designed T5 high bay luminaire, with 4 tubes, can be more efficient than a metal halide lamp, and have less lumen depreciation over its lifetime.

Both metal halide and T5 lamps contain mercury. T5 refers to the diameter of the tube, with T5 tubes being 5/8″ (16mm) in diamater. “Standard” fluorescent tubes are called T8s and are 8/8″ (25mm) in diameter. With a smaller diameter T5s use less glass and mercury than a T8 of comparable brightness.

Having said that, quite a few myths have developed around T5 lamps and as a result many people believe they are the best thing since sliced bread was invented. The luminous efficacy in lumens per watt of good T5 lamps approaches 105 lumens per watt, but this is only slightly better than the best T8 which is near 100 lumens per watt. Large wattage metal halides also have luminious efficiencies approaching 100 lumens per watt. However, like most things, just because a lamp is a T5 doesn’t mean its luminous efficacy is above 100 lumens per watt, there are many T5s on the market with an efficacy of only 80 lumens per watt.

The uptake of T5s has been much greater in the commercial building sector, particularly in offices, than in manufacturing and warehouses. The reason for this I believe is LEED (in Australia Greenstar) and other standards where building designers are seeking maximum efficiency in lighting. These drivers aren’t yet as strong in the manufacturing and warehouse sectors. Certainly in our work we mostly come across T5s in office buildings which are pursuing a high green star rating. And metal halide highbay light fittings are still much cheaper and much more readily available than T5 highbay fittings.

If you are designing a new commercial building it makes economic and environmental sense to use T5 lighting with high efficiency luminaires. The luminaire (light fitting) chosen is important too. The purpose of the luminaire is to direct the light coming out of the tube to where it is needed. Low efficiency luminaires are inefficient at doing this. To get the most out of T5 lighting you also need to be specifying high efficiency luminaires.  A big advantage T5 lights have over conventional T8 is their use of an electronic ballast, which extends lamp life, eliminates flicker, and reduces lumen depreciation.

For a commercial building retrofit the use of high efficiency replacement T8 tube in a double fluorescent luminaire and fitting of a specular reflector behind the tube to increase the efficiency of the luminaire enables the removal of one tube and halves energy use of the fitting. This is called delamping (more at our delamping webite). This provides larger energy and cost savings and is less expensive and more reliable than fitting T5 adaptors - devices than enable a T5 tube to be used in a T8 fitting. T5 tubes fitted with T8 adaptors have a lower luminous efficacy than the best T8 tube, so their use is not advised, not withstanding the marketing hype surrounding T5 adaptors.

In new warehouses in my opinion T5 high bay luminaires as described by Paul are far superior to metal halides. Paul outlines several reasons for this. The instant start of T5s is in many case perhaps the biggest advantage. When undertaking energy audits of warehouses I have usually see the high bay lights running all day, even though different sections of the warehouse will often be empty. This is very wasteful. Unfortunately HID lamps, such as metal halide, high pressure sodium, and the less efficient but inexpensive mercury vapour all take a long time to warm up, and therefore its not practical to switch them off in empty spaces. Forklift operators and staff just aren’t prepared to wait 10 or 15 minutes for the lights to warm up to full brightness.

T5 or T8 linear fluorescent lamps don’t have this problem. So they can be controlled by motion or occupancy sensors. In many cases the hours of operation of lights in warehouses could be reduced from 10 to 12 hours a day to less than 4 hours a day with the use of sensors and T5 high bay fittings. Lighting energy costs can easily be halved.

Another metal halide replacement is the induction lamp, which has the advantage of instant start as well, but can in some cases be retrofitted into the existing high bay fittings. Their luminous efficacy is also pretty good, they are easily dimmed (good where daylighting controls are installed), and prices are coming down. Induction lamps also have a very long lamp life, in the order of 50,000 hours (compared with 14,000 hours for a good metal halide and 20,000 hours for a good T5)

LED lighting is rapidly becoming more efficient, and we have tested LED fluorescent tube replacements achieving over 70 lumens per watt - which is a big improvement over the 40 to 50 lumens/watt we were seeing 12 to 18 months ago. If the luminous efficacy of white LED technology continues to improve this quickly, and prices start to drop, then we may find in five years time that LED is better than all other forms of lighting.