Discussion of All Things Political

A year ago, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard had won her first election, silencing grumbles from some corners that she hadn’t properly won the leadership of the Australian Labor Party from previous leader Kevin Rudd. The ALP win was a close thing. Gillard had to scramble to negotiate with three independents and the Australian Greens in order to form a coalition – in part because her party lost a lot of votes on its left flank to the increasingly popular Greens. Not only was Gillard remarkable for the close shave, or for being Australia’s first female Prime Minister, but she was also an unmarried atheist without children and with a reputation for progressive thinking. In Australia’s fairly conservative political landscape, in which it seemed unlikely that we’d have a Prime Minister who wasn’t a very wealthy married Christian father any time soon, this was unbelievable.

A year on, the left is just slightly confused about Gillard’s swing to the right – see for instance, our esteemed editor on the “Malaysian solution.” One might then wonder why, just a year out from the election in which they backed Gillard, Rupert Murdoch’s conservative media is baying for her blood.

What’s going on exactly? The big news story in Australia over the last few months has been a proposed carbon tax. Should it go ahead, only 0.02 per cent of Australian businesses will be taxed under this scheme, and 90 per cent of households will receive compensation for the increase in expenses they will undergo as we change over to clean energy. So far, so good – except barely anyone in the country knows those facts. Whoever is running the media show over at the ALP is floundering. Pushed hard by opposition leader Tony Abbott and Murdoch’s News Limited, the only message that is getting through is that the carbon tax is outrageous. Given that News Limited has control of about three quarters of metropolitan daily newspaper circulation in Australia, that’s quite a push. ( Read more... )

In response to Germany’s expanded reliance on nuclear energy, Ursula Sladek created her country’s first cooperatively-owned renewable power company.

Nuclear Energy in Europe
Twenty-five years ago, the catastrophic Chernobyl nuclear meltdown in the Soviet Union produced a radioactive cloud that quickly spread across Europe. As news of the event rippled through the continent, questions arose about toxic fallout and its implications for communities thousands of miles from Chernobyl.

At the time, West Germany relied almost exclusively on nuclear and coal energy to power its growing economy. A small handful of companies held a monopoly on the energy market, controlling most of the local grids. An anti-nuclear movement had been active throughout the 1980s and had gained some popular support, but German power companies did not provide opportunities for consumers to opt out of using nuclear-derived power.

Motivation
For Ursula Sladek, a mother of five from the tiny community of Schönau in Germany’s Black Forest region, the Chernobyl disaster served as a serious wake-up call about the dangers of nuclear energy. She and her neighbors were alarmed by reports about radioactive residue detected on playgrounds, backyard gardens, and farmland in Schönau. Suddenly, it was unsafe for Sladek to go about her normal routine of eating locally grown foods and sending her children outside to play.

In response, Sladek, her husband, and a small group of parents began researching the energy industry in Germany to see if there was a way to limit their community’s dependence on nuclear power. They found that power companies were not allowing citizens to have a say in energy production decisions. Chernobyl proved that though nuclear energy could be called “green” by some standards, the safety risks associated with it were cause for deep concern. Sladek also knew that nuclear energy was not the only option. Thus, the group began what would become a 10 year project to take over the local grid, and in a second step, allow people all over Germany to choose safe, reliable, sustainably-produced energy. This project would transform Sladek from a small-town parent trained to be a schoolteacher into the founder and president of one of Europe’s first cooperatively-owned green energy companiesMORE

BRUSSELS and DAR ES SALAAM, Mar 9, 2011 (IPS/Freereporter) - An ambitious project to produce clean energy for the Netherlands and Belgium has degenerated into a controversial abuse of natural resources in Africa.

Bioshape, a clean energy company based in Neer, the Netherlands, is going through bankruptcy proceedings after spending 9.6 million dollars on a failed biofuel project in Tanzania. In 2006, the company agreed to lease 80,000 hectares of coastal woodland in the southern district of Kilwa to grow jatropha, a shrub whose seeds contain an oil that can be processed into green fuel.

Bioshape planned to employ thousands of local farmers and export seeds from Tanzania to the Netherlands, where they would be processed to produce electricity, heat and biodiesel. Jatropha is one of the preferred feedstocks for fuel produced from plant material. Commonly called biofuel - agrofuel to its critics - such fuel is supposed to be less polluting than traditional fossil fuels.Except that they proceeded collude with local authorities to bilk the villagers out of their land

*headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk*

By Gale Courey Toensing

Story Published: Apr 12, 2010

Story Updated: Apr 9, 2010

WASHINGTON – A federal agency on historic preservation has recommended that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar reject a proposed massive wind energy project in Nantucket Sound – an area that is sacred to the Wampanoag nations and qualifies for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

On April 2, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation issued a seven-page report of its findings and recommendation to deny permits to Cape Wind Associates to construct a wind energy plant consisting of 130 wind turbine generators that would tower 440 feet above water level in a 24-square-mile area on Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound, which lies between Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. The proposal includes plans for a 66.5-mile buried submarine transmission cable system, a centrally located electric service platform and two 115-kilovolt lines totaling 25 miles connecting to the mainland power grid.

“The historical properties affected by the project are significant and closely interrelated,” ACHP wrote. “The project will adversely affect 34 historic properties, including 16 historic districts and 12 individually significant historic properties on Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Island, and six properties of religious and cultural significance to tribes, including Nantucket Sound itself. These districts and standing structures reflect the broad array of properties that represent the rich and unique architectural, social and cultural history of Cape Cod and the island.”

The project would also destroy, damage and alter part of the seabed of Nantucket Sound, potentially destroying archeological resources.

“The ACHP recommends that the secretary not approve the project,” the report says.

The report stressed that the development of renewable energy projects “is not inherently incompatible with protection of historic resources so long as full consideration is given to historic properties early in the identification of potential locations.” It suggests that the Cape Wind project could be relocated to an alternative site “in the vicinity of the current project area.”MORE

PICHIT, Thailand, Oct 23 (IPS/IFEJ) - The view from Bhorn’s window in this northern province is as picturesque as one can find in rural Thailand. The Nan River flows majestically through the Gulf of Thailand, located 300 kilometres to the south. Mango and banana trees line the banks with expansive verdant green paddy fields beyond.

Unfortunately, for the past four years, Bhorn and her neighbours have not been able to enjoy these breathtaking sights, forced to tightly board up all openings to seal their homes and families from ash they believe is causing their skin and respiratory disorders.

Less than a kilometre from their houses, Bhorn says, sits the source of their problem. It is Thailand’s most celebrated renewable energy plant.

The 22-megawatt rice husk-fueled power plant owned by A.T. Biopower is the country’s first to be certified under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) for carbon trading — one of the means industrialised nations can meet their obligations under the international agreement to reduce carbon emissions. According to the protocol, projects under the CDM are required to bring social and environmental benefits to host communities.

That is assuming that the company exercises extreme caution to ensure that its power plant does not pose any harm to the community’s health. Rice husks, after all, contain silica, which is known to cause silicosis, the world’s most common occupational lung disease among unprotected workers. Silica concentrations in rice husk ash can range from 85 to 90 percent.

A.T. Biopower is just one of many small power plants to come on line in the past decade as Thailand heeds the global call to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels — the main source of greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change.

The country’s current goal is to generate 20 percent of the nation’s electricity from renewable sources by 2022, a target similar to those set by the European Union, Britain and Australia.

Bhorn, who declined to give her full name, says she is unfamiliar with new energy polices but has become increasingly aware of environmental changes obtaining in her community since the A.T. Biopower plant began to operate there in 2005. MORE