World Bank to raise $200 billion to fight climate change SBS News 4 Dec 18The World Bank Group will spearhead a five-year, $200 billion investment to fight climate change. The World Bank has unveiled a $200 billion in climate action investment for 2021-25, adding this amounts to a doubling of its current five-year funding.
The World Bank said the move, coinciding with a UN climate summit meeting of some 200 nations in Poland, represented a “significantly ramped up ambition” to tackle climate change, “sending an important signal to the wider global community to do the same.”
Developed countries are committed to lifting combined annual public and private spending to $100 billion in developing countries by 2020 to fight the impact of climate change — up from 48.5 billion in 2016 and 56.7 billion last year, according to latest OECD data.
Southern hemisphere countries fighting the impact of warming temperatures are nonetheless pushing northern counterparts for firmer commitments.
In a statement, the World Bank said the breakdown of the $200 billion would comprise “approximately $100 billion in direct finance from the World Bank.”
Around one third of the remaining funding will come from two World Bank Group agencies with the rest private capital “mobilised by the World Bank Group.”……..
Much of the climate action financing is being set aside for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, notably through development of renewable energy strategies.
However, the World Bank stated that “a key priority is boosting support for climate adaptation,” given the millions of people already battling the consequences of extreme weather.
“By ramping up direct adaptation finance to reach around $50 billion over (fiscal) 21-25, the World Bank will, for the first time, give this equal emphasis alongside investments that reduce emissions,” the bank stated.
Given the urgency to act in the face of sea level rise, flooding and drought “we must fight the causes, but also adapt to the consequences that are often most dramatic for the world’s poorest people,” said World Bank CEO Kristalina Georgieva.
The countries whose representatives are meeting at the UN climate summit which opened Sunday in the Polish city of Katowice are seeking to make good on commitments made in the 2015 Paris climate accord.
Vimy Resources has relied on heroic assumptions about prices, unfounded optimism about a booming nuclear industry, and has ignored regulatory risks and mine closure costs in its Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) for the proposed Mulga Rock uranium mine to the east of Kalgoorlie, a new report by the Australia Institute has found.
The report, commissioned by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) and the Conservation Council of WA (CCWA), will be released tomorrow as shareholders gather at Vimy Resources AGM in Perth.
Dr Cameron Murray of The Australia Institute said, “The report clearly shows that, based on plausible assumptions about exchange rates and uranium prices, the proposed Mulga Rock uranium mine is unprofitable.
“The Mulga Rock DFS is ambitious to the point of heroic. The projections for the future role of nuclear power are extremely optimistic, and the economic assessment of the project’s position in the global uranium marketplace fails to accurately reflect the international situation,” Dr Murray said.
CCWA Nuclear Free Campaigner Mia Pepper said, “This report is a reality check for shareholders making investment decisions that would not only adversely affect their back pocket, but also impact a unique part of WA’s backyard.”
“Vimy Resources is putting a brave face on a speculative roll of the dice,” said ACF Nuclear Free Campaigner Dave Sweeney.
“The company lacks finance, full approvals, social licence, and a market. Having a gamble is hardly news in the mining sector, but gambling with the product that fuelled Fukushima and always generates long lived radioactive waste is not acceptable, and will be actively contested.”
Our greatest threat’: David Attenborough’s grim warning on climate Naturalist David Attenborough has told delegates at a UN conference the world is facing the end of civilisation if it does not unite to tackle climate change. SBS News, 4 Dec 18British broadcaster and environmentalist David Attenborough has urged world leaders, meeting in Poland to agree ways to limit global warming, to get on and tackle “our greatest threat in thousands of years”.Known for countless nature films, Attenborough has gained prominence recently with his Blue Planet II series, which highlighted the devastating effect of pollution on the oceans.
Leaders of the world, you must lead,” said the naturalist, given a “People’s seat” at the two-week UN climate conference in the Polish coal city of Katowice alongside two dozen heads of state and government.
“The continuation of our civilisations and the natural world upon which we depend, is in your hands,” he said.
“Climate change is running faster than we are and we must catch up sooner rather than later before it is too late.”
Attenborough told the delegates: “Right now, we are facing a man-made disaster of global scale. Our greatest threat in thousands of years. Climate Change.”……….
Representatives of some of the most powerful countries and biggest polluters were conspicuous by their absence, and the United States is quitting the UN climate process.
To maximise the chances of success in Poland, technical talks began on Sunday, a day early, with delegates from nearly 200 nations debating how to meet the Paris target of limiting global warming to between 1.5 and 2.0 degrees Celsius (2.7 and 3.6 Fahrenheit).
Michal Kurtyka, Poland’s deputy environment minister and president of the talks, said that without success in Katowice, Paris would not be a success, as it had only decided what was needed, not how it could be done.
Moreover, the wider political environment had changed.
the decision to pursue Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors (MSRs )may not be based on market laws. For MSRs to succeed, they will likely be developed with appropriate political support and military funding.
If a nation wants an unlimited power supply for cutting-edge military technologies, then the MSR is indeed a very good candidate.
small modular reactors fitted with MSR technology could effectively supply electricity at remote military bases.
When a technology has some potential, the military sector can provide appropriate funding to quickly prototype products, which won’t necessarily have commercially viable features
Molten Salt Reactors: Military Applications Behind the Energy Promises, POWER,12/02/2018 | Jean-Baptiste Peu-Duvallon The commercial nuclear power sector has evolved with great help from the military-industrial complex. Research and development funded for the purpose of national defense has resulted in advances directly applicable to the power industry. For molten salt reactor designs to succeed, political support and military dollars may again be necessary. Continue reading →
Indeed, we could see those articles as pivotal in the current hostile environment against Assange; the purpose of which is presumably to prepare the way for the extradition of Assange to the US. Meanwhile, the Mueller inquiry into alleged links between US president Donald Trump and Russia – and Assange – is gaining headlines on an almost daily basis. And there is evidence that Assange has been secretly indicted and that an extradition request is imminent.
In such an environment, media outlets must provide hard evidence to substantiate allegations, and not simply fall back on anonymous ‘sources’ (usually code for spooks). The people these allegations target deserve better, and so do readers
Former diplomat challenges ‘fake’ Guardian claims about Julian Assange meeting Paul Manafort The Canary Tom Coburg 3rd December 2018 A former consul and first secretary at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London has spoken out against a “fake story” from the Guardian. Speaking to The Canary, Fidel Narváez insisted that the claim that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort met with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is entirely false. Continue reading →
The weirdest right-wing takes on the student climate protest , Australia’s free speech warriors took a righteous stand against children fighting for their future. Crikey, KISHOR NAPIER-RAMAN DEC 03, 2018 After years of apocalyptic headlines and government intransigence on climate change, the sight of thousands of high school students packing Sydney’s Martin Place last Friday provided a jolt of much-needed hope for the future. Armed with loudspeakers, and some incredibly creative posters, the strike — which also took place in Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Coffs Harbour, Bendigo and other city centres — represented part of a global surge of student-led climate change protests.
It also caused a surge of righteous fury among conservative politicians and commentators; a feeling that was not shared by most Australians who are more worried about climate change than ever, and increasingly are in favour of more renewable energy. Here’s a selection of the responses from those who chose to take a stand against the children advocating for their future: … (subscribers only)
Victoria now relying on SA for power as wind production rises and coal plants close, Adelaide Now Daniel Wills, State Political Editor, The Advertiser December 3, 2018 Green-powered South Australia is now sending Victoria more electricity than it takes back as wind production surges, leading energy experts to warn that more storage is the key to keeping the local grid stable.
A major report from the Australian Energy Market Operator has revealed SA was a net exporter to Victoria during the 2017-18 financial year, marking the first time that has happened in at least nine years.
However, the switch is mostly due to the closure of Victoria’s huge Hazelwood coal-fired power station, leaving it more reliant on SA for power.
AEMO warns both states are at risk of forced blackouts this summer due to possible power shortages.
SA Energy and Mining Minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan has seized on the findings as evidence his election pledge to deliver the NSW link should be fast-tracked.
10,000 CSIRO barrels are stacked decaying within the Woomera Protected Area; & back in 2016 $29 million was budgeted for re-mediation.
CSIRO has been contacted numerous times by different folk seeking information about how that was progressing – no answer has been the firm reply…..
Well, Senator Rex Patrick recently released some documents he obtained under FOI, & within those we find, from an August 2017 DIIS facilitated meeting with very senior officers from CSIRO, ARPANSA, & Department of Defence :
“CSIRO estimates they have 10,000 drums of radioactive waste stored at Woomera. Initial reports indicate these drums represent 80% LLW and 20% ILW. There is both chemical and radiological waste, often mixed together. They have been directed by ARPANSA to undertake measures to characterise, separate, process as appropriate, and repackage. [my caps] HOWEVER, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO UNDERTAKE SUCH MEASURES WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE CURRENT STORAGE FACILITY AT WOOMERA” p17
……. then on p18
“Preparing any appropriate part of the CSIRO waste at Woomera for transport to the NRWMF once we have clarity on what that facility will deal with (eg. LLW processing, ILW storage)”
So, at August 2017, we have the bosses of Federal agencies flagging the PROCESSING OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE AT THE NRWMF.
The affected communities have not been informed about that – only being told it would be STORAGE ONLY. Also, the ‘temporary’ ‘interim’ holding of ILW in a shipping container, potentially 100 years, requires replacement of the canisters after 40 years, so there would also need to be built what is known as a ‘hot cell’ to undertake that risky venture… https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2ed7ca0ef6oh1p5/AAB6UaL6iCMWFH2dzwv2q4VBa?dl=0&preview=Woomera+Letter+2.pdf
nuclear emits twice as much carbon as solar PV and six times as much as onshore wind.
Beyond Nuclear, 2 Dec 18Nuclear power has no constructive role to play in climate change solutions. In fact, it is a hindrance.
Nuclear power does have a carbon footprint When nuclear power is said to have “zero emissions,” this refers only to the electricity generation phase and only to greenhouse gas emissions. There are emissions at this stage, especially heat and radioactivity. Certain emissions during reactor operations, such as carbon-14 in CO2 form and methane, are greenhouse gases.
However, there are plenty of carbon emissions involved in making a nuclear power plant a reality. Therefore, when discussing the carbon footprint of nuclear energy compared to other energy forms, the entire uranium fuel chain needs to be taken into account. In doing so, nuclear energy compares poorly to renewable energy and energy efficiency. Lifecycle emissions along the nuclear fuel chain occur through uranium mining and milling, transportation, plant construction, operation, reactor site decommissioning, and nuclear waste management.1
Life-cycle carbon emissions of a nuclear power plant When taking into account planning, permitting, construction, operation, refurbishing and decommissioning, a nuclear power plant emits at least 6-24 times more carbon-dioxide equivalent emissions than wind per unit energy produced over the same 100-year period.2
Life-cycle carbon emissions from the entire nuclear fuel chain How do we calculate this? Evaluating the total carbon output of the nuclear industry involves calculating emissions from every carbon-emitting phase of the uranium fuel chain, then dividing them by the electricity produced over the entire lifetime of the plant.3 Some of the most reliable analysis on this has been done by Dr. Benjamin Sovacool whose data we use here (see footnote 1).
Let’s take a look at the mean carbon emissions of each phase:Continue reading →
Total fire bans declared for most of South Australia, The Advertiser, December 1, 2018 Total fire bans have been issued for most of South Australia on the first day of summer.
The Country Fire Service’s state operation centre is ready to react to any large fires today as the mercury soars to 30C across the state before a possible storm late in the afternoon.
A severe fire danger rating has declared for the following regions:
West Coast, Eastern Eyre Peninsula, Lower Eyre Peninsula, Flinders, Mid North, Yorke Peninsula, Riverland, Murraylands, Upper South East, Lower South East and Mount Lofty Ranges
The official bushfire season has also begun today for Kangaroo Island and will run until April.
When total fire bans are declared, well prepared and actively defended houses can offer safety during a fire.
But the Country Fire Service warns that if residents do not have a bushfire survival plan, leaving early before a fire start is the safest option.
CFS State Duty Commander Nick Stanley told ABC radio certain activities that could cause a fire risk are banned during the fire danger season…..
A band of lightning moving across South Australia is believed to be the cause of multiple bushfires, in particular on the Yorke Peninsula at Minlaton. 2 Dec 18 Multiple fires are burning in South Australia and are believed to have been caused by a band of lightning moving across the state.
The most serious fire is on the Yorke Peninsula at Minlaton, the SA Country Fire Service said.
Just before 3pm, the CFS was telling nearby residents to “leave if the path is clear to a safer place” however the authority now says the rate of spread of the fire has halted.
However the CFS says it’s concerned that could change when the wind changes in a few hours.
“The CFS has concern that when the wind change arrives, there may be an increase in fire behaviour,” a warning message said.
“People east of the fire ground need to remain alert to this wind change and enact their Bushfire Survival Plan.”
There are smaller grass fires near Ettick in the Murraylands district, the Globe Derby Trotting track in the northern Adelaide metro area, Kangaroo Island, Hindmarsh Island, Kanmantoo, Barabba and Long Plains.
Portrait of a planet on the verge of climate catastropheAs the UN sits down for its annual climate conference this week, many experts believe we have passed the point of no return, Guardian, byRobin McKie, 2 Dec 18
On Sunday morning hundreds of politicians, government officials and scientists will gather in the grandeur of the International Congress Centre in Katowice, Poland. It will be a familiar experience for many. For 24 years the annual UN climate conference has served up a reliable diet of rhetoric, backroom talks and dramatic last-minute deals aimed at halting global warming.
But this year’s will be a grimmer affair – by far. As recent reports have made clear, the world may no longer be hovering at the edge of destruction but has probably staggered beyond a crucial point of no return. Climate catastrophe is now looking inevitable. We have simply left it too late to hold rising global temperatures to under 1.5C and so prevent a future of drowned coasts, ruined coral reefs, spreading deserts and melted glaciers.
One example was provided last week by a UN report that revealed attempts to ensure fossil fuel emissions peak by 2020 will fail. Indeed the target will not even be reached by 2030. Another, by the World Meteorological Organization, said the past four years had been the warmest on record and warned that global temperatures could easily rise by 3-5C by 2100, well above that sought-after goal of 1.5C. The UK will not be exempt either. The Met Office said summer temperatures could now be 5.4C hotter by 2070.
At the same time, prospects of reaching global deals to halt emissions have been weakened by the spread of rightwing populism. Not much to smile about in Katowice.
Nor will the planet’s woes end in 2100. Although most discussions use the year as a convenient cut-off point for describing Earth’s likely fate, the changes we have already triggered will last well beyond that date, Continue reading →
President Emmanuel Macron of France depressed nuclear executives globally in late November 2018, announcing the planned retirement of 14 of 58 reactors by 2035. This was still less than was promised in his election campaign, but represents a major internal political battle, as well as a major change of France’s circumstances.
This has been an emerging story for several years.
France did a better job than most of building nuclear plants. They picked a single design and built a bunch of them over a relatively concentrated 20 years from about 1978 onward. It was a massive, state-funded, state-managed energy infrastructure initiative at a scale rarely seen. They dodged a bunch of the mistakes of other geographies somewhat by accident. They aren’t subject to earthquakes or tsunamis. They kept the technology highly standard. They developed a skilled workforce for building them and rewarded them well.
But the last nuclear reactor went live almost 20 years ago, the oldest ones are at end-of-life, and the skilled workforce only knows how to maintain and operate existing reactors now, not build new ones. The current President of France, Macron, used to be the Minister of Industry. He’s stated publicly that even he couldn’t find out how much the build-out actually cost, with the clear assertion that a bunch of actual costs were hidden.
“Nobody knows the total cost for nuclear energy,” he said. “I was minister for industry and I could not tell you.”
And France had to build nuclear to be load-following due to its over-reliance on a more usually inflexible form of generation. Nuclear is good for baseload up to 30–40%, but when it has to be turned on and off it gets a lot more expensive very quickly. France has the good fortune to have been able to export a lot of electricity to the rest of the EU for several years, but the energy mix on the continent is strongly favoring more flexible forms of generation.
And now, a few things have changed in the decades since France made its huge bet on nuclear generation in the Messmer Plan in 1974.
Renewables are dirt cheap, with Lazard’s latest figures bringing them in at 3–6 times cheaper than new nuclear. (Amusingly, Lazard still labels wind and solar as ‘alternative energy‘.) Europe is a leading geography for wind and solar, so skilled trades and supply chains all exist. Europe’s grid has strengthened and expanded over the past 30 years, so the need for a country to go it alone has diminished substantially.
The EU was founded in 1993 and France is an integral part of it, and that has two impacts. The first is that France’s energy independence policy that was part of the impetus for a massive nuclear fleet looks archaic in context of modern politics and economics. The second is that EU regulations forbid destabilizingly large governmental subsidies for energy, something which the Hinkley plant in the EU had to fight through. As Macron’s experience shows, it’s actually impossible for anyone to figure out how much any nuclear plant actually cost due to budget fudging. This last is true globally, by the way.
And Chernobyl and Fukushima both happened since the French nuclear build-out began. Public support diminished substantially after those events, one on the same continent and one a world away.
France receives a greater percentage of its electricity from nuclear than any country in the world, at 72% close to 50% more than its nearest ‘competitor’, Slovakia. And it will diminish over the coming decades. Its last-built reactor will reach end-of-life in 2040 or so. It’s unlikely that it will be replaced. And it’s unlikely that more than a fraction of the aging reactors will be refurbished at all.
Wind, solar, a continent-scale grid, and open economic borders all contributed to the death of the French nuclear dream. It’s time for France to wake up and join the future, and it has. It voted in Macron, a politician who promised to reduce France’s nuclear fleet. He fought the entrenched bureaucracy and EDF, and while the new plans are slower than the promised ones, they are the right plans on a pragmatic timeline.
Energy efficiency, not nuclear – theme for July 19
“Australia could cut greenhouse gas emissions halfway to its Paris agreement target, and save $7.7bn a year in bills, by adopting existing global standards on energy efficiency.
From new hot water heaters to better standards for appliances, a new report has found Australia is missing an opportunity to “easily” meet its emissions targets and fight the looming climate crisis.
The report, from the Energy Efficiency Council (EEC), found that adopting the measures used in Germany would save the average Australian household $790 a year on power bills.
It would also create 70,000 extra fulltime equivalent jobs – from advanced engineering to plumbing – as houses are fitted with new boilers, draught-sealing and new lights, and factories invest in efficient equipment.
A YouGov survey commissioned by the EEC found that “investing in energy efficiency” is one of the most politically popular actions the government can take on the climate crisis – with more than 85% support among both Labor and Coalition voters.
Since 2015, Australia has only improved an average of 0.7% a year, according to the EEC’s figures – well below the 2.3% rate needed.
Murray-Leach said the levers of change were controlled by the states and territories – meaning Australia could still “crack on” even if the federal government was inactive.
The report said Australians should start thinking of energy efficiency as a form of energy generation – adding capacity to the grid and reducing power bills.
“Energy efficiency is just another form of supply,” Murray-Leach said. “When I look at Germany, their bills are 30% lower”.
According to the report, Australia has “barely begun to tap the potential of energy efficiency”, and was the worst developed country for efficiency, out of the top 25 energy-consuming countries. …… Naaman Zhou
