Cardigans and carbon prices

I did start to wonder what sort of cardigan induced haze had descended when it was claimed that the solution to global climate change, at least from an economic standpoint, was to "internalise the externality". Obviously. Stick with me here because in the end, it should hopefully make more sense.

Externalities are by-products of processes we value but are not included in the cost to the consumer. Carbon dioxide emissions are a classic example of an externality - they are a by-product of common processes such as energy generation or transportation which are essential to the way we currently live.

Our lecturer, being a good classically trained economist, was a huge fan of a diagram. In his honour, please find one inserted below so I can illustrate where I'm going with this.

For the purposes of this exercise we'll make some assumptions (welcome to economics);
(1) Carbon dioxide emissions cause environmental damage (of x value)
(2) The price you pay for your electricity is Pmarket (determined by the point where MPC intersects with MB)
(3) The price you pay for electricity magically excludes infrastructure and other crazy real world costs which gets electricity from the generator to your house

Working on the above assumptions you are only paying for your electricity and not any environmental damage (like carbon dioxide emitted during the process which is accumulating in the atmosphere and influencing climate change).

When you put an estimate of the environmental cost (ED) into the overall cost suddenly you have the marginal social cost (MPC + ED) and, in this case a magical new red line heading to the top right hand corner of the page.

If you now recalculate the price - where the MSC line intersects with MB, and read off Pext, the new price (including the externality) is higher.

Congratulations, you now understand what will happen when the Australian Government puts a price on carbon on 1 July 2012. They have estimated that the shadow price is $23/tonne and are working on the fact that this increase in price will mean that you as a consumer will reduce the quantity of electricity you use (NB the red dashed line on the quantity axis indicates a smaller quantity). Ideally, this should mean that people are incentivised to do something about the way they use electricity and wherever possible decouple their electricity use from carbon emissions. After all, the above diagram doesn't apply if quantity of electricity does not correlate with quantity of emissions produced e.g. if your solar powered hot water system meets your household needs without additional fossil fuel boost then there is no corresponding emissions with every shower you have.

There is method in this madness.

It would be great if everyone considered whether we really have Economic hypochondria currently in Australia as we yell increasingly louder about how we can not possible afford, as one of the wealthiest nations on earth, to do something about our contribution to climate change.

Business knows they need to do something about the mega forces expected in the future, of which climate change is only one. The suite includes climate change, fuel and energy, material resource scarcity, water scarcity, population growth, urbanisation, wealth, food security, ecosystem decline and deforestation as recognised in KPMG's latest offering to the business world. Maybe we all need to  Expect the unexpected.

What I learnt over summer..

Sort of went missing during last semester. Apologies to anyone following who (a) noticed and (b) was concerned. Don't panic, I did remember to go to Uni, hand in my assessments and pass everything with flying colours. I just didn't quite manage to provide the running commentary. All that quiet reflection turned into project management with military precision as the amazing synchronicity of assessment tasks meant everything was always due at once, seemingly at regularly decreasing intervals. There remains interesting stuff to share and I plan (perhaps not with the same aforementioned military precision) to deliver the belated version in weeks to come.

The world has moved on, I'm now looking down the barrel of O'Week 2012 (with very old, sensible eyes, alas) and the end is in sight. One last subject to go...

Like all good swots I did manage to spend some time at Uni over the summer break learning the finer arts of economics and climate change (where greenhouse gases meet brown cardigans in a smog of policy objectives). Taught by the economists and influenced by the scientists, it was designed to explain why if you let good old neo-classical economics (aka the markets) do their job, we'll be able to save the planet. Of course, it was made all the more curious by the fact one of the lecturers wasn't truly convinced that climate change is man-made. In a discipline notorious for listing its assumptions, this seemed even more curious - for if that assumption does not hold, what is the point of capping and trading known greenhouse gases, let alone teaching the finer points of the economics involved! As a side note, there is an interesting recent article in The Guardian summarising the views of scientists on the seemingly unrelentless attacks on science.

I respect that academics are suppose to develop the contrarian in all of us and I could probably argue for hours that not enough of us regularly question the state of the world and how we can address our small patch of humanity. I just wonder, increasing aloud, whether the fear of change is more powerful than that of scientific reason.

All this quiet reflection...

...makes one a silent blogger.

Somehow got side-tracked by a spot of project management assignment completion. Finally, well into week 4, I have finally dispatched that wretched Winter School subject, just in time for Spring! I have a new found respect for real project managers and the power of Gantt charts although, quite frankly, I cannot see myself becoming a true believer! The highlight of the entire adventure was using all my risk analysis experience to write a  risk analysis and control plan for none other than a wedding planning business, although save a section on natural disaster management, climate change in particular and sustainability in general, didn't get a look in.

This semester is turning out to be quite a difference experience to last semester. Away from the methodical focus of the engineering type subjects, I have been introduced to the warmer, fuzzier, green glow of the humanities. All which lead to last week's reflection piece looking something like this...

"Labels, riots and religion – never a dull moment in sustainability! As we continue to debate about typologies and also learn the meaning of more obscure words, such as epistemological, the green hue of sustainability becomes murkier. The examination of the two national case studies – the Australian National Strategy for Ecological Sustainable Development as compared to the UK Sustainable Development Strategy was most striking given the widely reported civil unrest in the UK and the extreme volatility of the world money markets of this week. The semantics of seeking appropriate sustainability indicators appeared moot when parts of English society were rioting over an undefined number of issues. 
Away from the civil unrest, a very thought provoking tutorial discussion was had about sustainable development by inviting religion, culture and inevitably sex into the room. I sat bemused and thinking that we only need to throw in politics and we were breaking every rule I was ever taught about polite conversation in society.  In particular the discussion examined the strengths of taboos in prevention of environmental damage and the interdependence of marriage, children and status in many societies."

However as the week has rolled on I have wondered whether we are not breaking enough rules about polite conversation...

Climate Change - a wicked problem?

"Wicked" you ask? Don't panic, this is not a continuation of my previous post regarding whether as inanimate object such as coal could be evil per se and I definitely haven't picked up the parlance of the youth, despite my daily exposure to the young and impressionable.

"Wicked problem" is a phrase coined by Rittel and Webber in 1973 and was originally used to describe an issue in public or planning policy. Summarised below are characteristics of a "wicked problem";

• it is difficult to define
• it has interdependencies and is multi-causal
• attempts to address it may result in adverse unforeseen circumstances
• it is often not stable
• it often does not have a clear solution
• it is socially complex
• it hardly ever sits conveniently with the responsibility of any one organisation
• it involves changing behaviour
• it may sometimes be characterised by chronic policy failure.

Unsurprisingly the majority of issues in the environmental and the greater sustainability space may be described as "wicked". For the curious, the same authors labelled those problems which although difficult could be solved in a systematic and somewhat linear way as "tame". A wit in our class today noted that if you love a challenge, you'd want all your problems to be "wicked" in the other sense of the vernacular..

"Wicked problems" need multi-faceted treatment from the variety of stakeholders (the literature likes to throw around the term "actors" - but after the fuss Cate Blanchett accidentally achieved, perhaps not appropriate in this case) and on-going attention. You manage an evolving wicked problem rather than ever truly solve it. The key challenge is successfully convincing everyone to make the right behavioural changes to make that difference. 

If that could be achieved in my lifetime, that would be truly "wicked"!!

This week, upon reflection...

One of my new subjects requires us to submit a reflective piece at the end of semester, a vignette reflections for each week of the course put into perspective at the end. Being the studious swot that I am, I have followed the lecturer's advice and each week I have taken a little time to document my reflections. However, if this week's anything to go by, it may be the thoughts which are left out which may be more telling.

Today someone actually articulated that as coal was a gift from God (not sure which one or who's claiming responsibility), it could not be evil. Actually I was under the perhaps false impression that evil and inanimate objects tend to be mutually exclusive. Coal is lots of things but I'm pretty sure it's not too harsh to say it's soul-less, just the way I like my inanimate objects (blessed or not). That observation didn't make the reflective cut..

We danced around the edges of neo-liberalism and it seemed to be the pin-up for all that is wrong environmentally, socially and economically, yet we also seemed to struggle with the recognition that for many, the neo-liberal and liberal view best fits what we have known even if we recognize that its extremes will not serve our vision of the future.


However it was the probing question "Is Sustainable Development an oxymoron?" which appeared to leave the debate in tatters. Defining oxymoron was a highlight - picks of the examples were "giant shrimp" and "smart government". The discussion was informed by the tutorial reading - a synopsis on a book written giving the 30 year update on "The Limits to Growth" and really, the conclusions appeared to waiver from "barbed wire firmly puncturing the buttocks" to "it's probably too late".


So I ask myself, if we genuinely believe it is too late then what is the point of sustainability? Are we merely learning the dark arts of environmental and social pallative care disguised as solutions so as the world dies slowly, at least some of us will be comfortable....


So on that note, armed with the knowledge that population is the elephant in the room, I went off to visit one of the earth's newest citizens just up the road where both he and his mum are recovering from the trauma that is child birth. He was small, sleepy, content and totally convinced that he was in safe hands. Only time will tell...

Greenhouse gas, skepticism and the common good?

Earlier this week I watched an interesting and completely surprising debate in one of my new subjects. In a typical introductory workshop, we were given the PLEA 2009 Quebec Manifesto and a number of questions were posed to generate discussion.

One of those questions, paraphased, was is there a relationship between climate change and carbon emissions?
The group assigned to comment on that question simply stated "no". The lecturer teased out their reasoning which included the fact that they believed that the effect of man-made carbon emissions were insignificant compared to the natural climate cycles and contributions of natural disasters such as volcanoes and bush fires. The reasoning also included that while there appeared to be facts about carbon dioxide generation, they were not convinced they were linked to climate change. For them, the scientific link was not compelling enough.

Given that the next 12 weeks would be based on methods used to measure and reduce the production of greenhouse gas production in commercial buildings, it made sense that the lecturer then turned to the room and simply asked, "how many people here believe there is a link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change?" I was surprised as I counted less than 50% of the room in agreement.

This was a room of future decision makers, still in their early twenties, who are tertiary educated and who do not believe the science is compelling enough. There is no doubt in my mind why the Australian Government is struggling to sell their carbon price and eventual emissions-trading scheme. Have we taught our society to be so skeptical that we do not even consider the precautionary principle?

The science of the debate has become extremely political and divisive in Australia and I wonder whether the discussion our group had is symptomatic of that and the growing weariness of a federal government which as a minority government has opened our eyes to how difficult it is to govern when every decision is the culmination of much compromise.

In many ways I felt like an outside in my class earlier this week - nearly a generation older, with a firm conviction that even if the science is not rock-solid we are still compelled to act and despairing at the vehemence with which the majority of my fellow countrymen and women rail against change for the sake of the common good. It was with interest I read Richard Lambert's piece Unravelling a few of Australia's Climate Myths written from the view of an outside looking into this country's current debate.

It would be interesting to know what other people think of us in the global community.

In celebration of biodiversity..

Semester two kicked off on Monday so last weekend I studiously ignored my pending project management assignment and headed south to celebrate the end of the mid-semester break.

What better way to prepare for the coming semester than spend some time marvelling at the amazing biodiversity at our back door.  In this part of the world, it is whale watching season from May to September and we were not disappointed, sighting a very happy whale frollicking off the coast at Victor Harbour. For those with a keen interest in whale watching, I would recommend checking out the South Australian Whale Centre website which includes a log of recent sightings. We think the whale recorded as ID#1154 on the 23 July was the same one we saw about that time (but didn't log with the centre).

However it wasn't just about whales. My delighted Englishman had a close and harmless encounter with a lone echidna which was dawdling along the cliff top path and sighted both a dolphin in the bay as well as a seal playing off the rocks.

With the batteries recharged and the warm glow of biodiversity in my veins, I am ready to take on second semester.

Hmm.. what on earth just happened?

This evening I took my ego into my own hands and attempted to network.....

To say that at various times I felt I was in a parallel universe does not do the experience the justice it deserves. The theme of the evening was sustainability and therefore to behold not one, but two people, being escorted from the venue was a little surreal.

I did learn about a very cool whole system design concept for growing tomatoes but didn't really know what to think when one of the participants was interested in the product but ideologically opposed to the retailer.

Taking inspiration from the two marketing PhDs I befriended, I really need to work out where I am going to position myself in this unusual job market.

What I have learnt in my holidays

Well, the results are in and I have very successfully navigated my first semester, exams and all, which is both a source of relief and pride.

Despite perhaps rather foolishly enrolling in a winter school subject to simultaneously learn about the dark arts of project management and fast forward this learning adventure, I have continued in my spare time to marvel at the strong reactions change evokes. Having spent part of my holidays donating a small fortune to my dentist to repair teeth grinding damage, self-inflicted unconsciously worrying about small stuff, I know I'm not immune to adverse reactions to change.

The Australian Government has announced that from 1 July 2012, there will be a price levied against the 500 largest producers of carbon dioxide equivalents released to the atmosphere. I genuinely think they would have got a more positive reaction by announcing they were going to wipe Australia off the map with a series of nuclear tests, such has been the vehement outpouring of angst by a large number of Australians.

It probably pays to put the political climate here in Oz in context. As alluded to in Vote 1 - Thermal Comfort, after the last federal election, neither of the two major parties received enough of the primary vote to form government in their own right, resulting in a "hung parliament". It was an ugly campaign and an inconclusive outcome. The reality for Australians is that the major party which was prepared to negotiate with the minor Greens party and a number of independent members formed a government. Like all negotiations, there are concessions so we have had some unusual outcomes including very specific poker machine reform and the speeding up of an emissions trading scheme which (ironically) both major parties had previously threatened but been unable to deliver. There are numerous other political issues clouding the debate but I'll encourage you to research those yourself and come to your own conclusions.

Thanks to the good folk at the Australian Bureau of Statistics I can highlight the following information;
"In 2007, 18.75 tonnes of CO₂ were emitted for every Australian, compared with an OECD country average of 10.97 tonnes per person. Many large economies, including Japan (9.68 tonnes/person) and the United Kingdom (8.6 tonnes/person), had significantly lower per capita CO₂ emissions than Australia in 2007. Of the OECD countries, only Luxembourg (22.35 tonnes/person) and the United States (19.1 tonnes/person) had higher per capita CO₂ emissions than Australia".


There is a compelling case that as good Global citizens we need to make some fundamental changes to the way we operate our country and invest in alternative technologies and industry over the long term for lasting global benefit.


What has been so disappointing has been the lack of public discussion about the multitude of options and positive changes that can be made. You would think from the current national debate we are the smartest and most efficient users of energy on the planet so there will only be additional costs and penalties and nothing to gain from new technology and ways of thinking. There appears to be more focus on price increases than using less by being smarter, more efficient or seeking alternatives. That after all folks, is the entire point...


The fear of change appears to be the biggest threat to planet!

Perspectivity - is that a word?

Wandering around the murky, albeit "G" rated, depths of cyberspace, in the name getting educated, I came across a blog discussing the game called Perspectivity. It makes for interesting reading and highlights, amongst other things, that sometimes non-partisan, lashings of common good can be beneficial all round.

Have a look and think...could we make the current debate just a little more civil?

Rio de Janerio - a mecca for Peter Allen fans and sustainable optimists alike..

Despite bunking off early in swot vac to check out some of the more obscure World Heritage sites lurking in the wilds of South Australia, I survived the exam which tested my knowledge of The Australian Environmental Bucket list (also see Don't forget to admire the beautiful things).

In the process of memorising large chunks of specific information, with the view to documenting it word perfectly under exam conditions, my review took me back to those heady days when folk were genuinely convinced that Sustainable Development was actually a solution to the world's dilemmas. Enter Rio Declaration 1992, diplomatically hammered out as the outcome from what was known as "The Earth Summit".

Nineteen years on, several summits later, and the planning is well underway for Rio+20 - Earth Summit 2012 by the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. There are two main themes - Sustainable Development Governance and the Green Economy. If you've been listening to Australian media of late, you may have interpreted that to mean "the Nanny state will be empowered to drag us back into the caves". For the curious, here's a fine example of the current state of the debate.

How much do you really know about your country's commitments to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (which incorporates the Kyotol Protocol)? How much of your own opinion is influenced by fear of the unknown?

The World Resources Institute, in preparation for Rio+20 has released a Information Note which is well worth considering. After all, one of the key aspects of Sustainable Development is Broad Community Consultation which includes the provision of information. Ask yourself, do you have enough information about the issues that affect you environmentally, socially and economically to make informed decisions?

Biomimicry - watch and learn!

As I revise for the subject that just keeps giving (see earlier posts e.g. All costs are relative) for an exam in a format that just keeps amusing, I was reminded of one of the cooler concepts we covered, biomimicry as part of a series of lectures from the Natural Edge Project.

It's not rocket science and that, my dear friends, is both its attraction and its beauty. The concept is simple - "mimic" solutions in nature to solve challenges in society which could be design, process or business based.

There are three main types of innovation derived from nature;
form - examples include shapes (see Mercedes Benz's avant garde concept vehicle inspired by a box jellyfish) and non-chemical adhesive methods (Gecko tape)
process  - examples include cooling systems, filtration (including sewerage treatment) and desalination (fair to say, probably not a reference process in the various desal plants popping up all over Australia at the moment)
ecosystems - examples include feedback loops and symbiotic relationships (and everyone wants one of those..)
(Source: TNEP notes)

In an increasing energy constraint world, one of my favourite observations is that most of the products and services of nature are biotic - that means they occur at ambient temperature, low pressure and in low toxicity conditions. There are, of course, some spectacular exceptions - volcanoes, tidal waves, cyclones and bushfires, but just imagine the reduction in energy if we could make the things we needed at standard temperatures and pressures.

Don't forget to admire the beautiful things..

Occasionally I take the advice of my family, much to their amazement. I am currently suppose to be studying for my end of semester exams but after handing in my last two assignments for the semester on Friday decided to take a couple of days away from the books to revel in the Queen's birthday long weekend.  Yes, I am aware the Queen of England was born in April and strangely enough tends to celebrate her birthday then. However, June is the descent into winter for these colonies so we have a random winter long weekend in June, blame the Queen and perversely open the Australian ski season, whether or not there is snow on the Australian Alps. Except in WA where they have the Queen's birthday in September and perversely open the Perth Show but, how I have digressed..

In one of the subjects (which will be examined in the near future), we have been learning about the various types of environmental legislation in the various jurisdictions of Australia and how, if at all, it protects the beautiful things we have.

When the lecturer asked for examples of World Heritage areas, RAMSAR wetlands etc., she usually met the correct answer with, yes, you must visit there before you die. So actually, it appears I am about to be examined on the Australian Environmental Bucket List (and the processes for getting the correct Minister to approve any major acts of environmental desecration planned in the near vicinity).

So, in keeping with the theme, over the weekend instead of studying the legislation, we visited some of those sites that the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act aims to protect including The Coorong National Park. We also passed in our travels the World Heritage listed Naracoorte Caves and Bool Lagoon.

The strange thing is, at different times of my life, I have lived nearby all of these natural wonders and only ever took visitors there occasionally, never just went to look and admire. Just another little reminder - don't forget to admire the beautiful things while you can...

Are all alternatives equal?

I live in a quaint jurisdiction of Australia. We have a container deposit recycling scheme and a ban on the use of lightweight plastic bags. Practically that means two things;
(i) you NEVER see a recyclable container lying around as litter because an enterprising collector will have swooped it up and cashed it in, resulting in up to 85% of all eligible containers being recycled AND
(ii) everyone has to bring their own bags to the shops or purchase an alternative to non lightweight plastic.

The shopping bag discussion is worth having. The number of single plastic bag uses has fallen considerably since the introduction of the ban in May 2009. Research findings six months after the introduction found significant changes in behaviour and overall support in the community.

However are all alternatives to single use lightweight plastic bags equally better for the environment?

I was given this link as part of a Lifecycle analysis discussion recently at Uni which got me thinking. It is an old report now (December 2002) on the Environmental impact of plastic bags. On pages 36 and 37 there is a discussion about alternative bags and estimates of both carbon dioxide emissions and embodied energy. It is interesting to note the high impact of paper bags (associated with the processing requirements) and the much lower impact of reusable plastic boxes and the "green bag". The swag style is that associated with Ikea - much larger than the average shopping bag and not always suitable for lugging home the groceries.

Some food for thought this week...

The $300 house project

As I beaver away with my fellow group members on our sustainable house project design in readiness for next week's presentation and design submission, I sort of got distracted.  My attention was drawn today to an amazing little competition started on the Harvard Business review blog (of all places) which has been brewing away in the depths of cyberspace as showcased by a recent article in the Economist.

Check out http://www.300house.com/ to read all about a competition to design safe, useful and affordable housing construction to be trialled in the slums of India, Haiti and Indonesia.

If you want to join the team, you've got nine days to put your design in the ring.

The can of worms that is biofuels...

Yesterday I had to give my presentation on my biofuels project. Unsurprisingly, the presentation side wasn't particularly difficult given the number of times I have presented, facilitated groups, run training  and engaged in the art of public speaking in my former lives. Sometimes there are benefits to being the "mature age" student!

I'm going to go out on another limb here and suggest that most biofuels may not be the answer to the current fossil fuel dilemma. Oh the heresy!!

Part of my project discussed the energy lifecycle analysis of the biofuels - that is considering all the energy used to grow them - from clearance of the land, to preparation, planting, irrigation, fertiliser, harvest, transport and processing. A little bit of my agricultural past finally made a positive contribution to my studies!

The biofuel concept was a simple one - they should be carbon neutral because the combustion of a biofuel will emit the same amount of carbon dioxide that was sequestered by the plant in its lifetime and as long as plants still remain on earth, another plant should happily take up the same amount again creating a perfect carbon dioxide cycle. If only that was the case...

One of the most interesting articles I found during my research was a study completed by the Swiss looking at biofuels used in Switzerland (noting that many are imported). Their findings resonant with those of many other researchers, "In principle, each of the fuels examined (bioethanol, biomethanol, biodiesel and biogas) can be produced in an environmentally friendly way – it depends on what raw materials and production technologies are used".

Key impact areas include where land must be cleared or reclaimed (forest and swamps) to create arable land in the first place. Equally, energy crops that require intensive agricultural practices (fertiliser, pesticides, herbicides or anything else which gets you out on your presumably fossil fuel driven tractor) have much higher environmental impacts.

In general, biofuels made from waste materials tend to have the lowest impact. Often they would not have had a useful afterlife, ending up in landfills or being dumped out of sight and out of mind. Waste materials can include rubbish, sewerage and crop residue (straw, husks, bagasse [leftover sugar cane] and wood thinnings).

And all this before we even get into the food versus fuel debate...

What is life cycle energy?

Today I did my first "closed book" quiz since November 1997. It wasn't a particularly pleasant experience - the questions were all fair and reasonable but my poor (now considerably older) little brain is out of the habit of rote learning and recalling on cue. Not looking forward to my two "proper" exams later in June, but I digress.

The last question in the quiz required us to calculate the life cycle energy for two different house constructions and then recommend the one with the lowest overall energy use. Imagine my surprise when I came home and sat down for a spot of mindless television (between other assignments), only to discover tonight on the New Inventors on ABC 1 the first item was on a new software tool which helps calculate embodied energy and lifecycle operating energy! The coincidence given today's quiz was slightly unnerving..


The concept is simple (but complex to determine the actual numbers used in the calculation). 


Life cycle Energy = (Operating Energy x Life of building) + Embodied Energy


Where:

• Operating energy is all the energy you use in your house to heat, cool etc - i.e. run your house
• Life of building is its expected lifetime - often estimated only 25-30 years
• Embodied Energy - all the energy used in the extraction, processing and transportation of the raw materials, manufacture of the building materials and construction of the building (what gets left in and out of the system boundary can be a point of contention). Typical domestic buildings in Australia have embodied energy values of 5.5-6 Giga Joules per metre squared.

Like all things sustainable, there are trade-offs. Often houses with high embodied energy (constructed with steel, concrete or with a number imported specialty efficiency items) will have much lower operating costs over their lifetime (in the best case scenario not requiring artificial heating or cooling). Equally a house with low embodied energy may not perform as well thermally, requiring use (or additional use) of heating and/or cooling.

That's where life cycle energy can help broker a peace deal. It will allow you to compare different constructions and decide whether the trade-off is worth it!

If you are interested in the software, check out this link http://etool.net.au/. If you are really keen, here's the link to program on ABC iview.

And the science says....

This is not a diatribe about hard-core climate change deniers (after all,we all know at least one and hopefully agree that it would be a waste of perfectly good positive energy). Nor is it about those who are happy to wait until they are knee deep in water on their favourite beach esplanade (where normally they would be sitting drinking a suitable beverage and admiring the beach etc) before they suddenly cry "But no-one told me this would happen, really" or "I didn't think it would be this bad".

For those who like to think about the bigger picture here on earth, the millennium ecosystem assessment may be of interest. Its objective was summarised as "to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being and the scientific basis for action needed to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of those systems and their contribution to human well-being".

Yes, the scientific basis, that logical, rational reasoning behind why we need to improve the way we manage and interact with all those ecosystems which make up our planet (and funnily enough do not revolve around us). The fact I like most is that it isn't the work of a small group of people but rather involved the work of 1360 scientists.

ONE of the disturbing findings included;
"Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fiber and fuel. This has resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth." Note the concept of global warming isn't even mentioned!

Even if you believe we aren't contributing to the changes in atmosphere, we have definitely left a scar here on earth that needs to be addressed. It also highlights the underlying theme of the precautionary principle (for a refresher see ESD - that's not a party drug), that uncertainty is not a reason not to do something that could potentially have a significant effect on the environment.

Carbon dioxide is a colourless, odourless liquid so it is often out of sight, out of mind. Yet a polluted stream or a dried up wetland is ripe with visual clues that things are not OK.

What can you do which will make a positive difference in your ecosystem today?

Sustainability on the inside...

As I was reviewing my early notes on sustainable buildings for an upcoming quiz, my attention was drawn to all the elements which affect indoor environments. For many of us, our primary concern for all things environmental is for those things that our activities affect in the outside environment.

When was the last time you thought about making your indoor environment a better place to be? Do you ever have more than a passing thought about the following in your numerous indoor environments;

• indoor air quality
• ventilation
• air temperature and humidity
• noise and acoustics
• glare
• access to daylight and exterior views
• quality of light
• quality of water

Perhaps if I put into perspective the fact that Australians spend up to 95% of their time indoors (according to the good folks at CSIRO), then maybe that may pique at least some curiosity?

Be bold and educate yourself. You may wish to start with the State of Knowledge Report -Air toxics and indoor air quality in Australia. In any case, this week's challenge is to think about how to make your environment sustainable on the inside!

Energy efficiency - is it sustainable?

Here's a heretical thought for the day. Perhaps just achieving improved energy efficiency is not so sustainable after all. While doing "more with less" is definitely commendable and most cost effective, if the resource is not renewable and nothing is done to recycle or reclaim it, then it will just take longer to use it up! In the end, the resource is still exhausted.

Energy efficiency programs are often the initial way to provide funding for increasing the sustainability of practices - after all, when you use less of something, the money you save is available to be directed somewhere else.

Harnessing those savings and creating sustainable systems is the key to making energy efficiency sustainable. Next time you identify a way to save energy, by all means put it into place but then go to that next step - make the changes which make those resources renewable or recyclable.