Go Greener, Australia

It’s been two years since Al Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, was released in cinemas, and I decided to watch it again to see how it holds up. I bought the DVD, which has environmentally-friendly packaging: a slim cardboard sleeve instead of a hard plastic case, and the wrapper was biodegradable. Apparently a tree will be planted for each DVD sold, although I didn’t look into the details of that.

If you missed it first time around, I really recommend giving it a look. When I first saw it I was already interested in climate change as an issue (saw it at an ACF fund-raiser), but Gore’s presentation really clarified what the problem was, and what it’s consequences are likely to be. He uses clear and powerful graphics and photographs to explain what’s going on, and shows a wry sense of humour in his delivery. The director also decided it would be helpful to see how a man like Gore went from Vice-President of the USA to presenting slideshows to community groups, so we see an outline of Gore’s life and he explains his motivations. Altogether, it’s a very inspiring package - even if you were already convinced of the importance of the issue, Gore’s can-do attitude will give you a motivational boost.

The DVD also includes two commentaries which I haven’t listened to yet, plus an update from Gore on the evidence shown in the movie. The update presents more recent (2007) details of ice-cap melting, drought, flooding, and the impact on the oceans, again with powerful photographs to really bring home the consequences. It’s a bit more scary than the movie! Gore also recently gave an updated talk at the TED conference - more links and details on that soon, as I think it’s worthy of it’s own post.

What critics said

At the time, critics said the movie was preaching to the converted. It’s true that climate-change deniers won’t be convinced by the evidence on show here, since they’re not really interested in evidence anyway. But I don’t think this documentary is aimed at ‘the converted’ either. I think it’s more for the 80% of people (well, that’s a rough guess for Australia) who report in surveys that they care about the environment, but haven’t participated in any direct action or made changes to their lifestyle. Gore wants them to realise the urgency of the issue and take action, especially political action. As Gore found out, few politicians will do anything unless there’s votes in it, so he’s asking us to put it on the table as something we want addressed.

Climate-change deniers also came up with lists of supposed errors in the information presented. These have all been debunked, and most are based on willful misinterpretation of the movie. Actual climate scientists were only critical of the documentary in that Gore presents the average scenario, rather than the worst possibilities. This raises the question of how best to present important information, but I think they’d be satisfied with the update in the DVD extras.

We already have the solutions

What I get from An Inconvenient Truth is a reinforcement of the idea that we already have the tools to fix climate change. We don’t need to sit around waiting for new technology or a silver bullet solution. Gore illustrates the concept of stabilisation wedges very well: if we need to make 50% reductions in carbon emissions, then 10 different solutions that each achieve a 5% cut will work just as well as one magic 50% reduction. This applies when we’re working on reducing carbon emissions from our home: energy efficient appliances, plus turning them off at the wall, plus a solar hot water system, plus using Green Power sources will get us a pretty significant reduction in emissions. The same approach will work on a national and global level, if we get off our butts and make it happen.

And now that I’ve said I approve of making multiple small changes, I’m going to be inconsistent and quibble about the “what you can do” recommendations shown during the movie credits. Switching lightbulbs really is important: it’s an easy first step that lets people dip their toes in the water and see that it’s fine. But after someone has just shown you ice-shelves collapsing and climate-change refugees in distress, it doesn’t *feel* like enough. Later in the credits, vague suggestions about political action are given, but I think more specific ones would match the impact of the movie better.

Perhaps this just feels inadequate because the public has moved on a bit since the movie was released. But I credit a lot of that shift in public perception to key figures in the media (Kochie on Sunrise, Margaret and David on the movie show, etc) seeing the movie and using their influence to promote it and push the issue as one of importance, so there you go. I bet Gore would be love his movie to be successful enough that one day it becomes hopelessly outdated as we all move towards a bright green future. Already we’ve got a lot of people making small changes in their homes to ‘help the environment’, and it was definitely a political issue in the federal election last year. An Inconvenient Truth got the ball rolling, but now it’s up to Aussie environmentalists to keep the momentum going.

PS: I haven’t done movie reviews before, but I’d like to do more this year. If there’s a movie with an environmental theme that you’re interested in, but aren’t sure if it’s worth spending your time on, leave a comment with it’s title. I’ll take the hit for the team then report back if it’s any good If you’ve seen one you think is great, leave a comment too and I’ll add it to my list.

Over the last few weeks I’ve been reading How Good Are You?, by journalist Julian Lee. In it, he charts his investigations into the ethical choices we all face when we’re spending money. This includes environmental topics, as well as social issues like sweatshops, Fair Trade and truth in advertising. There are several chapters about food products, also cleaning products, clothes, investment, marketing and flying.

Lee was asked to write a newspaper article about ethical consumerism - as he looked into the issue, he realised that it although it was important for people to work out what the right choice is in everyday situations, it was also very difficult. Businesses will still try to get away with doing the bare minimum while claiming that they’re doing everything possible to be good corporate citizens, so we need ways to figure out if they’re telling the truth. Once we understand the issues, we can reward companies who are doing the right thing. Ethical consumers are still a small part of the market in Australia, but it’s one of the fastest growing segments.

Lee writes about the decisions he faces, which will be familiar to anyone who’s wandered into a supermarket, and talks us through the implications of the options available to us. He explains why the issues are important, and describes the effects on his family and their lifestyle. Although he discusses worldwide impacts, his examples are relevant to Aussies, featuring Australian brands, statistics and interviews.

Each chapter ends with suggestions for what we can do, grouped into easy, hard, and harder. These were very practical and achievable things, even most of the harder ones. Admittedly, I got a bit of a head swell when his recommendations were things I do already, like using natural cleaning products, composting, buying free-range and writing letters to businesses about their practices As for the stuff I don’t already do… well, knowing what to aim for is great. For example, the sections on investment and on fish made me realise I wasn’t doing enough, but Lee puts forward ideas for what I can do to fix that. I got some good ideas for things I can change in my own life, and will be writing about them here as I do them.

The book has quotes from many corporations and businesses about their ethical decisions (or lack of them). What struck me was that over and over, they keep saying that they’d make more ethical choices if they thought consumers wanted them to. So it comes back to this: in spite of all the general goodwill among the public for doing the right thing by the environment and other people, are we willing to put our money where our mouths are? Are we willing to demand better practices? I’ve made a start on this, but I could be doing more. This book has underlined the importance of contacting the companies who want our money, so we can let them know what we want in return.

Recommended?
Yes - I think this book will be useful to anyone in Australia who wants to learn how to spend their money wisely. And really, who doesn’t want to know that? You’ll get an understanding of the basic issues, and guidelines for how to make ethical consumer decisions. I was already aware of the environmental issues, and some of the social issues, but still had plenty to learn about corporate regulations and the fashion industry - because the book is a broad overview, I think most people will find they’ve got something to learn from it.

The website for How Good Are You? features interviews with Lee and extracts from the book if you’d like to know more.

Today we’ve got a guest post from Wendy Palmer, who you might recognise from her comments on earlier posts here. Wendy is a fiction writer with an interest in environmental issues. She’s written a review for us of the Ian Lowe essay I mentioned yesterday.

---

Reaction time: climate change and the nuclear option. Ian Lowe. Quarterly Essay 27; Melbourne, Black, Inc.Over the last year or so, the ‘nuclear power option’ has been touted as a viable solution for cutting carbon emissions and countering climate change. The publicity has been such that even some trenchant anti-nuclear people are considering nuclear power as the lesser of two evils. But can nuclear energy really solve our growing climate change and energy supply issues?In his wide-ranging essay, Lowe goes through five reasons why nuclear energy is not the solution:

• Economically, nuclear power would cost more than alternative energy producers (as well as more than conventional coal): one estimate is $75-105 per megawatt hour; only solar has the potential to cost as much at $70-$120 per megawatt hour, while wind and gas are much cheaper
• Nuclear power is too slow a response to cut carbon emissions: realistically it could take up to ten or fifteen years to build one nuclear power station in Australia, then another five years to make up for the construction and fuelling energy costs; this means it would be fifteen to twenty years for it to even start making a contribution to cutting carbon pollution. Compare that to fifteen to twenty months for introducing large-scale renewable energy production
• Nuclear power is not carbon-free: it takes a lot of fossil fuels to mine and process the ores, enrich the fuel and build the stations. Obviously the same argument applies to building renewable energy grids, but arguably they are less intensive in this regard
• Just like oil, uranium ores are a limited resource: the high-grade ores are limited and could only supply present demand for fifty years (ten years, if we increase demand to replace all coal-powered station). Then we have to use the lower-grade ores, which would require so much extra energy for extraction and processing that they could release more carbon dioxide than burning gas
• Nuclear power is dangerous: both in terms of the risk of accidents and the risk of terrorism or proliferation. The management of the radioactive waste is another major issue here, both morally (we export the ore; should we take back the waste?) and technically. These are the concerns which make many people anti-nuclear; it’s the other four issues that should make us re-consider whether it is, indeed, the lesser evil.

The whole essay makes for fascinating reading. Lowe covers some of the politics of nuclear energy and evaluates (and eviscerates) the Howard government taskforce report, Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy – Opportunities for Australia?, showing how much of its ‘positive’ endorsement for the nuclear power option is pure spin.

Lowe also spends time dispelling some of more entrenched myths about renewables: that they can’t handle baseload, that they’re expensive and will cost jobs, that they can’t be scaled up etc. In fact, the record of alternatives is pretty good both economically-speaking (job creation, for starters) and performance-wise, especially given the comparative lack of research funding.

Compared to the practicalities of nuclear power stations – where will we build them if for maximum effectiveness they should be near the demand (ie near population centres) and on the coast (for cooling water)? What will we do with the waste? How are developing nations going to handle these issues? – renewables look easy.

Lowe’s underpinning argument is simple: those touting nuclear energy as the solution are looking for a technical fix that would allow the western world to maintain its current, incredibly wasteful, lifestyle. On the other hand, alternative energies can be brought on board much faster than nuclear power and can handle our energy needs if we also become more energy-efficient – which doesn’t take a huge sacrifice on our part.

Greeniology: How to Live Well, Be Green and Make a Difference is a “comprehensive, practical and fun guide” to greening your life. It’s written by Tanya Ha, a sustainability expert who gave advice to the families on SBS’s Eco-House Challenge and also writes an advice column in G Magazine.

It’s certainly a comprehensive book: first there’s an introductory section on the major environmental issues facing Australia, then there’s a chapter for greening each room in your home, then there’s chapters for major lifestyle areas like shopping, grooming, travel, having a baby, and so on. Each chapter has a thorough look at all the different aspects, such as energy use, water use, waste production, and health issues. It’s almost like a manual for all the possible green choices in the average Australian’s life.

It’s also very practical - Ha doesn’t just list the immediately obvious stuff, but also alternatives if you can’t find a product, or if the most environmental choice is too expensive for your budget. She explains the general principles so that you can find your own way of doing things if your situation is different than most. And she encourages us to start making small changes that will add up and lead you on to more difficult things as you gain confidence and experience. There are pointers on political action you can take, but most of the book is focused on day-to-day details and practical advice.

Ha has a positive, can-do attitude and doesn’t waste time laying blame for problems. But she doesn’t sugar-coat the bad news either - she makes it very clear how the environmental disasters you see on the news are caused by the accumulated actions of ordinary people like you and me. Thankfully, she then makes it clear what we have to do to stop contributing to those problems.

It’s possible to buy the earlier first edition of Greeniology as an eBook, something I didn’t discover until after I’d bought a copy. I wish more publishers would offer this as an option!

Recommended?
People who are new to being a greenie will love Ha’s clear way of explaining the situation and the actions you can take to help. She cuts through the fluff and greenwashing to give you the facts and let you know you are more powerful than you might realise. More experienced environmentalists will be grateful for the Australian information and resources, something that’s lacking from a lot of the “32 gazillion ways you can save the world” books. I really think that this is the best Australian book for making your day-to-day life greener. If you’ve made some green resolutions at New Years, Greeniology will be very helpful.

I actually meant to review it last year, but I let my mum borrow it and have only just had it back from her! I think this is the best recommendation for the book: you can read it through once, but after that you’ll want it on hand to refer to as you get on with the little choices to go greener in your everyday life. I know I’ll be leafing through it regularly in the future as I look for ways I can help the environment.

If you’ve been wondering how Earth’s climate works, what global warming is, and how it creates climate change, then Tim Flannery’s The Weather Makers is the book for you.

Flannery starts by explaining how our climate works and what we’re currently doing to change it. His enthusiastic approach to explaining the science makes this book far more entertaining to read than a dry recital of statistics. Anyone who did a few science units in high school will be able to follow the details, because he goes through the concepts clearly and simply. However, he never dumbs it down - the information is accurate and reliable.

In the next section Flannery shows the effect our changes to the atmosphere have already caused, with examples from around the world, particularly Australia and the US. Then he covers the major solutions proposed (solar, wind, nuclear, etc), what politicians are doing, and then a section on what we as individuals can do. I found the section on politics rather depressing, but since the book was written there’s been a groundswell of support in Australia for taking action on climate change, and more demands from the public for politicians to do something about it.

Flannery finishes with a list of stuff you can do to prevent climate change, which is also available on the The Weather Makers website. I think the list is great - it’s aimed at getting you to make the changes that will make the most difference, rather than tiny changes that will chip away at the problem. I particularly like that ‘write to a politician’ is on the list, since many of the “Top 10 Ways to Save the World” lists neglect political action. The website also has excerpts from the book (so you can try before you buy), reviews and further resources.

Recommended?
The Weather Makers is a clear and comprehensive look at climate change, providing us with the information we need to make decisions about possible solutions to the problem. Flannery’s enthusiasm is catching, and I think that’s why he received the Australian of the Year award in January - he shows us we can understand the problem, we can figure out solutions, and we can make changes for our future. I’d recommend this book to anyone in Australia or the USA who’s been looking for an overview of the climate change situation.

If you haven’t done much high-school science, then I’d recommend We Are the Weather Makers instead. It’s the “young adult” edition: same content, but simplified. I think it’s a great option for people interested in learning about climate change even though they might not have any scientific knowledge. It’d also be good for anyone who hasn’t got the time to read the longer version

Clive Hamilton’s book Scorcher is a history of climate change politics in Australia since the mid-90s. Hamilton shows that the Howard government has had a clear agenda for climate change during this time, but not one that many Aussies would approve of.

Hamilton starts with details of the power-brokers in Australia who try to prevent government action on climate change. It’s a lot like the Four Corners expose from last year, The Greenhouse Mafia. Then there’s an explanation of where Australia’s greenhouse-gas emissions come from and the consequences for us, as well as the ethical implications of this global problem.

The next section of the book gets to the point. Hamilton explains how the Howard government threatened to withdraw from the first Kyoto Protocol negotiations unless we got a special deal (the inclusion of land-clearing emissions) and permission to increase emissions. After we got this cushy deal, Howard refused to ratify the agreement. The rest of the world were not happy, Jan, and the refusal of Australia and the US to join in caused a 5 year delay before Kyoto could come into force.

When the Kyoto agreement finally got underway in 2004, the Howard government tried to discredit it and undermine the second round of negotiations. Because of this, Australia will be restricted to observer status only in 2013 when the second phase of Kyoto is organised. Understandably, other nations feel that if we don’t think Kyoto is a good idea, then we shouldn’t bother showing up for meetings.

Finally, the book shows how the Howard government has tried to deal with the majority of Aussies who want more action on climate change. So far they’ve:

• raised the idea of nuclear power, which didn’t go down well with most Aussies,
• started the Asia-Pacific 6 group, which died when the US refused to fund it, and
• created a carbon-trading task group, which copied what was already being created by the Kyoto deals.

Hamilton takes a jab at environmental groups and the Australian public, for not speaking up sooner. Later he has a go at Tim Flannery for promoting individual action as a solution instead of government policy. I can’t remember Hamilton being active on environmental issues before anyone else figured it out, and I think he misunderstands Flannery’s position. This finger-wagging is a strange addition, and I think Hamilton would’ve done better to stick to political history.

Recommended?
If you’re going to claim that the Prime Minister has sabotaged the Kyoto processes and prevented climate-change action within Australia, then you’d better be able to back it up with solid facts or you’ll end up looking like a conspiracy theorist. Hamilton documents everything, and makes it easy for anyone to confirm his claims. He lists the facts, with supporting statistics, graphs, references to published material and so on.

The disadvantage of this is that it’s pretty dry reading. However, Hamilton is probably aiming for a narrower audience: journalists, academics, lobbyists and people with the background to understand and take in the amount of detail he presents. If you’re part of this target audience, or have an interest in politics, recent history and the environment, then you’ll find Scorcher both relevant and important.

I know it’s an important topic, but it’s not fun to pick up a book just to find out more of the dishonesty of politicians and businessmen, and how their actions make the rest of the world think we’re selfish and ignorant. And it’s not exactly surprising information. I’m glad I read it, but I’m a bit reluctant to recommend it to other people! If you’re a casual reader with an interest in the environment, this probably isn’t the book for you.

Just a quick entry to add a little bit more information to my review of Animal, Vegetable, Miracle by Barbara Kingsolver.

• The Australian has a good review of it, Sustained by a DIY ethic, which calls it “a kind of activist’s guide crossed with a gardening column and cooking manual”.
• Kingsolver’s interview on Speaking of Faith is available as an mp3 from the website, or as a free podcast on iTunes (search for Krista Tippett). The radio show is about “religion, meaning, ethics and ideas” - the interviewer briefly discusses Kingsolver’s religious thoughts as they relate to the book, but most of the interview is about what climate change and sustainability really have to do our daily routines, where the food we eat comes from, and why we resist the healthiest choices when they’re so tasty. The website also has production notes with links to more information about organic food and excerpts from the book.I enjoyed the interview, although there was a lot of padding at the beginning and end. It was interesting to hear her compare the writing of this book with her fictional novels.
• I’m going to order a copy of Living the Good Life by Linda Cockburn. The Cockburn family tried to live for 6 months without spending a dollar on food, water, transport or power, in northern Queensland. I’d like to read an Australian take on making choices to restrict your options as a way of learning about sustainability.

Last night the ABC aired The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary that claims nature, not humans, is causing climate change. ABC Science Online has a debunking at The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle Swindle which explains the science in layman’s terms. If you really want to nerd it up, you can see more details at RealClimate.org and the Australian Science Media Centre.

I’m not sure why the ABC aired such an out-of-date documentary: Tim Flannery suggested it’s for ratings, while Crikey.com.au believes it’s due to political pressure.

Studio Debate
I was more interested in the studio debate after the documentary was aired. Tony Jones hosted a panel of scientists, industry leaders and media people. They covered the science, the UK response to the doco, and the business response to global warming.

Prof. David Karoly (climate scientist) and Prof. Bob Carter (geologist, denialist) had most of the discussion, arguing over statistics and data. Karoly had a lot of energy and evidence, while Carter repeated points from the film which were easily rebutted. Ray Evans (Lavoisier Group, denialist) ranted about how pathetic the coal industry is to cave in to the environmentalists - Dr Nikki Williams, representing coal interests, gave him a killer look at that point! She’s in favour of preventing global warming, but her main aim was good PR for the coal industry.

Then it was time for questions from the audience. Unfortunately, many of the people in the studio weren’t there to debate or ask questions, they just wanted to air their own kooky theories (Larvatus Prodeo has the YouTube video of it). There were rambling statements about carbon-14 isotopes from a creationist; and a few people saying that all environmentalists are into eugenics - I’m told they’re followers of a guy called Larouche. My favourite was the student (of astrophysics, music and “physical economics”, another Larouche-ian) who rambled incoherently about Johannes Kepler and Plato. The more sensible audience members asked panelists to clarify things they’d said earlier, or made statements about how they’re not scientists but they believe the planet is getting warmer and they’d like someone to fix it, please.

After the debate, Lateline interviewed Dr Carl Wunsch, a scientist who says the documentary misrepresented him. He had his comments cut from the film, and has threatened legal action against Durkin. I think he was naive to not check what he was contributing to before being interviewed, because Durkin already has a reputation for dodgy “science” and misrepresenting people on film. Wunsch is certainly wiser now.

It was an interesting night of tv, but I don’t know that it’s had any benefit for the Australian public. The denialists are still convinced there’s a left-wing conspiracy, and those of us who are more sensible will still be switching our light-bulbs and recycling our rubbish.

I read Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: Our Year of Seasonal Eating last weekend. Barbara Kingsolver writes about how her family spent one year eating only local food: they had to either grow it themselves, find a local provider, or do without it. Her family made the change for environmental reasons, and found social and health benefits too.

By eating locally and seasonally, less food needs to be transported from around the country or even overseas. Kingsolver tells how she planted a vegetable garden, bought chickens and turkeys, and found produce from local farmers. They made their way through birthday parties, Thanksgiving dinners, and the lean winter months with some creativity and planning. She discusses the food they eat when on holidays, sharing the different perspectives she finds as they travel. Her husband writes extra sidebars about the legal issues facing farmers and consumers, while her eldest daughter adds their favourite recipes (which you can see at AnimalVegetableMiracle.com).

Their efforts to get rid of zucchini made me laugh, and I was in suspense over the turkeys: would they ever figure out where babies come from? There’s plenty of useful info about growing vegetables too. The discussion about industrial agriculture was interesting, and I think it’s relevant in a lot of ways to the Australian farming situation.

Sometimes Kingsolver gets starry-eyed over farm life, making it sound magical and amazing. But she isn’t encouraging everyone to abandon their jobs to take up full-time farming. She simply insists that since we all have to eat, we all need to learn more about our food: how it grows, where it comes from, its effect on our social lives, and how our agricultural system contributes to our culture and economy. Her joyful passion for food and gardening is inspiring. I’m going to start a vegie patch this month, to see if I can grow a few winter vegetables.

Anyone who enjoys good food will enjoy this book - reading it made my mouth water! Gardeners will find that they have a lot in common with Kingsolver’s triumphs and disappointments, while people looking for alternatives to industrial agriculture will find useful information. I’d also recommend it to anyone who enjoyed Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, because it relates to the small, local farming he discusses in the 3rd section of that book.

Carbon Cops is a new show on the ABC at 8pm on Tuesdays. I thought it might be too similar to SBS’s Eco-House Challenge, but it has a different format, more like “Green Eye for the Carbon Guy” than the long-term challenge of the SBS show. The show sends in two “Carbon Cops” to audit a family’s energy use, help them make their house more efficient, then challenge them to cut their carbon emissions by 50%.

This week’s family, the Barries, thought their emissions would be average, or better than average, but found out that they create more than 4 times the emissions from an average Australian family. They switched their lights, made their fans more efficient, used a compost bin instead of the “insinkerator” (what the kids call the garbage disposal in the kitchen sink), walked to school and shopped locally. I thought the father didn’t change much of his lifestyle - I would have liked them to recommend teleconferencing or video-conferencing to him. But maybe his job wouldn’t allow it.

They found they weren’t going to meet their challenge target because of the father’s previous air-travel - but they got around this by using carbon offsets for his travel and car. I’m a little concerned that they just bought their way out of that problem, but it would have been a disappointing show if they hadn’t met their targets! They also switched to GreenPower, which is a great move. At the end of the show little graphs show the reductions of emissions and the money savings.

I thought the show was more serious than Eco-House Challenge, possibly because they don’t show the personalities of the family since there’s a new one each week. If that’s the case, maybe the presenters will grow on the audience. The website is pretty good, with fact-sheets for each episode, a carbon-emissions calculator, a quiz and summaries of each episode.