Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Nature can't keep up with the carbon dioxide from man, Le Quere said. She said from 1955 to 2000, the forests and oceans absorbed about 57 percent of the excess carbon dioxide, but now it's 54 percent.

What is "kind of scary" is that the worldwide emissions growth is beyond the highest growth in fossil fuel predicted just two years ago by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said Ben Santer, an atmospheric scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab.

Under the panel's scenario then, temperatures would increase by somewhere between 4 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit (2.4 to 6.3 degrees Celsius) by the year 2100.

If this trend continues for the century, "you'd have to be luckier than hell for it just to be bad, as opposed to catastrophic," said Stanford University climate scientist Stephen Schneider.

The world continues to pump C02 into the atmosphere faster than the forests and oceans can absorb it. It seems we are heading into catastrophic climate change faster than predicted. It will make the financial catastrophe we are currently witnessing seem insignificant. We continue to let greed control our lives so now we will have to pay the price. Or at least our children will have to pay the price. Global capitalism is immoral and will eventually destroy us all.

I agree with John Pratt's analysis.  It is abundantly clear that a serious crisis will not be averted.  My own despair is that I cannot locate a single government department or agency that has given any consideration to contingency planning.  Maybe the spooks in the Armed Services have but they are not telling anyone.

Dear oh dear.

Greenpeace UK's chief scientist, Doug Parr, said the UK government's energy secretary, John Hutton, should take urgent note of the developments in Portugal. "Wave technology invented in Scotland is powering Portuguese homes and making money for Portuguese suppliers, because our government has consistently neglected the renewables industry here in the UK."

The €9m (£7.14m) first phase of the Aguçadoura project, which involves the energy firms Enersis and Energias de Portrugal, has been helped partly by the Portuguese government agreeing to guarantee a premium for the electricity the station will generate via a feed-in tariff of 25c per KWh. The project has also been given a €1.25m grant from the Portuguese Agência de Inovação.

"The Portuguese government has moved forward on wave energy more quickly than has happened in the UK," said Sharp.

"[In Portugal] we have a feed-in tariff arrangement so we had a guaranteed price for the power that was produced and you don't have that in the UK. The environment here was better to stimulate development."

Parr said there could be dire consequences for the UK unless the government got its act together in developing renewable industries: "There is a danger that jobs, investment and clean energy will go overseas because of Hutton's obsession with old technologies like coal and nuclear power.

"It's time we stopped the rot before our performance on renewables becomes a national disgrace."

The world's first commercial wave-power farm goes live off Portugal.

Australia too is at risk of losing opportunities that abound around the globe if we continue to be obsessed with old technologies like coal and nuclear power.

The first evidence that millions of tons of a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere from beneath the Arctic seabed has been discovered by scientists.

The Independent has been passed details of preliminary findings suggesting that massive deposits of sub-sea methane are bubbling to the surface as the Arctic region becomes warmer and its ice retreats.

Underground stores of methane are important because scientists believe their sudden release has in the past been responsible for rapid increases in global temperatures, dramatic changes to the climate, and even the mass extinction of species. Scientists aboard a research ship that has sailed the entire length of Russia's northern coast have discovered intense concentrations of methane – sometimes at up to 100 times background levels – over several areas covering thousands of square miles of the Siberian continental shelf.

It looks like we have reached one of the tipping points which will cause rapid global warming. While we are witnessing the collapse of the economy we must not forget the impact we are about to feel as catastrophic climate change begins to take effect. A weak economy will be less able to afford the necessary infrastructure to phase out fossil fuels and build the necessary sea walls to save our coastal cities. I think we have left it all too late.

“There are lots of names for abrupt climate change: nasty surprises, the jokers in the deck, the tipping point,” Collins says. “When the national lab participants first met to decide on the most significant potential sources of abrupt climate change in future, the first thing we had to do was define what we meant: a large-scale change that happens more quickly than that brought on by forcing mechanisms – on a scale of years to decades, not centuries – and that persists for a very long time.”

The IMPACTS team will initially focus on four types of ACC:

1. instability among marine ice sheets, particularly the West Antarctic ice sheet;
2. positive feedback mechanisms in subarctic forests and arctic ecosystems, leading to rapid methane release or large-scale changes in the surface energy balance;
3. destabilization of methane hydrates (vast deposits of methane gas caged in water ice), particularly in the Arctic Ocean; and
4. feedback between biosphere and atmosphere that could lead to megadroughts in North America.

Only half joking, Collins refers to these as “the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.”

With the threat to the global financial system we are currently witnessing we should not take our eyes of the real threats to our existence. Climate change has not gone away and now we will be in a financially weaker position to tackle the threats. We are not talking about something that may happen next century - we are talking about changes that will happen in most of our lifetimes.

We need to focus on sustainability before we find it is beyond our reach.

The singing climatologist on YouTube.

When will we ever learn?

The ice shelves in Canada's High Arctic have lost a colossal area this year, scientists report.

The floating tongues of ice attached to Ellesmere Island, which have lasted for thousands of years, have seen almost a quarter of their cover break away....

Loss of ice in the Arctic, and in particular the extensive sea-ice, has global implications. The "white parasol" at the top of the planet reflects energy from the Sun straight back out into space, helping to cool the Earth.

Further loss of Arctic ice will see radiation absorbed by darker seawater and snow-free land, potentially warming the Earth's climate at an even faster rate than current observational data indicates.

Surely now even the flat earthers will admit the planet is warming and we need to act now to slow that warming.

One of the elephants in the room in the scientific debate about climate change is constraints on the production of fossil fuels.

I posted a link to this paper in a different thread today and thought it should have a place here: Kjell Aleklett, Reserve Driven Forecasts for Oil, Gas and Coal and Limits in Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2007.

From the abstract:

This paper is based on realistic reserve assessments, and CO2 emissions from resources that cannot be turned into reserves are not allowed. First we can conclude that CO2 emissions from burning oil and gas are lower than what all the IPCC scenarios predict, and emissions from coal are much lower than the majority of the scenarios.

IPCC emission scenarios for the time period 2020 to 2100 should in the future not be used for climate change predictions. its time to use realistic scenarios. 

Unfortunately the Garnaut report uncritically repeats the IPCC scenarios and explicitly rejects any constraints on the growth of fossil fuel production in the first half of this century.

John Pratt: "There are plenty of alternative energies that we have discussed them endlessly on Webdiary."

Oh, yes. They're endlessly discussed. Never realised, but endlessly discussed.

Meanwhile, Sydney has shivered through its coldest August in 64 years.

Brisbane has been hit by its coldest August in at least eight years.

John Pratt: "Most Australians are prepared to pay to fix climate change."

Another thought about this: I suspect a lot of people answering these sorts of surveys genuinely believe that simple, alternative technologies are available which will meet their day-to-day energy needs, and those of industry; or that painless sacrifices can be made in the name of climate change.

That it's about spending a few minutes less in the shower, or using Hebel blocks when building a house instead of regular bricks, or whatever.

They genuinely believe that an "solar powered car" is feasible or that you can run an aluminium smelter or a national railway grid using "wind power", or the geo-thermal energy is a tradeable export commodity just waiting to be tapped.

That's because the myriad eco-impersonators and enviro-educators that fill our airwaves and newspapers, alternately with doom-laden forecasts of imminent destruction and naively optimistic accounts of the feasibility of 'alternative' technologies, themselves don't have to make the hard choices and are free to peddle such fantasies at will.

But when it comes to the crunch....

John Pratt: "Most Australians are prepared to pay to fix climate change."

Most Australians are prepared for someone else to pay to fix climate change, more likely. Wait till the jobs all start going to India and China and still the carbon emissions get worse.

Anyone can rig a survey with fuzzy, feel-good, 'what if' questions. But when it's your job or mortgage payments, that's a different matter - as the pulp mill workers in Tasmania would doubtless testify.

My bet? If its a choice between "fixing climate change" and that holiday in France, the jumbo jets will win out every time.

Anyone can be 'for' carbon trading - until they find out what it is.

A major survey of Australians' views on climate change has found an overwhelming majority think it is happening and they're prepared to pay to address it.

The study by University of Technology Sydney found Australians wanted to see cuts in the nation's greenhouse gas emissions irrespective of the actions of other countries.

This survey shows Australians know that climate change is a real threat and are willing to pay to fix the problem. Our political leaders should take courage from this and make the necessary decisions to implement policies as soon as possible. It also shows how out of touch the Liberal party is on this issue.

Arctic Ocean sea ice has melted to the second lowest minimum since satellite observations began, according to scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Sea ice melt recorded on Monday exceeded the low recorded in 2005, which had held second place.

With several weeks left in the melt season, ice in summer 2008 has a chance to diminish below the record low set last year, according to scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Environmental groups said the ice melt was another alarm bell warning of global warming.

"It's an unfortunate sign that climate change is coming rapidly to the Arctic and that we really need to address the issue of global warming on a national level," said Christopher Krenz, Arctic project manager for Oceana.

The idea that globe is cooling rather than warming seems absurd when you watch the ice melting. As long as the ice continues to melt I think we have global warming. Observable science, no computer modeling here.

It is merely the latest manifestation of ecological disequilibrium.  I invite you to take a look at this abstract from Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin's (1995) The Sixth Extinction at http://www.well.com/user/davidu/sixthextinction.html.

A viable and habitable planet depends on species multidiversity.  Both plant and animal.  Without that biodiversity our species survival is at risk.  What a shame.

Global warming will hasten species loss, of course, and that is the real worry.  And it is not a matter of losing the cute and the cuddly.  It is an issue because of the complex web of interdependence between humans and other species of animals and plants.  Species interdependence is too little understood. 

Doing anything at all to slow down ecological change is the key to our survival and if that includes making major changes to rein in human contributions to global warming then that is what we must do. 

Otherwise we will have not so much an uninhabitable world as a world not worth living in.

Fiona: While I am indulging in a fit of pedantry, would all Webdiarists note that if you are trying to stop something by, for example, reining it in, you are pulling on the animal's reins. A reign (generally of a monarch) may well be something that needs to be reined in, but "reigning" and "reining", while homophones, are not synonyms.

Mark Sergeant: "Not in general, but it's approaching certainty that the current global warming is down to us."

Well, I'd say this is the most disputed proposition.

But on re-reading your question I see you think you have already demonstrated it, since the record of 1998 has not been beaten, and the models predict (do you claim it?) that each year should be hotter than the last. It was really cold last week, too. I only have access to the reporting of the models, but my understanding is that they are saying that global temperature is increasing "on average".

Averages are fine if one is aware of what date the average commences. Would you like to supply a date? I mean, ten years of cooling is a fair size chunk of time. All the while emissions haven't just been stable, they've been rising. Would the commencement date mean that it will take twenty, thirty, perhaps fifty years, say, before we have a definite answer about the "trend" on average?

Ian MacDougall: "(1) 'Radical' is a term with a fairly elastic range of meaning, but "dangerous"? Please explain?"

Causing complete upheaval of people's lives is dangerous at the best of times. For something that may not even exist, it's completely irresponsible. Economically that's exactly what this proposition will do - and there are more than a few people in the know warning of such upheaval. Employment and future prosperity is a large part of people's daily lives, and the wilful destruction of this will have ramifications.

(2) What would constitute "a lot more proof" in your view? What would be the bare minimum development of the present situation that would switch you from opposing to supporting measures to combat (alleged) climate change?

I would like definite explainations about such things as the last ten years of cooling, as carbon has been rising. I'd like to know what part volcanic activity plays in arctic ice melting etc. I need more than a person pointing and saying look over here.

I've given a number of measures that would be positive in combating "pollution". An example would be tax incentives for green energy (say solar power panels) for individuals and businesses. I can't see why the government shouldn't bear the cost of such things - it is for the "greater good after all". And the Australian Government has enjoyed massive surpluses riding off the back of business and individuals. Perhaps the time has come to give back?

I would also advocate a tax on end user consumption - across the board. Why is it eco friendly or even economically responsible for some to pay more for the same amount of pollution? The answer is that it isn't. Hence, therein lies the makings of a hotch potch system.

Nothing in any sufficiently complex system is fully predictable or explainable by any model or facsimile of less complexity than itself. The territory sometimes is the only fully usable map. So, in another part of the forest, debate about whether human decisions are determined by the sum of all experiences to date run into both Heisenberg and Godel telling them that that can never be (but generally philosophers and economists don't like any science after about 1920, because it doesn't support their simplistic dialectic).

OTOH you can get a good enough fix for broader brush, longer timescale predictions. It's much easier to give a good estimate for the world average temperatures in the next decade than it is to predict next week's weather. As I heard one presenter say back at Greenhouse 2005: "Sometime in the next century, a storm surge will take out the waterfront property in Surfers: I can't tell you when, but there is a 99% chance it will happen at some point ...". Paul et al would have us keep buying that property until the storms get so predictable that we can't sell it to anyone. I prefer to make decisions a bit before I don't have any choices.

David Roffey: "There's thousands upon thousands of pieces of evidence on one side, and a few as yet unexplained tweaks to the models to be done on the other."

Read much Thomas Kuhn?

Of particular interest in his field, of course, are theories that explain all the phenomena, no matter what outcomes are shown. They're nearly always wrong.

Sure, the increased precipitation that comes from warming means that the tops of some glaciers are getting thicker. It's all in the models, it doesn't "need more evidence". There's thousands upon thousands of pieces of evidence on one side, and a few as yet unexplained tweaks to the models to be done on the other.

Neither Paul nor the others on his side can actually be bothered to read all those pages themselves. They say "show me the evidence", then don't read what you show them, or only read a journalist's inaccurate preçis of the executive summary, and nitpick about any infelicitous wording (but again can't be arsed to check what the detail of the real report actually says).

Tactic two (step up Mr Lomborg) is to put it as a false dichotomy: "if we have $50 billion to spend, what would we get the best improvement for humanity from". But we have way more than $50 billion to spend. The cost of the new refineries and infrastructure we'd need if we wanted to keep using fossil fuels at the same through to 2050 would be around $1.2 trillion: so that's what we have available to spend on sourcing energy, because if we don't spend it then "radical" things will happen to the world economy will-ye-nil-ye. if we spend it on non-fossil-fuel sources and efficiency improvements we potentially get to 205 with hope: if we spend it all on oil and coal, we shaft ourselves. Paul thinks the latter choice is less frightening. No point in engaging with such irrationality.

Tactic three (Eliot's speciality) is to find some daft pronouncement by a doomsayer and say "that's what the left / the greens / the atheists / the ... are saying, so we can't trust them to know their arses from their elbows." Equally, some of the stupidities the deniers have come up with will be (briefly) amusing to play back to them later. Like "mark my words, petrol will be back under $1 by Christmas (2005)" - Jay White.

Mark Sergeant: "Mass hysteria is a nice theory, Paul. There's probably some of it about on the fringes."

This might include the bicycle tour guide who told me, and a tour party of about twenty others, that the Sydney Opera House would "soon be underwater due to rising sea levels".

Mark Sergeant: "'Hysteria' would apply equally well to some of the deniers of climate change, where it gets mixed in with the agendas of some very big businesses - and with their money."

Only a fool would deny "climate change". Climate has changed over millions of years, and will continue to do so. What people "deny" is that it is man made. Big business? Well, owning a number of say wind-farms would be "big business" - and something that say an Exxon could easily afford. IBM didn't go out of business at the end of the typewriter age, and Exxon say, won't go out of business if oil is taxed at higher rates. Others, however, might.

The questions are:

1. Is climate change man made?

2. Can man stop climate change?

3. Will Australia make any difference attempting to do so?

4. Why trust computer models that have obviously been shown to be false? I mean the world has cooled over the last ten years. This in itself deserves to cause a level of scepticism.

As for arctic ice, we are only hearing one side of the story. Whilst parts may well be melting, it's obvious other parts are growing. it's also obvious that climate was vastly different in some of these areas long before carbon emissions. So why all of a sudden is this a man made problem?

Maybe it is apocalyptic, but it don't mean it ain't gunna happen.

Well, I'd need a lot more proof before I went around making radical and very dangerous economic changes. Changes that could well do much more damage than climate change ever could.

I will say it again: If people have included false or misleading scientific evidence they should (and could well) face academic sanction along with possible legal action. Good intentions are not an excuse for misleading behaviour. The next few years should give us all a clearer picture.

Fiona: For the second time today, Paul, please (a) read the email that I sent you, (b) look at how I have reformatted this comment, and (c) start adhering to Webdiary style regarding direct quotations from other Webdiarists.

From this a.m.'s Business Spectator:

"A report from the Business Council of Australia has convinced the media to see carbon reduction as a dangerous and damaging cost.  Strange, then, that so many businesses are already treating it as a huge opportunity.

....

"I'd be shocked if the BCA had ever produced a report as short-sighted, misleading and profoundly disappointing as this....

When ...two such as BCA and the Australian Industry Group start branding money spent on energy infrastructure by coal industry as an investmant that has to be protected, and the money spent on renewable resources as an economic cost to the nation, I can't help but see some very large people with F for Fossil stamped on their foreheads standing behind the authors.

"...this has become a debate about corporate ideology and rent-seeking, rather than the enormous business opportunity that is being freely discussed in every accounting, legal and banking firm across the country."

Mark Sergeant: "Can you explain the scam to us, Paul? Who is doing it, and why, and how?"

I don't think it's a world-wide conspiracy or anything like that. I think what we are witnessing is a form of hysteria. Something that has grown from legitimate concerns into the absurd.

Who are these people? Well, there really isn't any group in particular. In cases of all hysterical outbreaks there is a number of groups with a number of agendas - ranging from the honestly concerned all the way to the profit making "scammer". As with all hysterical outbreaks eventually we will enter the ass saving phase.

Personally a few years ago I was a believer (or at least very willing to listen with presumption toward the belief), believe it or not.

Similar to a crooked game there comes a point when one just knows something's not right. I can't say exactly what that point was for me; however, I've never had any reason to go back to my original feelings - far from it in fact, my scepticism only gets stronger with each seemingly more desperate apocalyptic prophecy. One sided presentation of the argument, desperation to dismiss reasonable alternative theories etc.

Let's be honest here, I can't be the only one that feels that way?

Wanting to change something, even if one believes it's for a good cause, isn't a reason to mislead.

But saddest of all is Australia's disregard for its abundant sunlight. Australian solar scientists, snubbed at home by governments that spoke oxymoronically of "clean coal", went overseas to find someone who cares. Spain talks promisingly of powering entire cities with solar energy. Austria and Germany, cloudy countries both, are leaving Australia in the dust.

The name Alan Gray nags my mind. He's the editor of Earth Garden magazine, and not long ago he surfaced to give a brief picture of how he uses the sun to provide the electricity for his home and to run his car. So if you were a member of a state or national government and you cared about the environment, wouldn't you want to phone him and ask him how it's going and how he did it and if he has some ideas for doing something similar on a broader scale? So far, we haven't heard that that's happened or that any similar possibilities are being explored. Is that because governments prefer to talk to economists and to those who won't upset the apple cart because they sell the apples? Will Australia end up paying more enlightened countries for alternative technology and power? And once those sources are established, who will buy Australia's coal?

I keep hoping that the Garrett in my shed will prove to be the tool that converts inertia into productive energy and devotion to fossil fuels into alternative means that make sense for a liveable future. I don't know what the odds are, but, as I say, I keep hoping.

John Cameron is a freelance writer.

I think we are all still hoping Garrett, Rudd, Wong, or Swan - or anyone in the labor party - will use their time in power to move us from dirty black coal into the brilliance of sunshine.  We have an abundance of sunlight it; is criminal that we do not make full use of our best resource. Time to forget vested interests and put the people of Australia first.

Scientists at this week's Coast to Coast Collaboration Conference in Darwin have painted a dark future for the vast majority of Australians living along the coastline.

Barbara Norman from RMIT University's Global Cities Research Institute told delegates there is a drastic need for an inter-government approach to the management of coastal development.

She says local planning is based on funding opportunities rather than strategic direction.

Ms Norman says it is not logical for local governments across the country to develop their own coastal planning policies and a national approach is needed.

Scientists are predicting more that half-a-million residences could be washed away as sea levels may rise by up to four metres by the end of the century.

Ms Norman is calling on the Federal Government to implement a buffer zone along the Australian coastline.

"In future, priorities should be given to uses, what we call coastal dependent uses," she said.

"Uses that need to be by the sea and those uses that don't need to be by the sea should seriously be thinking about having them set back."

The cost of adapting to climate change will be enormous. Moving half a million houses away from the coast will coast a fortune. Never mind the cost of infrastructure to protect others from flooding. Town planners need to rethink tidal surge areas. Insurance companies must be thinking twice about insuring coastal properties. My advice: sell your coastal propert while you can.

The Federal Government will provide $50 million to the geothermal industry to help it begin making the technology viable for baseload energy production.

Speaking to Alexandra Kirk on ABC Radio's AM program, the Minister for Resources and Energy said there was huge potential for geothermal energy in Australia.

New figures from Geoscience Australia show just 1 per cent of Australia's hot rocks supply could produce 26,000 times the country's current annual energy use.

Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson says encouraging the development of geothermal energy is important in tackling climate change and ensuring national energy security.

Hot rocks will pay an important part in our energy solution. The Rudd government should be congratulated for this initiative. We have an abundance of renewable energy; it just takes the political will to bring it on-line.

Eliot and Paul, I know you think I should listen to you and ignore the science. You probably are more qualified than the head of the climate change unit at the Australian National University and science adviser to the Federal Government, Professor Will Steffen. And all the other scientists around the world that are predicting sea level rises.

You probably know better the James Hansen. Who says it has happened before and likely to happen again.

Indeed, the palaeoclimate record contains numerous examples of ice sheets yielding sea level rises of several metres per century when forcings were smaller than that of the business-as-usual scenario. For example, about 14,000 years ago, sea level rose approximately 20 metres in 400 years, or about 1 metre every 20 years.

You're right, I should ignore the science, do nothing and hope all will be fine.

I'm sure my grand-kids will understand that I ignored the warnings because Paul and Eliot told me everything is OK.

I just wish I had your confidence.

John Pratt: "Kathy, with sea levels rising faster than predicted, what would you call a sensible approach to climate change?

The world this guy used was "could". You've attempted to make that "could" a definite - which of course it's not. Any person using the term "climate change expert" raises my suspicions. Is this guy an expert in sea levels by any chance?

"When are we going to start to move our cities away from the sea? Surely sooner rather than later would be the best approach." 

Well, obviously that'll never be happening. Most of the next decade will be taken up by investigating how this world wide scam managed to wastefully burn through 30 plus billion precious dollars. There will be loss of careers and some may even find themselves behind bars. The positive is that a light will at last be shone on the "scientific research community" - and, when one considers how important medical science is to all of us, I say, such a light is beyond overdue.

John Pratt: "Kathy, with sea levels rising faster than predicted , what would you call a sensible approach to climate change?"

How much have sea levels increased in the last ten years, John?

One thing I don’t understand is the logic of desalination plants, powered by coal fired power to provide at huge financial and energy cost water that is not really needed if proper conservation measures were put into place.

But heck it makes good business when you have taxpayers to pay the $100 million plus initial outlay and can improve relations with Israel at the same time by helping their floundering economy by using their companies:

"It will produce 140,000 cubic meters of high quality desalinated process water and drinking water per day (50 million cubic meters per year), according to IDE, most of which will be used by the firm's industrial client for its manufacturing processes.

The contract, worth more than 100 million euros ($149 million) puts IDE in "a key position for competing in similar projects in the future," said Felder.

It also establishes for the company, owned jointly by the Israel Corporation Group subsidiary Israel Chemicals and the Delek Group, a beachhead in Australia where few water technology firms have gone before.

The project is slated for completion sometime in 2010."

So which industrial client here in Aus is going to use all that power to "make water" for industry, sweet water? (company actually announced the contract in Dec 2007 just before a possible float but didn’t read much about it here). In fact the client appears not to be named anywhere, and is kept confidential for some reason, which is curious – anyone know where this plant is being built and the company?

It is surprising that the bigger GE company didn’t get the contract.

Has anyone read about the proposal and the community response to it and the source of the power and funds?

Of course, such proposals have a poor record as far as blowouts are concerned:

"Australian desalination plant to cost $1.1 billion

The cost of the Tugun desalination plant has blown out to $1.1 billion - and ratepayers will pay more for water as a result. Just how much more is not yet known. However, Gold Coast City Council water committee chairwoman Daphne McDonald admitted water prices would be increased to help cover the spike in the cost of the project. Initial plans were for a $260 million desalination plant producing 55 megalitres a day. Cr McDonald said officers were still studying costings provided by the alliance consisting of Veolia Water, John Holland Group and Gold Coast Water and assessing how they would affect the city's water rates. There were concerns the price of water could double, even with an agreement to spread the cost throughout the southeast."

Veolia water has been in partnership with many Delek programs including Ashkelon in Israel.

One point one BILLION? Surely a typo from an initial $100 million cost...

Maybe they were screwed because of the time line pressure:

"Australia faces tight desalination deadline

More than half of the water projects needed to keep southeast Queensland from running dry in December 2008 are due to be completed within weeks of the critical month. Five major projects, included a Gold Coast desalination plant and the final phase of a recycled water pipeline, have deadlines in November or December 2008."

and:

"Queensland, Australia to go ahead with first desalination plant

The plant, which separates salts and impurities from sea water for drinking, is expected to be completed by the end of November 2008 and provide 125 megalitres a day. Premier Peter Beattie and Gold Coast Mayor Ron Clarke today signed an agreement to start work on the Tugun-based project with initial investigation and design to cost $100 million. Mr Beattie yesterday used emergency powers in state water laws to set the Gold Coast and 17 other councils in the south-east deadlines for completing major projects, or face fines of up to $125,000. The projects, including new dams, weirs, pipelines and recycling, would form a water grid to drought-proof the region."

Wonder if the carbon credits are counted in for the power loads here. Note the interesting discrepancy in cost.

And for climate and energy concerns who can go past wave energy for desalination power:

Wave energy raises hopes in Australia for desalinated water without environmental damage

A $40 million commercial wave power plant at Portland would generate enough electricity annually for up to 30,000 houses or desalinate enough water for more than 50,000 houses. In a world first, Energetech is investigating using technology to desalinate water from some of the proposed 10 to 15 wave energy units to be installed in waters off Portland. Energetech chief financial officer John Bell said the plant would be based on a prototype built in Port Kembla. The wave energy units would be using standard reverse osmosis desalination technology and had the potential to produce three million litres of drinking water each day. Conventional desalination plants require huge amounts of energy and produce considerable greenhouse emissions, making the cost of producing drinking water higher than tap water."

Water sourcing is like that black gold, it seems:

"Indeed, analysts estimate that water-related equipment and services make up a $400 billion global market. In the United States alone, most analysts expect the water market to be worth at least $150 billion by 2010. ... The cost of reverse osmosis membranes, which lie at the heart of most desalination projects, has plummeted, but desalination still remains capital and energy intensive, and creates its own troublesome sludge. For now the water industry remains fragmented, with no company commanding more than 5 percent of sales. But it is consolidating rapidly, as big companies like Siemens, General Electric, Deneher and ITT continue their buying sprees.”

And here is the rubbish about buying offset renewable credits for the enormous energy expenditure the Victorian government water projects will cost.

And the French feel confident about bidding for this 2-3 billion buck desal, but why not local technology? In this dry country of ours while the rest of the industry is busy consolidating it time for a bit of government push and support methinks for a hugely growing industry worldwide – and perhaps as an add-on to our power plants – or even do the best option nocarb diet:

So what happened to the wind / tidal / wave / hot rocks options? Why this sudden rush for desal when we don’t even have domestic water tank programs properly running when that itself with almost no carbon expense would solve the "crisis". But that would mean less big business power plants and desal plants eh? Mates are mates

Cheers