TTKD March Meeting: Being Prepared for Emergencies and New possibilities for TTKD

Be Prepared!

Following our recent flood events much has been said about being prepared with an emergency kit. Garry Willett, who ran our ebike bulk buy, has put together a presentation on his personal emergency kit PLUS 3 unique items he has organised to be available with a ‘bulk buy’ discount;
a water purifier, a gassifyer stove and a bush kettle.
So come along and learn as well as share any tips you might have.

This will be followed by ‘New possibilities for TTKD’ led by Philip Machanick

Wed March 16th at 7:30pm
Uniting Church Hall
982 Moggill Rd, Kenmore

See you there!

Would Australia going it alone by instituting a carbon price?

Well no, actually:

A European Union climate expert has described Australian opposition to a carbon tax as bizarre, diplomatically pointing out Britain's Conservatives were more co-operative in opposition.

Jill Duggan, who managed Britain's initial emissions trading scheme (ETS), said there was an incorrect perception that Australia would be going it alone if it put a price on carbon.

"The thing that struck me is how the debate has changed here and also that wide perception that I keep hearing that Australia shouldn't go first," she told reporters in Canberra today.

"Coming from Europe, that sounds slightly bizarre because there are 30 countries in Europe that have had a carbon price ... since the beginning of 2005."

Unlike Australia the EU has been making progress in cutting carbon emissions and switching to clean energy. Their carbon pricing hasn't been without its hitches (since they were the first) but their experience does provide countries starting later (like Australia) with plenty of lessons in how to design an effective scheme. Of course it isn't just the EU with carbon pricing, even our little old neighbour New Zealand has an emissions trading scheme.

SMH: Start an industrial green revolution

"IT'S called carbon leakage and everyone's against it: the possibility that Australia could bring in a carbon price only to see jobs lost as industries relocate to lower-cost, dirtier countries overseas, with the unintended consequence that global greenhouse gas emissions go up instead of down."

So starts a great business day piece by Paddy Manning in the SMH a few days ago. On a topic that will be another carbon pricing flashpoint this year. Compensation for industry. Especially for emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries (EITEs).

"The problem is, the carbon leakage argument has been misused. In reality, especially in sectors like aluminium and oil, we are turning into one of the brownest destinations around, with some of the oldest plant powered by the dirtiest energy, whooping it up under one of the lowest implicit or explicit carbon price regimes in the developed - or fast-developing - world.

We are in danger of being had. It's not at all about Australia losing jobs or investment or international competitiveness as we move to price carbon ahead of the rest of the world. It might have been that way in the '90s, when we first started debating the climate issue.

In 2011 the EITE compensation debate is often about saving certain industries the effort and expense of investing in best-practice plant and equipment to lower carbon emissions intensity."

The basic idea being that some industries calling for compensation are extremely polluting and inefficient due to an almost complete reliance on coal fired electricity and old technology. I guess a subtext here is that despite knowing since the late 80s that unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions were likely to be a bad thing, some industries have done nothing to clean up their act and are now demanding the government pay them to do so/ keep them afloat in a world where they can no longer pollute for free. On the other hand according to Grattan analyst Tristan Edis:

"Australia's steel makers, Edis argues, have invested in newer, efficient plant and have a legitimate case for compensation."

Overall the question we need to ask is:

"Should the Australian government be propping up industries that will fight to survive a fundamental realignment of our economy, or should it - at a time of record low unemployment and widespread skill and labour shortages - help workers shift into more competitive sectors of the economy?"

Carbon price musings 1: Petrol should be included

Nobody likes petrol price rises but an effective carbon price should include transport fuels.

Carbon pricing creates many options, one is whether transport fuels should be included. In my opinion, they should be. There are multiple reasons for this, but they generally fall under preventing market "distortions".

1) Making emission reductions more expensive

Not including large segments of the economy in the carbon price means that more greenhouse gas emission reductions need to be squeezed out of a smaller section of the economy in order to meet your targets. The overall effect of this will likely be a higher cost for reducing emissions. The reason for this is that any low hanging fruit (ie: cheap ways of reducing emissions) in the transport sector will be essentially off-limits and you might be forced to make more expensive reductions in the sectors which are included.
The point of a market mechanism is to allow the cheapest emissions reductions to be made. To achieve this you want to include the largest amount of the economy possible.

2) Creating perverse incentives

Excluding transport fuels from the carbon price could have the perverse effect of actually promoting fossil fuel use (the exact opposite of what the scheme is trying to achieve). A good example of this is public transport by train. Electrified trains are mostly powered by electricity from coal (although they still produce less C02 per person than driving a car). Under a carbon price electricity rates will rise and so will train fares. If fuel is not included and does not increase in price, the net result will be to encourage driving and so more C02 emissions. In cities like Brisbane with over crowded roads the last thing we need is more congestion and more pollution.


No one like rises in petrol prices, but the rise being promoted by the coalition of ~6 cents a litre (although no one can be sure if this is at all accurate) is not extreme. In fact petrol prices in most capital cities have increased by significantly more than this in the last few months and the world hasn't ended.

So the government should include fuel in the carbon price and not cut other fuel taxes to prevent any actual rise in the price. Compensation either through rebate checks, cuts to income taxes (better to cut a tax for productive activity ie: work, than a tax for consumption ie: fuel excise) or benefit schemes would be better. This way compensated households can spend the rebate as they see fit and there will be an incentive for people to find ways to cut their fuel consumption.

A final note: Tony Windsor (one of the rural independants) has expressed concern that unlike city dwellers, people in rural areas don't generally have the option of public transport (although that doesn't mean there is no way for them to decrease their fuel use of course). I don't think I agree with him that rural regions should be excluded from a carbon price on transport because of this, but it might be worth looking at higher compensation for people in rural areas etc.

Clean energy could be a windfall for jobs

"RESEARCH has found that a $45 a tonne carbon price could create almost 8000 more permanent jobs in the electricity sector by 2030 than there are now and 26,000 more temporary manufacturing and construction jobs, as tens of billions of dollars are invested in clean energy projects."

Some good news today showing how a carbon price should lead to the creation of lots of new jobs as investment in renewable energy cranks into gear. Because it makes polluting forms of electricity generation pay (at least some of) the cost of that pollution, a carbon prices makes renewable energy a more attractive investment. Business investment creates jobs, and according to this study more jobs will be created "greening" the electricity industry than would be lost from not building so many coal fired power plants. Good for the economy AND the environment.

Backyard Farmers at Moggill Markets

Despite the continuing rain, a number of us had managed to grow quite an abundant number of seedlings for sale, some produce and lots of fresh herbs. What fun we had! People were delighted with our idea of producing what you can in your backyard then bringing it along to share.

Ted Whybrow amazed many as he shared his knowledge of Bunya Nut preparation. Some people had never seen one before let alone know how to eat them! A great way to share knowledge and learn what grows when in our local area.

See you there next month!

Lets get Brisbane Council onto this!

Council food policy says go organic, go local

Mon, Feb 28, 2011

Council documents, NSW

Adopting ethical eating habits is easiest when done by the individual or household. It’s less easily done at the institutional level, however that is just what the City of Sydney is doing with its new Ethical Food Guidelines.

The guidelines, adopted in late 2010, make the City’s food procurement compliant with its strategic plan – Sustainable Sydney 2030. Developed in-house, the Guidelines cover food procurement for council catering using council funds and for council-managed events. They do not apply to contracted services such as Meals On Wheels, although suppliers have been requested to work towards compliance with the Guidelines.

The Guidelines complement the City’s initiatives in popularising a sustainable food supply, such as its community gardens (through its Community Gardens Policy, adopted in February 2010), the city farmers’ market and grant support for initiatives such as the Chippendale Fresh Food Co-op, grants for events organised by Sydney Food Fairness Alliance, the Myrtle Street edible verge plantings and the Peace Park community composting trial.

The Guidelines favour organic, low fat, non-GM, local and seasonal foods, although a means of identifying local foods – those produced within the Sydney foodbowl – is not provided. This will remain a challenge until a ‘locally grown-local produce’ label is devised and adopted.

Reusable or biodegradable crockery and eating utensils, avoiding bottled water for indoor events and, preferably, for outdoor events (the City has a mobile filtered water trailer where people can fill their bottles at events) and the elimination of non-recyclable packaging are other contents of the Guidelines, as is the selection of appropriate cafes and restaurants when entertaining visitors to the City for council business.

The Guidelines provide information on the impact of the food system as well as on the relationship between food and personal health. Fair Trade beverages are approved although there is a preference for made-in-Australia foods, and palm oil is to be avoided in food products due to its association with deforestation in South east Asia.

Adventurous document for a council

This is an adventurous document for a council.

for more http://communitygarden.org.au/cos_foodpolicy