National reportFull reportSummaryState-specific reportsNewSouth WalesQueenslandVictoriaWesternAustraliaMembers of the Clean Energy Future group answered some questions about the national Clean Energy Future for Australia report and just how viable the transition to dramatically cleaner energy production in our lifetimes is.What is new about this study?This study is the product of an unprecedented alliance of energy associations and an environmental organisation. The groups have collaborated to unify the country behind a thirty-year program of strategic investment for clean energy technology and new infrastructure.There is no previous study that outlines a bold new energy policy to power an expanding economy and removes our over-dependence on coal.This study suggests viable solutions for the urgent need to cut greenhouse gas pollution levels.Why do we need to find new energy sources?Energy used to generate electricity and directly to provide heat is the largest producer of greenhouse gas pollution in Australia - about half of the 543 million tonnes of carbon dioxide produced annually comes from coal-fired power stations and the use of fossil fuels directly for industrial, commercial and residential activities. It is also the fastest growing source of this pollution causing our planet to overheat.Generating electricity through burning coal is the biggest contributor to greenhouse gas pollution from stationary energy. Australia's heavy reliance on coal means we are one of the biggest greenhouse gas polluters (per person) in the industrialised world after the US.Coal has served our energy needs well up until now but in a world where the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere needs to be constrained, Australia must look to new technologies to meet our needs without producing this pollutant.What can take the place of coal?The Clean Energy Future for Australia study has found that Australia can readily meet its energy needs from a range of commercially proven fuels and technologies. A scenario that cuts emissions by 50% includes:The energy generated from the combustion of natural gas can provide 30% (including cogeneration) of our electricity by 2040.The energy released from biomass from agriculture and plantation forestry residues can provide 26% (excluding cogeneration) of our electricity by 2040The energy of wind captured by turbines can provide 20% of our electricity by 2040The energy of flowing water harnessed through hydroelectric facilities can provide 7% of our electricity by 2040 and,The energy of the sun captured with photovoltaic and solar thermal systems can provide 5% of our electricity by 2040.Energy generated by 15% co-generation plants was largely driven by about 13% gas and 2% biomass.Coal (9%) and petroleum (1%) will continue to play a small role in electricity generation. Most requirement for heat can be met by natural gas, biomass and solar energy, with the use of coal restricted to metallurgical processes, while petroleum and natural gas will both continue to be important for providing direct motive power, particularly in agriculture and mining. The key to a clean energy future is to draw on a full range of technologies and cut energy wastage.Would a clean energy future affect Australia's economic growth?The study presumed that Australia's economic growth will continue at 2% annually between now and 2040, which is in line with official estimates. The study is also based on the energy needs of an increasing population and growth in all of our current industry sectors, including coal mining.To achieve the clean energy future detailed in the plan we will need new investment in a range of energy infrastructure and this will create new business opportunities and jobs. The clean energy future will require a more efficient use of energy by cutting the amount of energy we use will also provide savings for businesses and consumers.The International Energy Agency estimates it would cost $US16 trillion (AUD$20 trillion) over the next 30 years to deliver clean energy around the world. This equals only 1% of world gross domestic product. This average can be broken down into less than 0.5% of GDP for developed countries.Do we need to shut down existing coal-fired power stations and will there be massive job losses?The clean energy future plan takes until 2040 to deliver the 50% cut in greenhouse gas pollution because it does not presume early closures of existing coal-fired power stations. It presumes that power stations have a 30 to 40 year lifespan - stations built recently are still there in the 2040 Clean Energy Future Plan (comprising 9% of electricity supply in 2040).While there are jobs in the construction of coal-fired power stations very few long-term jobs are available in the operation of these largely mechanised plants. Employment in coal fired electricity has declined by 50% since 1991. Clean energy alternatives provide new jobs. Wind energy developments, for example, provide 2 to 3 times more jobs than coal for each unit of electricity generated. (Sustainability Centre, 2003)What are the benefits and who stands to gain from switching to clean energy?A major reduction in greenhouse gas pollution is one that benefits all Australians. Rural and regional Australia stands to gain most from the creation of new jobs and industries in a switch to a clean energy future.The energy released from biomass from agriculture and plantation forestry residues can provide 26% of our electricity by 2040. It is estimated that the harvestable stubble residues from Australian grain crops (mostly wheat) and cotton in 1996-97 amounted to 68 million tonnes. These agricultural wastes could be used locally to generate a large proportion of Australia's future electricity needs. This will require new infrastructure in regional areas of Australia.Wind power also brings development and jobs to the regions. The energy of wind captured by turbines can provide 20% of our electricity by 2040. A wind farm, when installed on agricultural land, has the lowest environmental impact of all energy sources. Australia has better wind resources than most parts of Europe.Wind farms are compatible with grazing and almost any crop that would be suitable for a site that would also support a wind farm. With the clean energy future plan the cost of wind power is expected to decrease even further and it will become economic to develop it on sites with lower average annual wind speeds. This will open vast new areas of inland pasture which do not suffer the siting issues of more highly visible and dramatic coastal landscapes.What policies need to be changed? Who needs to change them?The Clean Energy Future Plan investigates technically feasible options based on Australia's land and fuel resources and the energy generation technologies commercially available today. However, this low greenhouse pollution future will not happen without policy changes by all levels of government. It also needs the support of the Australian community to make this change.Policies urgently needed include:Stopping energy wastage with strong new mandatory efficiency laws for appliances, equipment and buildings.Laws to require the widespread use of cogeneration (small turbines on the site where the energy is used) in industriesStrict greenhouse gas intensity limits on any new proposal to build a coal-fired power station or to refurbish an existing one - these limits would require less carbon dioxide emissions per unit of electricity than the best existing combined cycle natural gas power station.Reform of the National Electricity Market laws to level the playing field between existing coal-fired power stations and renewable or distributed electricity generation.Laws to encourage continuing investment in renewable energy generation - an increase in the current renewable energy target from 2% by 2010 to 10% by 2010.Will ratifying the Kyoto Protocol help the switch to a clean energy future?Yes. Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol sends a signal to the power sector and electricity infrastructure investors that Australia is legally bound to our Kyoto Protocol target. This is important for beginning the shift of investment to cleaner forms of energy. The business community wants certainty in energy policy - ratifying the Kyoto Protocol will outline the legal constraints on greenhouse gas emissions from this point forward.Meeting Australia's Kyoto Protocol target is not, however, enough over the long term to drive the reform required in the energy sector to meet the clean energy future. The target is too lenient and will largely be met through reductions in landclearing. There must be additional new national measures to improve energy efficiency and policies to ensure any new power stations have very low emission levels for the energy they produce.Why not just use geosequestration to solve our emission problem?This study has not addressed geosequestration as an option - the study only examined proven and commercially available technologies.Geosequestration does not fall into this category. Nor do a range of other "sunrise" technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells and wave power. All of these technologies may be available in the future and may play a useful role but we can not wait for them before beginning the move to a clean energy future.The risks of burying greenhouse gases underground need to be further investigated - pilot projects need to demonstrate that carbon dioxide will not escape and cause an accident or leak over time and continue to cause global warming.Some geosequestration is likely to be very cheap but some will be prohibitively expensive depending on the site and the source of the carbon dioxide.
sourcehttp://wwf.org.au/ourwork/climatechange/cleanenergyfuture/
w North American Anglican Province will be formed drawing together all the disparate evangelical and Anglo-Catholic groups under one ecclesiastical umbrella with Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan as its archbishop or Primate. The GAFCON Anglican Primates will recognize it, but not necessarily will the Archbishop of Canterbury. Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi (Uganda) has said he will welcome Archbishop Duncan with open arms…he has long ones as he is very tall.The fourth group of Episcopalians is orthodox stayers who are sleeping badly at night over what is happening to the Episcopal Church. Here is a sample of their writings: "We write as an informal group of Episcopalians who share a desire to remain active and loyal members of the Episcopal Church. Most of us find ourselves profoundly at odds with several controversial decisions made by our leaders (General Convention, the Presiding Bishop and Church Center staff, Executive Council, among others) over the past several years. We are alarmed that they seem to represent a consistent trend away from theological, ethical, and pastoral norms that we understand as essential to Anglican faith and practice. Others among us are more open to the reconfiguration of some of these traditional boundaries, yet are concerned that the manner in which this process has been pursued has needlessly alienated many within our own church, raised substantive issues of mutual accountability between Anglican provinces, and increased the awkwardness in our relations with many ecumenical partners, both locally and globally."We are deeply saddened by the steady stream of departures from the Episcopal Church that this ongoing crisis has provoked, especially as it has moved beyond individuals to include parochial and diocesan structures. We are not, as a matter of conscience, inclined to join them in their decision to leave. Moreover, we have varying degrees of disagreement with their perception of the necessity or advisability of doing so. Nonetheless, we are not without significant empathy for their position, and hold many of them as cherished friends and co-laborers in the work of the gospel. It is our desire to do whatever may be within our power to prevent the fences that have recently been erected between Anglicans (seen as protective fences by those who have erected them) from evolving into permanent walls, and, should it please God, to facilitate the conditions under which they might be removed."At the same time, even amidst our deep uneasiness, we can confidently affirm that the Episcopal Church has not—in a formal and official and corporately univocal way—abandoned the inheritance of faith and practice that underlies Catholic and Anglican Christianity. We rejoice in the orthodoxy of our Book of Common Pra
yer (1979), in both its liturgical and catechetical texts, as well as the creedal documents that it includes. We recognize it as articulating the faith and teaching of the Episcopal Church, despite the statements and actions of some leaders that are reasonably construed as departing from it."Moreover, we are cognizant of our obligation under the vows of our common baptism to assume the good faith and honorable intentions of fellow Episcopalians with whom we may have deep differences on contested questions. We find it important as a matter of principle to avoid demonizing or anathematizing those whom we disagree, even as we remain forthright in the articulation of our disagreement. We rejoice in any opportunity to make common cause with those whom we may perceive as adversaries (never enemies) in acts of gospel witness and service that transcend our differences."In these days of great difficulty—indeed, crisis—within both the Episcopal Church and the entire Anglican Communion, we find it worth observing that many who would only recently have been considered "moderately conservative" in the Episcopal ecclesio-political spectrum now, as a result of rapidly shifting dynamics, occupy the veritable "right-wing fringe" of the Episcopal Church. A number of us feel mounting pressure to distance ourselves from the public image of the very church of which we are devoted members."This is not an indefinitely sustainable situation. It seems "meet and right," on a number of levels, to seek some measure of structural relief as would decrease that pressure and allow us to live and move and have our being as Episcopalians. If the new "conservative fringe" is to remain securely connected to the institutional whole, some accommodation to their perceived need for insulation from many of the actions of that institutional whole, and the utterances of its leaders, would be immensely helpful."Now some of these folk can be described as crossover types (not to be confused with transgendered) whose views represent the "majority party". They want to find a language to create and preserve a secure place within the structures of the Episcopal Church for those who hold traditional perspectives that do not reflect those currently held by the leadership, perhaps even including resolutions—legislative and otherwise—for consideration by the 76th General Convention next July.Whatever counter proposals they propose, they have no real standing at General Convention and when rites for same sex blessings are finally passed at GC2009, David Booth Beers and Jefferts Schori make their final grab for all Episcopal properties and feelers are put out that the next sexual frontier is the full inclusion of transgendered folk. Then a point of order will be declared that speakers at microphones must identify what gender they are before speaking as this could cause confusion among the House of Deputies with some swing (switch hitter) votes going in the wrong direction. God help us all if that should happen.Orthodox stayers are on precarious ground. This has been more than broadly hinted at by the new Bishop of South Carolina, Mark Lawrence. "There will be louder, more urgent, and convincing calls (indeed they have already been heard in several quarters) for another Anglican Province in North America," he recently wrote.Several things now seem clear. Never again will a bishop, whose views on women’s ordination and pansexuality which are not in line with 815, obtain consents to be a bishop of an Episcopal diocese. South Carolina was the last one.In time, the remnant orthodox will either be driven out or for the sake of their consciences leave.A new North American Anglican Province will look extremely attractive to many fence sitters and the undecided especially if it is recognized with Archbishop Duncan being seated with the other primates of the Anglican Communion.Tens of thousands of loyal Episcopalians will no longer be able to ignore the elephant in the sacristy – a new Anglican pro
vince. They may not like it, but it will be a done deal. Groups like the Windsor bishops, those looking for a Covenant to save them, the Anglican Communion Institute (ACI) deep thinkers, Dr. Poon’s Global South blog, the Anglican Consultative Council et al will be made largely irrelevant. They will be talking to themselves. The orthodox will no longer listen to anything they have to say. The Episcopal Church’s leadership will now, and far into the future, be in the hands of revisionists.With each passing month, The Anglican Communion grows more divided. There is a growing momentum that the GAFCON primates themselves may no longer tolerate the innovations of Western pan-Anglican liberalism. This will be bad news for Dr. Rowan Williams.For the Anglican Communion, the future looks less and less hopeful, but it is equally clear that a new day is dawning. A new vital biblically-based Anglicanism is emerging which will not be put down nor go away.END
years now, the Drupal community has been hoping for a group of prodigy designers to magically appear.” I believe we don’t need more designers; the Drupal community already has the right people to make Drupal designing better.And there’s a lot that could be done to make themeing easier and better understood in Drupal.Simplifying, standardizing and documenting CSS IDs and classes is an obvious place that needs work.As well as explaining all the core modules that a theme should support.And then there’s the Zen Task Force that’s trying to create a good theme from which to base other themes.And the Themer Pack project that is trying to remove all PHP from a theme ( can be scary.)And the beginnings of an idea for a Drupal Themeing Contest.What we need is a single entity to be THE clearinghouse for brainstorming and implementing improvements to Drupal’s themes. And there’s every reason why this very Theme development group should be that entity.Maarten rightly suggested that the Designers group should be working on new Drupal themes. But, as tim brilliantly pointed out Designers have been previously prevented from designing UI because of the murky technology and……now we are seeing the doorways to a healthy communications sphere with designers and coders on either side, each one holding an important enabler of the other.So there is no reason why the Theme development group and the Designers group can’t be collaborating. The natural “place” where coders and designers are meeting is CSS. And, the CSS community at large is already a mixture of both; Drupal should be leveraging that. The themers and designers groups need to be working to make Drupal’s themes spectacular!Steven’s article should be the catalyst for a new rallying cry in the community:“Design for Drupal!”