Population Balance in Australia

Businesses in Australia have done well in recent times, with population growing and more goods and services on demand. But as Dick Smith, in his true blue Aussie entrepreneurial style, is pointing out to us, increasing population is just short term and very hazardous thinking in a world where resources are finite and weather patterns changing.

At some point, locally and globally, we will need to stop this growth and find ways to manage our economies, our businesses, our way of life without the false mantra of continuous population growth. At some point, we will need to say that enough is enough and to challenge those who think only of today and postpone the hard questions that we as a species must face.

We can change our energy systems, we can move to new and more efficient forms of transport, we can live in buildings that produce their own power, but to do all that and to add 3 billion more people to our global home is a challenge far too difficult to contemplate.

Dick Smith has set himself goals in the past and inspired many Australians. Let's hope his Population Puzzle, with its prize incentive, is an inspiration to young Australians, so that we can show the world that there are ways to live in balance with the new no population growth economy.

Jesse paints a picture..

Jesse Jenkins is an energy and climate policy analyst, activist and blogger located in the USA, working with the Breakthough Institute and he writes his own blog WattHead.

This morning I was contemplating why we in Australia are so obsessed with our proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and Jesse effectively sums up my concerns and directions, so below are few quotes taken randomly from his recent posts:

Jesse Jenkins: "Yes, we need new regulations and a price on carbon. But consider this: the United States did not invent the Internet by implementing a cap and trade system on fax machines. We didn't invent microchips by taxing the slide rule, nor did we create the personal computer by regulating typewriters. Rather, your computer, your cell phone, your iPod -- all of these revolutionary and now ubiquitous technologies were originally invented by direct federal investments supporting the relentless innovation of scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs just like yourself."

"The ultimate effectiveness of a strategy premised centrally on an effort to make dirty energy more expensive will always be limited by this fundamental reality of the political economy of energy -- which we at the Breakthrough Institute have dubbed 'Global Warming's Gordian Knot.' If the price of carbon must rise too high to drive emissions reductions, various cost containment mechanisms or public backlash will kick in -- either of which effectively abrogates the emissions cap. Yet if we constrain the price of carbon, it will have very little impact on emissions absent a steady supply of low-cost emissions
reductions opportunities."

"President Obama and Speaker Pelosi have it right: a "New Apollo Project" for clean energy -- at least $150 billion in direct public investment over ten years, funded by modest carbon pricing or deficit spending -- is far more robust than pollution regulation. Whereas a debate about carbon regulation emphasizes economic costs and increased energy prices, a debate about clean energy investment puts the enormous public benefits at the front and center: creating millions of jobs, promoting U.S. growth industries and competitiveness, developing new energy technologies, and securing the nation's energy independence."

pic of Jesse Jenkins from the ABOUT page of BreakThrough Institute

Improve soil productivity with sequestered carbon

Today was a typically beautiful Aussie autumn day, and a trip to Somersby was an enjoyable outing, just one hour north of Sydney, to one of the many factories located in a bushland setting. So what about the sequestered carbon and the soil?

Best Energies Australia claims to have developed some key technologies for a slow pyrolysis process using organic waste as such as greenwaste, poultry litter, nut shells, wood waste or animal manure. The outputs are syngas for electric generation (primarily used on-site) and a biochar end product which both locks away carbon and can be used for soil productivity. We were shown visuals of crops grown using the char under test conditions and the results seem impressive. But more importantly, according to Adriana Downie, Technical Manager, is the potential for the biochar to sequester carbon for thousands of years.

According to Adriana, there is a business opportunity in these waste plants and several potential revenue streams, including income from waste management, energy production, sales of the biochar product, and possibly also income from the carbon offset market. Each plant would have its own mix of revenue streams, and this would depend on local parameters and the type of feedstock.

Best Energies already has a test plant at Somersby - today, it was producing biochar for a small order. There has been considerable media interest in this technology, and now it's time for a larger plant. Contact Best Energies for the financial models, but the reasons to do this may be more than financial. The extra bonus is about becoming a leader in developing a relatively low cost way to reduce our global carbon footprint, at the same time as managing our organic waste and improving our food supply for a growing global population.

My picture of the Pyrolysis plant at Somersby