A focus on buildings could do a lot of heavy lifting

Rob Gell told me about the interesting work being done by global company Siemens on future energy and water planning. It was released on World Water Day in Melbourne this week.

I saw a bit in the press but it mostly picked up their comment on the future of electric vehicles (big). But there is much more to their work and worth having a look at - and noting that they see "more than" 30% CO2 reductions by 2030 from 2010 levels in buildings...and given that buildings contribute around 40% of total emissions, we are talking big potential savings here.

OK so we want the drought to break but a bucket on your head?

That's not hail - this is hail (in WA)...

Local interventions

From the Northern Star in northern NSW, Australia:

"BEEF and mutton fat is helping to keep 100 of Ballina Shire Council’s diesel-fuelled vehicles on the road.

Combined with soy beans and conventional diesel, the by-products of Australia’s meat processing industry are used in a new fuel called B20.

Ballina is the first council in the Northern Rivers to use biodiesel in its fleet."

It costs 3 to 4 cents a litre more than regular diesel, and we do not know how many litres they are using and therefore the cost of the reductions. But this is an interesting development away from the major cities.

We all need a bit of discipline

Fascinating talk from Stewart Brand, a great hero of mine - and who is now advocating nuclear power (gulp!) - on whole earth discipline:

Thinking about technology and scale

If you have been following the absolute debacle of the insulation program in Australia, one of the lessons may be: if we are to directly intervene with technology, the scale (international, national, regional, local) might be critical.

Here is Berkeley California's experience from a Berkeley blog:



"Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates has defended Berkeley FIRST, a pilot program initiated by the city to help residents finance solar power systems for their homes, and which has been cited as a model for other cities across the country.

In a letter to the East Bay Express, Bates says he believes Berkeley FIRST might be the city’s “most important contribution to combating climate change” and says it has laid the foundation for a larger scale state-wide program.

He says Berkeley FIRST was a catalyst for the expansion of residential solar energy and that one of its greatest advantages was its scalability.  ”Berkeley FIRST has become a national model for energy efficiency and renewable energy adoption. Vice President Biden recognized Berkeley FIRST and, in taking it to national scale, renamed the program Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE). Seventeen states and more than 200 cities are now preparing to launch Berkeley-like PACE programs,” he writes."

Important work on the ground while others debate...

A good description from Maria Blair - who has now moved to the White House - of the Rockefeller Foundation's adaptation program in the Asia Pacific area (disclosure: I was involved while at ICLEI).

Hands up who wants to go to Cancun?

Jumping Frog thought it "stripped open the arrogance and negligence of the developed countries on the issue" while a philanthropist's view was that "(i)f COP 15 was any indication, international, multi-state level processes will not provide all the solutions to climate adaptation and mitigation."

Yep, global governance..

One Sydney blogger (and Indian Youth Climate Network delegate) said that "COP saw more protesters and activists than thinkers and experts", and an American economist noted that "I am ambivalent about NGO involvement. ... On the whole, it was a surprisingly young group. "

A sub-section of that - what is the appropriate involvement of non-Government Organisations?

Food for thought as I prepare for a presentation at the Australian Information Industry Association meeting at KPMG next Monday.

Re-purposing: now can we do it with COP?

Cats know how to do it:

As does our cat at our front door:

I know it all feels perilously close to the LOLcats but I am wondering how we take the essence of COP - countries from all around the world meeting to focu on climate change - and turn it into something useful (as opposed to Copenhagen)...

Nice fence but no site plan so: fail...

-- Amina Khan from the Los Angeles Times reports on a curious state of affairs...

Some Southern California cities fine residents for watering their lawns too much during drought conditions. But in Orange, city officials are locked in a legal battle with a couple accused of violating city ordinances for removing their lawn, which they did to save water. 

The dispute began two years ago, when Quan and Angelina Ha tore out the grass in their frontyard. In drought-plagued Southern California, the couple reasoned, the lush grass soaked up tens of thousands of gallons of water – and hundreds of dollars – each year.

Quan and Angelina thought they were doing something good for the environment.
“We’ve got a newborn, so we want to start worrying about her future,” said Quan Ha, an IT manager for Kelley Bluebook.

But city officials informed the Has that they were violating several city laws that require residents to cover significant ports of their front lawns with live ground cover. On Tuesday, the two are scheduled to appear in Orange County Superior Court to challenge a lawsuit the city filed against them. They are fighting City Hall, saying their yard looks fine.

Soon after the city complained about the yard, they covered the dirt with wood chips, with help from neighbor Dennis Cleek.

“It’s their yard, it’s not overgrown with weeds, it’s not an eyesore,” said Cleek, whose own yard boasts fruit and avocado trees. “We should be able to have our yards look the way we want them to.”
But city officials determined the fix was not acceptable, saying city codes require that 40% of the yard be landscaped predominantly with live plants.

“Compliance -- that’s all we’ve ever wanted,” explained City Atty. Wayne Winthers. Last summer, the couple tried to appease the city by building a fence around the yard and planting drought-resistant greenery – lavender, rosemary, horsetail and pittosporum, among others. They sent a photo to city officials in October but say they received no response.

A few months later, they heard from the city, which said their landscaping still did not comply with city standards.

“They put up a nice fence but [the photo] didn’t show anything about how they had complied with code, as far as the frontyard goes,” Winthers said, “nor did it include a site plan.”
At the end of January, the Has received a letter from the city informing them they had been charged with with misdemeanor code violations and must appear in court.

“It’s just funny that we pay our taxes to the city and the city is now prosecuting us with our own money,” Quan Ha said. “Doesn’t it waste funds to go back and fourth in court, rather than sending pictures, e-mails and having phone conversations?”

Winthers said he hoped the city could work out a compromise with the couple. “We know times are tough, but we’re willing to work with them; we’d be more than happy to,” he said.

Meanwhile, the couple said there had been one bright spot: They reduced their water usage from from 299,221 gallons in 2007 to 58,348 gallons in 2009.