For instance, there’s been a lot of convoluted arguing over organic farming since the Stanford University study was published (September 2012), which found amongst many other things that organic food may not be more nutritious. Here’s the NYT‘s take on the story.

The study findings were weird to us because we don’t know anyone amongst our sustainability clients who claims that organic produce is more nutritious.

What we do know is that certified organic produce in Australia is synthetic-chemical-free (pesticides, hormones, antibiotics), and this may help reduce the likelihood of cancer and a variety of other complaints. We also know that organic produce is farmed on soils that are also synthetic-chemicals-free and so better in terms of environmental sustainability, possibly leading to better health for us albeit by a longer route (cleaner air, clearer water, etc.). And we know this is government regulated (in Australia).

So, here’s a conundrum. There are people who insure their house against fire because it may burn down; the same people might also self-compost because it may contribute to a cleaner environment, and in a teeny way to preventing climate change. If these same people don’t eat organic food knowing it may be healthier, then there is a disconnect. Each is a form of insurance against a risk that something bad might happen. The only difference to argue about is the probability (and who knows the probability of their house burning down?).

A common argument against organic is that there is scientific evidence that pesticides, hormones, etc., in non-organic foods are at safe levels by the time it is sold to you. Argument accepted. But here is another disconnect, scientists also can’t explain a host of society illnesses such as increased rates of cancer, and more.

Another reason that people didn’t buy organic is that the food used to look sickly: blotchy, poorly coloured, small; or quite clearly past its used by date; or sold by people with dirty finger nails. But no more, just look in the organic section of any major supermarket, or any large farmers’ market.

Other reasons are cost and access. Point taken.

There is a good article that sets all this out here, in the Huffington Post (see also an extract below).

So why the lack of PR promoting organic produce? Well, we know of one company that says it’s just not a priority – the company is already working flat-out to cater for growing demand.

Stanford Organic Food Study: Amidst Pushback, Co-Author Acknowledges Limitations : Huff Post

Posted: 09/10/2012 3:59 pm

Last week, a controversial study concluding that organic food has no real health benefit over conventionally grown food received a great deal of media attention. But there was also a wave of backlash.

On the Huffington Post alone, bloggers sounded the alarm, with headlines like, “Stanford Scientists Shockingly Reckless on Health Risk And Organics,” “Media Coverage of Stanford’s Organic Foods Study is Half Baked,” and “Organic Food vs. Conventional: What the Stanford Study Missed.”

So what exactly was the problem? Some argued that the study’s conclusions were being oversimplified and some pointed out that even if its media-grabbing assessment was true, that hosts of other reasons why organic farming and produce might be preferable were being overlooked.

• NYU professor Marion Nestle pointed out that the study did in fact confirm that organic food reduces exposure to pesticides and antibiotics. Nestle writes that the authors found organic food was “doing exactly what it is supposed to.” Nestle also explains how focusing on nutrient content alone misses the point, since “additional nutrients do not make healthy people healthier.”
• Michael Pollan agreed, saying that this is not new research and he’s seen “exact same data analyzed in a very different direction.” He said, “we’re kind of erecting a straw man and then knocking it down, the straw man being that the whole point of organic food is that it’s more nutritious. The whole point of organic food is that it’s more environmentally sustainable. That’s the stronger and easier case to make.”
• Bloomberg restaurant critic Ryan Sutton argued that headlines about organic food not being healthier misses the point of the study altogether. “We pay more for organic or free range products because we believe it’s the right thing to do,” he wrote. “We want to support the farmers and growers who treat their animals, their crops and mother nature’s land with respect and dignity.”
• Tom Philpott of Mother Jones writes that “the study in some places makes a strong case for organic—though you’d barely know it from the language the authors use.” He names five reasons the study sells organics short, including an oversimplification of pesticide exposure. He writes, ” the study seriously underplays the benefit of going organic to avoid pesticide traces, especially for vulnerable populations like pregnant women and kids.”

Now it turns out that one of the lead authors of the study acknowledges some of these shortcomings of their “meta-analysis” (the study was a comprehensive review of previous organic food studies). <more>

Image 

The background: the oil and gas industry body (APPEA) completely misquoted the CSIRO in an advertisement in which it said there is not a risk to groundwater from coal seam gas mining. The CSIRO said there is a risk (see The Australian and the SMH here).

This comes on the back of increasing scientific conservatism about the industry. For instance, CEDA (the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, hardly a radical organisation) in its in its most recent report,  Australia’s Unconventional Energy Options calls for “Adoption of better and best practice management by industry that includes careful monitoring of wellbores and their integrity, water, air quality and noise levels associated with mining activity.”

First mistake: it’s hard to quantify the damage to trust by APPEA’s (Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association) clumsiness in misquoting the CSIRO. This from an organisation and members that purport to rely on good science and the facts. Besides public perception, mistakes like this reverberate around the corridors of opinion leaders: politicians, journalists, exec offices in related industries and more. It just adds to the already worldwide suspicion of the environmental and social sustainability of coal seam gas mining (and oil shale gas).

Even the industry magazine MiningAustralia chose to headline the story:

“The CSIRO says the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association has misrepresented its research on coal seam gas. In a statement yesterday the CSIRO said it had asked the APPEA not to air a CSG advertisement because it wrongly attributed quotes to the research body. The advertisement claims CSIRO and government studies have shown “groundwater is safe with CSG,” but the CSIRO refutes the claim.

“At no time has CSIRO made such a statement, and nor do the results of CSIRO research support such a statement,” it said. “CSIRO has stated on the public record that coal seam gas extraction is likely to pose a ‘low risk’ to groundwater quality through contamination.”

Second mistake: this clumsiness is exacerbated by the lack of a prompt apology and correction, at least we can’t find one on the website. This is also basic PR 101. Instead, this rather unnecessary and belligerent quote on an industry website: “The ads we run, where we run them, and when we run them, will be determined over the months ahead, however we have taken CSIRO’s comments on board.”

The frustration with this is that many people want a resolution here. There is consensus among many that we need this cleaner energy source, but we need to resolve the big issues: invasion of property, ground water contamination, ground water depletion, gas seepage from poorly constructed wells.

We know from our work in Community Relations that those goals become almost impossible when there is no effort made to gain trust and the social license to operate. As the Brisbane Times wrote: ‘…..new energy industries can provide lower emission options, and promise to create tens of thousands of jobs, CEDA’s chief executive Stephen Martin says. But the full potential of “unconventional” gas developments will be realised only if companies have a “social licence” to operate, he says. ”In recent weeks we have seen further protests in NSW and a moratorium being discussed in Victoria for coal seam gas extraction, which shows that the social licence to operate is in serious jeopardy,”…’

The baseline for a discussion about productivity is financial sustainability. If we don’t operate to make a profit then we must at least make a profit in order to operate. How does this impact on the productivity debate? Well, the more community services we provide, the more we spend, the less the productivity. The more government, or companies, or families throw money around, the less the productivity. Largesse & luxuries and productivity are opposites.

There’s a wonderful explanation of this by SMH economic commentator, Ross Gittins (see below). He discusses the balance between ‘equity’ and ‘efficiency’, where efficiency means making maximum use of “the scarce resources of land, labour and capital available to the community” and equity is the “fairness with which the proceeds from all this efficiency are distributed between individuals and households”.

At a government level this is seen in the way wealth is redistributed, like the Carbon Tax and the Mining Tax, and the various services governments provide, hence the Obamacare debate in the US and the dental care debate and the current education-funding debate in Australia.

At a company level it impacts the extent to which a company can afford to be a good corporate citizen, which brings us to the balance of Financial, Social and Environmental Sustainability. The trouble with the old models of Triple Bottom Line Accounting (accounting that scores financial, social and environment success) and more recently Corporate Social Responsibility is that the social and environmental components were at the expense of the financial component. In other words social and environmental sustainability cost companies money, which shareholders don’t always like. Michael Porter is an economist who has since come along with Creating Shared Value, which is a model that looks at ways to contribute to social and environmental benefits and increase a company’s profits. For instance a company that sells coffee invests in the education of coffee farmers; while the farmers gain with an education for themselves and their children, the environment gains because the farmers are educated to use less water and fertiliser; productivity goes up; the company (and everyone else in the production cycle) makes more money. Everyone wins; hence the ‘shared value’ that’s been created.

We need a more balanced approach to progress

SMH WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2012

A lot of the problems the nation struggles with and argues over boil down to the considerable potential for conflict between what economists summarise as “equity” and “efficiency”.

We act as though one is right and the other wrong but, in truth, sensible people want a mix of both. So, though we don’t always realise it, the hard part is finding the best trade-off between the two.

“Efficiency” means taking the scarce resources of land, labour and capital available to the community and employing them in such a way that they produce the combination of goods and services that maximises the satisfaction of the community’s material wants.

So it’s about improving the productivity of our work effort – getting a bigger bang for our buck and minimising waste. But it’s also about being flexible in our response to the change that comes along.

Technology is always improving, allowing us to achieve the things we want more efficiently or even allowing us to satisfy wants we didn’t know we had. So we accept it as a force for good, but it can greatly disrupt the lives of people whose jobs have been geared to the old technology.

No one tends to argue against technological change, but we’re often less willing to accept change coming from that other major source, change in how the rest of the world relates to us. Why should we change just because they’ve changed?

Let’s say the economic development of China and India reaches the point where they need huge quantities of coal and iron ore to make steel. They’re willing to pay much higher prices and their need for a lot of steel is likely to run for several decades.

Are we willing to take their money? Sure. Are we willing to build a lot more mines to accommodate their needs? Sure. Are we willing to pay the various prices that come with this good fortune: the high dollar that makes life a lot tougher for manufacturers and others, the need to shift workers and other resources to other parts of the country, the two-speed economy this will bring? Not so sure.

All this sounding familiar? The efficiency story is one we hear all the time from economists, business people and politicians.

Taken narrowly, “equity” refers to the fairness with which the proceeds from all this efficiency are distributed between individuals and households. Is income being shared more unequally between the top, middle and bottom, or less?

But I want to use the term more broadly to encompass all our non-efficiency objectives. Not just monetary fairness, but our need to preserve the natural environment, need for strong relationships with family and friends, need for recreation and our desire to live in a community that’s free, democratic and subject to the rule of law, with harmony between the many groups that make it up.

You can see the scope for conflict between all these objectives. We don’t want to be so efficient we’re unfair, nor so fair we’re inefficient.

Conflict arises partly because people tend to specialise in one objective or another. They bang on about the economy or the environment or social concerns as though their speciality was all that mattered. Business people and economists are particularly prone to having one-track minds, but they’re by no means the only super-specialists.

An even bigger problem arises because so many people tend to conceal pursuit of their own interests behind the banner of a larger, worthier cause. Cutting my taxes would be great for the economy. If you care about People not Profit, you’ll protect my job from change (what this implies for other people’s jobs is not my concern; they can look after themselves).

I have doubts about the sincerity of business groups demanding reforms to correct our supposed weak productivity performance. Why? Because the “reforms” they choose to advocate would benefit themselves in the first instance and the rest of us only indirectly.

But, similarly, unions fight to preserve a status quo that’s been overtaken by events and to protect their (surviving) members’ interests at the expense of other workers.

Perhaps many of these urgers aren’t knowingly dishonest in the way they frame their case, just so conscious of their own interests that they’re unable to see how self-serving their arguments are.

Maybe I’m just getting old, but it seems to me the public debate about government policies is getting more self-seeking, strident and polarised.

It also seems the people who worry most about money have more of the stuff and are able to use it to buy a bigger say in the debate. We’re always hearing how much money we’ll lose if we fail to improve our productivity performance, but we rarely hear about what we have to give up to preserve and enhance our material affluence.

The people reminding us there’s more to life than money and the things it buys don’t get much of a hearing. Are we being asked to work longer hours (including at the end of a mobile phone)? Will we be required to work on weekends and public holidays? Will that mean we see less of our spouse, kids, extended family and friends? If so, how exactly will we be better off?

Will the hastening pace of modern life make us more stressed and damage our health? Will more people succumb to depression? Will greater efficiency make our jobs less secure and less permanent? Will we continue destroying the environment and losing species? If so, how exactly will we be better off?

We need a more balanced approach to progress. One that weighs the pros and cons of “reforms” more carefully and doesn’t go overboard in one direction or another.

Image: The Vecci Blog

Below is a really good summary by Robert Rapier of the mix of energy sources, and the pressures of supply/demand.

Each country sees the energy debate mostly through the prism of its local energy security issues; Australia’s healthy economy is dependent on selling coal, with gas becoming important, and importing oil. However, much of the global debate is caused by anxiety over the four big environmental risks in fossil based energy (dirty coal, risky deep sea drilling, oil producing tar sands, gas with fracking) and their impact on slowing the rate of growth of more costly renewables. We want what we can’t have, so long as market forces reign.

Renewable Energy — Facts and Figures: The Energy Collective

Posted July 9, 2012: Robert Rapier

 

It’s rare to find an article on gas that is reasonably objective and tells a reasonably complete story, and is comprehensible to most of us readers. Here is one, written by the author of that wonderful book, Hot Flat and Crowded. Thomas Friedman is writing about oil shale gas in the US, but it is directly relevant to our battles over coal seam gas in Australia. He makes these four points:

1. Gas emits half as much greenhouse gas when combusted as coal. That’s good

 2. But there is a hidden, long-term, cost of using gas: it could undermine new investments in wind, solar, nuclear and energy efficiency systems — which have zero emissions — and thus keep us addicted to fossil fuels for decades. That’s bad.

3. While it is cleaner, extracting it can be a very dirty process. That’s bad too.

4. To get it right, we have to get the economics right, so we’re all incentivised to do the right thing. So, as Friedman poses: Why not a carbon tax that raises enough money to help pay down the deficit and lower both personal income taxes and corporate taxes — and ensures that renewables remain competitive with natural gas? Hmmmm. Do you think US politicians, having watched what’s happened here, are going to think that’s doable?

Get It Right on Gas: NYT

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN: Published: August 4, 2012

WE are in the midst of a natural gas revolution in America that is a potential game changer for the economy, environment and our national security — if we do it right.

The enormous stores of natural gas that have been locked away in shale deposits across America that we’ve now been able to tap into, thanks to breakthroughs in seismic imaging, horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” are enabling us to replace much dirtier coal with cleaner gas as the largest source of electricity generation in America. And natural gas may soon be powering cars, trucks and ships as well. This is helping to lower our carbon emissions faster than expected and make us more energy secure. And, if prices stay low, it may enable America to bring back manufacturing that migrated overseas. But, as the energy and climate expert Hal Harvey puts it, there is just one big, hugely important question to be asked about this natural gas bounty: “Will it be a transition to a clean energy future, or does it defer a clean energy future?”

That is the question — because natural gas is still a fossil fuel. The good news: It emits only half as much greenhouse gas as coal when combusted and, therefore, contributes only half as much to global warming. The better news: The recent glut has made it inexpensive to deploy. But there is a hidden, long-term, cost: A sustained gas glut could undermine new investments in wind, solar, nuclear and energy efficiency systems — which have zero emissions — and thus keep us addicted to fossil fuels for decades.

That would be reckless. This year’s global extremes of droughts and floods are totally consistent with models of disruptive, nonlinear climate change. After record warm temperatures in the first half of this year, it was no surprise to find last week that the Department of Agriculture has now designated more than half of all U.S. counties — 1,584 in 32 states — as primary disaster areas where crops and grazing areas have been ravaged by drought.

That is why on May 29 the British newspaper The Guardian quoted Fatih Birol, the chief economist for the International Energy Agency, as saying that “a golden age for gas is not necessarily a golden age for the climate” — if natural gas ends up sinking renewables. Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the I.E.A., urged governments to keep in place subsidies and regulations to encourage investments in wind, solar and other renewables “for years to come” so they remain competitive.

Moreover, while natural gas is cleaner than coal, extracting it can be very dirty. We have to do this right. For instance, the carbon advantage can be undermined by leakage of uncombusted natural gas from wellheads and pipelines because methane — the primary component of natural gas — is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas, more powerful than carbon dioxide. The big oil companies can easily maintain high drilling standards, but a lot of fracking is done by mom-and-pop drillers that do not. The standards that can make fracking environmentally O.K. are not expensive, but the big drillers want to make sure that the little guys have to apply them, too, so everyone has the same cost basis.

On July 19, Forbes interviewed George Phydias Mitchell, who, in the 1990s, pioneered the use of fracking to break natural gas free from impermeable shale. According to Forbes, Mitchell argued that fracking needs to be regulated by the Department of Energy, not just states: “Because if they don’t do it right, there could be trouble,” he says. There’s no excuse not to get it right. “There are good techniques to make it safe that should be followed properly,” he says. But, the smaller, independent drillers, “are wild.” “It’s tough to control these independents. If they do something wrong and dangerous, they should punish them.”

Adds Fred Krupp, the president of the Environmental Defense Fund who has been working with the government and companies on drilling standards: “The economic and national security advantages of natural gas are obvious, but if you tour some of these areas of intensive development the environmental impacts are equally obvious.” We need nationally accepted standards for controlling methane leakage, for controlling water used in fracking — where you get it, how you treat the polluted water that comes out from the fracking process and how you protect aquifers — and for ensuring that communities have the right to say no to drilling. “The key message,” said Krupp, “is you gotta get the rules right. States need real inspector capacity and compliance schemes where companies certify they have done it right and there are severe penalties if they perjure.”

Energy companies who want to keep regulations lax need to understand that a series of mishaps around natural gas will — justifiably — trigger an environmental backlash to stop it.

But we also need to get the economics right. We’ll need more tax revenue to reach a budget deal in January. Why not a carbon tax that raises enough money to help pay down the deficit and lower both personal income taxes and corporate taxes — and ensures that renewables remain competitive with natural gas? That would ensure this gas revolution transforms America, not just our electric grid.

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

Below is a practical dilemma for the authorities in one area of California, so which would you shutdown:  a nuclear power generator or a coal fired power generator? Either way you lose a little; either way you win a little.

This reinforces the view that there are no easy answers when it comes to energy security and environmental sustainability.

Troubles at a 1960s-Era Nuclear Plant in California May Hint at the Future

What I like about the below argument is the simple explanation.  It helps explain why, by taxing carbon and reducing our emissions, we Australians make almost no impact on the worlds growing CO2 emissions. What we are doing, is setting a ‘blueprint’ for others to follow.

(N.B. For Australian readers: according to the date relied upon below our CO2 emissions per person make us the 11th highest user on Earth, above the US which is ranked 12th. The UK is 45th with less than half our per capita emissions.)

Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions — Facts and Figures

Sydney Demonstration

Of the four types of readily available energy (petroleum, coal, nuclear and gas) gas seems to have the potential to be the most environmentally friendly. However, there are legitimate concerns about the environmental and social impacts, especially given that most gas explorers seem to take 1950′s view to community relations.

These have now been addressed by the International Energy Agency (IEA). A special World Energy Outlook report on unconventional gas, Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas, released on May 29th  in London by the IEA, presents a set of “Golden Rules” .

NSW and Qld governments will no doubt take note that, as the press release states – “The Golden Rules underline the importance of full transparency, measuring and monitoring of environmental impacts and engagement with local communities; careful choice of drilling sites and measures to prevent any leaks from wells into nearby aquifers; rigorous assessment and monitoring of water requirements and of waste water; measures to target zero venting and minimal flaring of gas; and improved project planning and regulatory control.”

The report also spells out a pessimistic outcome – where issues are ignored, and public acceptance is not forthcoming. It’s an easy read for those who want a summary of governments’ dilemmas: (pp 63) “Although the forces driving the (pessimistic outcome) are led by environmental concerns, it is difficult to make the case that a reduction in unconventional gas output brings net environmental gains. The effect of replacing gas with coal in the Low Unconventional Case is to push up energy-related CO2 emissions, which are 1.3% higher than in the Golden Rules Case. Reaching the international goal to limit the longterm increase in the global mean temperature to two degrees Celsius would, in either case, require strong additional policy action.”

Below is how Michael Levi from the Council on Foreign Relations has reviewed this document.

Safe Fracking Looks Cheap

Posted on May 29, 2012 11:17 am
by Michael Levi

The public battle over fracking tends to emphasize extremes: some say that shale gas can’t be developed safely; others say that new regulation would kill the industry. But a third set of observers (myself included) has claimed that smart new rules would boost costs only marginally, while building public acceptance for drilling. A new study from the International Energy Agency (IEA) adds serious support to this middle way.

The study, “Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas”, is worth reading in its entirety – it’s a great assessment of the environmental challenges involved in developing unconventional gas and of ways to address them. What jumps out at me, though, is how the authors have gone beyond the usual hand-waving claims about how steps to ensure safe drilling shouldn’t be too expensive. Instead, they’d actually done some concrete cost estimates.

The verdict? Adopting “Golden Rules” for shale gas development would add a mere seven percent to the cost of each well. And though the IEA report doesn’t discuss this the impact on the price of gas, at least in the United States, would be even less, because some of the cost of delivered gas has nothing to do with well expenses: distribution costs, for example, would be unaffected by new drilling rules; severance taxes and impact fees wouldn’t change; and corporate taxes would presumably fall a bit, since many compliance costs could be written off. If you think that delivered gas will ultimately cost five dollars for a thousand cubic feet, the IEA is saying that its golden rules would add less than thirty-five cents. Contrast that with the much bigger impact of a backlash against drilling, and you have a pretty compelling case.

So what do the IEA “Golden Rules” entail? Some extra spending on “cement design, selection and verification”, together with a bit of extra drilling time to make sure that things are done right. Green completions would be required to avoid flaring and venting. Green fracturing fluids and rock solid treatment of produced water would protect groundwater resources. The IEA even includes costs for soundproofing rigs and implementing some trucking restrictions in order to reduce noise pollution.

The authors indicate that this suite of measures is an upper bound on the costs of a smart environmental approach. They observe that large-scale development creates additional ways to improve environmental performance while actually reducing costs. Economies of scale, for example, can make better water infrastructure make simple economic sense, reducing truck trips and improving safe disposal. “Systematic learning” about shale areas can reduce the number of dry wells and unnecessary fracture stages, improving economics while reducing environmental footprints. All told, the authors estimate that these and other steps could cut costs by five percent. In case you’re keeping track, that’s a net impact of two percent on production costs for large-scale development.

The IEA estimates, of course, are extremely crude. It wouldn’t be surprising to see compliance costs twice what they estimate – or half. Either way, the bottom line remains: smart regulation of shale gas looks like it would be relatively cheap. It’s the excessively hands off approach that could turn out to be a lot more costly.

]]> http://sustainabilitypr.net.au/2012/05/coal-seam-gas-iea-presents-golden-rules-for-a-golden-age/feed/ 0 http://sustainabilitypr.net.au/2012/05/carbon-tax-made-simple-10-the-carbon-farming-initiative/ http://sustainabilitypr.net.au/2012/05/carbon-tax-made-simple-10-the-carbon-farming-initiative/#comments Sun, 20 May 2012 11:15:08 +0000 Peter Wilkinson http://sustainabilitypr.net.au/?p=525  

If you are a farmer, or a group of farmers, what do you gain by allowing your land to become a carbon sink? The federal government has introduced a system to help. The Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) allows farmers and land managers to earn carbon credits by storing carbon or reducing greenhouse gas emissions on the land. These credits can then be sold to people and businesses wishing to offset their emissions.