Media release: NAB achieves carbon neutrality

National Australia Bank (NAB) is pleased to announce that it has fulfilled its commitment to become carbon neutral by September 2010. In so doing it has become one of Australia’s largest carbon neutral companies. NAB’s key operations in regions around the world have played a part in meeting this commitment.

Gavin Slater, Group Executive Group Business Services, said in 2007 NAB recognised the

importance of acting to address its impact on the environment, and that today NAB was proud to have reached the milestone of carbon neutrality.

“Today I want to especially acknowledge NAB’s employees who have been instrumental in delivering our carbon neutral program. It is as a result of the passion and dedication of our employees over the last three years, that we have been able to really bring to life NAB’s initiatives to address the impact of our operations on the environment,” Mr Slater added.

NAB’s process for achieving carbon neutrality has involved:

• Defining and measuring NAB’s carbon inventory or ‘footprint’;

• Reducing NAB’s greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency and demand

management;

• Avoiding greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing energy from renewable sources where

practicable;

• Offsetting remaining greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing quality accredited carbon

offsets; and

• Verifying and reporting on our progress, including by obtaining external assurance.

“NAB’s primary focus in achieving carbon neutrality has been on energy efficiency, particularly in Australia which is the Group’s most significant business region. Since 2006, NAB has delivered an efficiency program which has resulted in Australian savings of around 60,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per annum. This is equivalent to the annual emissions of about 13,500 cars,” Mr Slater said.

Initiatives that formed part of this efficiency program include environmental performance upgrades at 350 branches and business banking centres (including adjustments to heating, cooling and lighting), sustainable office refurbishments in Melbourne, Sydney, Perth and Adelaide, establishment of a tri-generation plant at NAB’s major Australian data centre (which uses gas as a cleaner source of generation and captures excess heat to power cooling and heating equipment), and increasing the number of low-emission vehicles in the business car fleet.

“NAB’s aim is to implement additional efficiencies in its operations by further reducing our use of

energy, as well as waste, water and paper usage. We are also keen to continue to grow our

renewable energy project finance portfolio and provide financial solutions to customers to support their uptake of solar hot water and solar power systems,” Mr Slater said.

For further information and details about NAB’s carbon neutrality, including how we have calculated our carbon inventory and the offsets we have purchased, please go to www.nabgroup.com.

A consensus for climate change action?

Australia's Prime Minister Julia Gillard has called for a 'community consensus for action' on climate change via a citizens' assembly before moving to establish a price on carbon. This announcement is part of the Prime Minister's election campaign for the federal elections due to be held in August 2010.

While it is agreeable to involve the public in the climate change debate, a citizens' assembly, consisting of a hundred or so randomly selected Australians, is unlikely to bring about workeable results based on well-researched facts. The climate change debate is already suffering greatly from misinformation and lobbying, and is likely to slope down further into depths beyond reach for a sensible solution to the problem.

And while taxes and a price on carbon are being discussed now, how much of this can we expect to be turned into a working mechanism after the elections are over? Is the emissions trading scheme still salvageable, or will we continue to talk and discuss in ever greater settings?

If you are an individual or business owner wanting to make a difference, taking voluntary action might be your best choice. One thing we can assume without doubt is that hoping for a consensus will probably never give us the solution we need. As in all areas of politics, there will always be voices to speak out against a climate change action policy. Why are we so willing to surrender to these voices, while out of context and concerning other issues they seem easy to override?

Hu says China committed to fighting climate change

Reuters (UK) reported yesterday that President Hu Jintao (China) was committed to fighting climate change, both at home and in cooperation with the rest of the world, but stopped short of offering any new policies. Britain, Sweden and other countries have accused China of obstructing December's Copenhagen climate summit, which ended with a non-binding accord that set a target of limiting global warming to a maximum 2 degrees Celsius but was scant on details.

So while the finger pointing continues, I ask myself when Sweden, Britain & Co. last offered new climate change policies. Was China's obvious reluctance to agreeing to a binding agreement in Copenhagen really an obstruction for others or has it offered a way out for those who never really wanted to act but felt the pressure from the international community? Who these days is still really committed to fighting climate change?

I cannot but wonder what goes on behind closed doors, both in individual countries and in international meetings. It might well be that a country's verbal committment to fighting climate change is all we can hope for at the moment, even though words are seldom followed by actions these days. I personally welcome China's announcement as it shows climate change is on the agenda, and is hopefully being taken seriously. What follows might write history or turn out to be yet another one of many empty promises. We can only wait and see.

Earth Hour 2010 official video - help spread the message!

Climate change action falls vicitim to political turmoil

Today the New York Times reported that carbon trading is losing momentum amid the uncertainty created by the failure of the Copenhagen summit and President Obama's political troubles in the United States. That's not even counting in general cuts on spending (still) due to the financial crisis. With investors acorss the world steering clear of carbon credit generating projects, it seems the well established European Union’s Emission Trading System is the only one most likely to survive. This comes as a big disappointment to those who hoped that the carbon market would quickly grow into a $2-trillion-a-year business.

While this is worrying in economical terms, it is even more worrying in terms of the environmental impact this trend will have. It is no secret that climate scepticism is on the rise everywhere, with political parties now taking clear side against those in favour of climate action. Gone are the times when one needed to tread carefully to not upset the general public. We only need to look at the Australian opposition leader Tony Abbott to understand that lobbying against climate change action is now being widely exploited as a tool to gain workers' votes with an aim to win elections. Climate change has once more been degraded to a mere PR instrument, but this time the cause is to fight climate change supporters rather than to fight the threat itself. Unfortunately, while we can all do out bit, we will not be able to limit the effects of climate change without the support of our leaders. This is not only a worrying but a life-threatening development.

Climate scepticism is on the rise

The number of climate change sceptics is rising, while climate change scientists are losing a 'PR-War' against sceptics with vested interests, the BBC reported within the last week.

This might have to do with the fact that Europe and America are experiencing the worst Winter of the Century, with snowfalls so heavy several cities have run out of salt to distribute on the roads. The trend that climate change is now less of an issue than it was two years ago is true and verifyable. We are no longer in the aftermath of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, but in the phase of slow recovery from a global financial crisis. People worry about their jobs more than about the environment.

At the same time there still seems to be a persistent preconception that tackling climate change requires money and sacrifices from everyone. If we are to wage a PR war against the scpetics, it might be worth focussing on the fact that living a more environmentally friendly life is actually most often the more economical alternative. I am saving heaps since I've started leaving the car at home and walking to the supermarket. I don't have to pay for fuel as often, and I make conscious choices about what to buy because I know I will have to carry it home. Buying less food means that close to nothing goes bad in my fridge and ends up in landfill uneaten. I am also noticing that I feel fitter and healthier because of the extra exercise I get, which saves on my gym costs.

Of course we are not talking about big business here. But to those who are sceptic about climate change because they fear it might demand greater sacrifices from them than they already had to make over the past year, I would like to say that many rational arguments can refute this assumption. Saving on fuel, electricity, and water costs is a logical conclusion of living a climate friendly life, not an extra burden.

International Year of Biodiversity 2010

The United Nations declared 2010 to be the International Year of Biodiversity. It is a celebration of life on earth and of the value of biodiversity for our lives. The world is invited to take action in 2010 to safeguard the variety of life on earth.

Why celebrate biodiversity?
You are an integral part of nature; your fate is tightly linked with biodiversity, the huge variety of other animals and plants, the places they live and their surrounding environments, all over the world.

You rely on this diversity of life to provide you with the food, fuel, medicine and other essentials you simply cannot live without. Yet this rich diversity is being lost at a greatly accelerated rate because of human activities. This impoverishes us all and weakens the ability of the living systems, on which we depend, to resist growing threats such as climate change.

The United Nations proclaimed 2010 to be the International Year of Biodiversity, and people all over the world are working to safeguard this irreplaceable natural wealth and reduce biodiversity loss. This is vital for current and future human wellbeing. We need to do more. Now is the time to act.

The International Year of Biodiversity is a unique opportunity to increase understanding of the vital role that biodiversity plays in sustaining life on Earth.

Visit the International Year of Biodiversity website to find out more!

Sensis goes carbon neutral

The arrival of the yellow pages can be quite an annoyance, expecially for a greenie like me. For days the books lie piled up next to the front door of our building, soaking in the rain or bleaching in the sun, until someone takes pity and chucks the moulding pile into the recycling bin. Mostly I end up doing that.

To be fair, I live in a young neighbourhood. The couple on top of us has just had a baby, and the guy two doors down drives a shiny ute and keeps snakes as pets, as I recently found out. It is an Internet community. But the traditional hardcopy yellow pages seem to be surviving the Internet age. The have proven to be quite stubborn, and thus I feel they deserve a chance. More so now that Sensis, the publisher of the white and yellow pages in Australia, has gone carbon neutral and is making an effort to reduce its carbon footprint despite the fact that his paper-guzzling, tree-chomping publications are here to stay, and despite the fact that most of the time, they seem to wander straight into recycling rather than people's living rooms or offices.

Telstra-owned Sensis has just received greenhouse friendly certification from the government and plans to reduce its carbon footprint by 5 per cent. This will be done through offsetting 170,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions rather than reducing the number of yellow pages printed, even though they account for the largest percentage of the company's carbon footprint. Other measures the company intends to take include more recycling, more four cylinder diesel cars in the Sensis fleet and a greater use of video conferencing to cut back on emission-causing travel. There are no plans to make the publication a special order, but an opting-out option exists in the form of a 1-800 number on the front page of the books.

Sensis describes its move as a world-first, saying that even though their publication may have a significant imact on our environment, there are no plans to cut back on production as people still seem to be using the yellow pages hardcopy extensively. The company has committet to making sure its carbon footprint is as low as it can get while continuing to put out millions of printed telephone books annually.

Why the Prius remains a flagship

The Toyota Prius, the flagship of the Toyota concern, has added to the company's recent troubles as Toyota is preparing to recall its new Prius hybrid in Japan and markets all over the world today. More than 300,000 Prius cars have been sold worldwide. There have been dozens of complaints from drivers in Japan and the US who say they have problems with the braking system.

The Prius was Japan's top-selling car in 2009 and arguably the world's most important model of the year, seeing that we are moving towards an era of low-emission vehicles. Would Toyota's recall now keep you from buying a low-emissions car?

The problem, after all, is said to result from an interference with the accelerator pedal with the floor mat, which has nothing to do with the car's fuel performance. It can't be ignored, though, that this adds to a longer list of troubles within Toyota. As credibility shrinks, so might the desire to drive around in a Prius, environmentally friendly as it may be, especially as other car makers are moving quickly to fill the widening gap in the market.

It seems easy to condemn a car manufacturer for making decision we shy away from, even though really we should be asking ourselves whether it is so condemnable to take on leadership in a new field and get things wrong during the learning process.

And don't forget that not only the type of car but also the kind of driving you do influences the amount of greenhouse gas emissions you put into the atmosphere while behind the wheel. If you want to stay away from the Prius for a while, at least drive your own car slowly and thoughtfully, and leave it at home whenever you can. Make a habit of walking to the supermarket as a type of exercise. And take the train instead of the car more often.

I am personally a big fan of Toyota. Mine has never caused me trouble and I know it will be with me for many years to come. Most of all because of its fuel efficiency. And I am happy to see Toyota showing the guts to keep coming up with newer, environmentally friendly Prius models to help save our planet, even though at this stage they might still need some polishing.

Joshua Green: The Elusive Green Economy - The Atlantic

It feels like 1977 all over again: economy in the doldrums, crisis in the Middle East, and a charismatic new Democrat in the White House preaching the gospel of clean energy. Can Obama succeed where Carter did not? Yes—but only if we’ve learned the lessons of three decades of failure.

Read the whole article

Abbott's climate change policy

Australian opposition leader Tony Abbott released his climate change policy earlier this week, after having come under attack in December last year for claiming that "climate change is crap" to a small Victorian newspaper. Abbott's climate change policy does not include an emissions trading scheme, but consists of a 'soil and sun' package that is meant to boost the amount of carbon stored in farming land, offer incentives for some businesses to cut emissions and bring solar energy to a million homes over a decade.

Abbott's policy is favoured by the Australian coal industry, which is fearing heavy losses under Rudd's proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). The opposition proposes that heavy polluters should be allowed to continue to emit at current levels without penalties to protect the Australian economy.

The proposal comes in the wake of the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit, and as the Rudd government re-introduces its emissions trading plan into Parliament. It is another step towards the failure to arrive at a global consensus on climate change.

Hackers steal emissions trading certificates

Deutsche Welle reported on Wednesday that hackers have launched a massive phishing attack on the German Emissions Trading Authority. Hackers have reportedly reaped millions of euros in fraudulent emissions trading certificates. This had brought the Europen trade in CO2 emissions permits to a virutal standstill after it became public that computer hackers have cracked security codes to gain access to company accounts. In the attack, companies involved were asked to re-register with the German Emissions Trading Authority (DEHSt). Companies which did so suffered huge losses as the hackers stole and then sold their carbon permits on the European emissions market.

To read the full article on the Deutsche Welle website, click here.

Copenhagen Accord dismissed as political farce

The deadline for signatories of the 'Copenhagen Accord' to announce their emissions reduction goals expired on the weekend. Somehow it didn't come as a surprise that none of the participating countries made considerable efforts to commit to noteworthy reductions of their greenhouse gas emissions. Copenhagen clearly failed to achieve what it set out to do: to come up with a real global solution for tackling climate change as a sucsessor to the Kyoto Protocol. The Copenhagen Accord, hastily drafted on the last day of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December 2009, is not legally binding and has, against any last hopes, seen no further commitments by any of the supporting countries to reduce their greenhouse gases beyond what was initially announced. And with the deadline passed we're all of the hook, aren't we?

The supporting nations of the Accord include the big emitters like the US, China and India, among others. To contain the damage of global warming and effect temperature increases of no more than 2 degrees, industrialised countries must reduce their total emissions output by an average of 40% until 2020. Developing nations like China and India must lower emissions by 15%-30% relative to their growth.

However, current reduction claims are far behind what's necessary and as the trend goes, a warming of at least 3 degrees can be expected - the results of which will be devastating. In this sense, the Copenhagen Accord can be dismissed as a PR-Instrument rather than a real effort to counter dangerous climate change.

Click here for more information.

Copenhagen Climate Change Summit 2009

Between December 7 and December 18, 2009, world leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark, for the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP 15) to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change and the 5th Meeting of the Parties (COP/MOP 5) to the Kyoto Protocol. A framework for international climate change mitigation as a successor to the Kyoto Protocol after 2012 was to be agreed upon there.

As officials had warned, the conference did not bring about a binding agreement as a roadmap for climate change action following the years after the Kyoto Protocol. It was rather marked by non-legal, half-hearted commitments and characterised by the stand-off of the participating parties rather than a combined effort to tackle the issue at hand.

The Copenhagen Accord was drafted by the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa on December 18, and judged a "meaningful agreement" by the United States government. It was "taken note of", but not "adopted", in a debate of all the participating countries the next day, and it was not passed unanimously. The document recognised that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of the present and that actions should be taken to keep any temperature increases to below 2°C. Among other commitments, the Copenhagen Accord endorses the succession of the Kyoto protocol. However, as it is neither legally binding nor will it bring about any true results, many countries and non-governmental organisations were opposed to this agreement.

The conference was accompanied by protests across the world, with a big march of up to 100,000 protesters being held in Copenhagen on December 12th calling for a global agreement on climate change. Activism reached a stage that required heavy involvement of the police, calling it the 'biggest police action ever seen in Danish history'. A number of marches and countermovements were also seen across Europe, Australia and other parts of the world.

On December 16, two days before the conclusion of the summit, it was reported that no meaningful progress had been made. Therefore it came as a suprise that Copenhagen Accord was drafted and agreed upon on the 18th by the leading countries United States, India, China, South Africa and Brazil. And while the agreement is viewed as a milestone in history, no serious action is thought to result from it. The deal will certainly not be enough to mitigate dangreous climate change. However, it is a beginning, and we can only hope that further action will be taken soon - very soon.