Environmental concerns...

[BIG BWACULL]

What i'd like to know is how many of us on this forum who are genuinely concerned about the environment own stocks in companies who directly or indirectly add to the growing problem of greenhouse emissions i.e mining companies, petroleum companies and other related heavy polluting industrials in search of a quick buck. None of us including myself I could be wrong though, I have tried to invest in companies for the long term that will decrease carbon emissions i.e EDE, EVM. hopefully my portfolio will cancel each other out and i will contribute 0% Greenhouse emissions on my Trades.

 

[BIG BWACULL]

Might end up broke but oh well i tried

 

[2020hindsight]

Even Westpac advertising "we signed up not to be associated with sponsoring greenhouse emissions".
dont get me wrong - i reckon westpac are great and I'm pleased to see the message starting to bite - even at the level of the everyday advertising jingoism.

 

[chops_a_must]

What i'd like to know is how many of us on this forum who are genuinely concerned about the environment own stocks in companies who directly or indirectly add to the growing problem of greenhouse emissions i.e mining companies, petroleum companies and other related heavy polluting industrials in search of a quick buck. None of us including myself I could be wrong though, I have tried to invest in companies for the long term that will decrease carbon emissions i.e EDE, EVM. hopefully my portfolio will cancel each other out and i will contribute 0% Greenhouse emissions on my Trades.

I do. But I don't invest in mining companies that are drawing most of their income from Africa for instance, or mining companies with a bad track record (BHP being a company I can never invest in, because of environmental reasons). In general, mining companies in Australia have exceptionally high standards for pollution control and environmental rehabilitation.

But I have arguments with a lot of greenies on my own side, about mining. "Close down the mines" they say, (incredibly shortened but you get the gist). And I respond, "What material do you think those poles are, that are holding up that wind turbine?" Solar panels for instance, take up massive amounts of silver. If the world does look at using a lot of solar, look seriously at getting some silver.

Oil stocks? I'm not bothered. The sooner we use it, the sooner and faster we have to look for alternatives. Hydrogen fuel cells at the moment, are filled with bi-products from the oil refining process. We still need oil for packaging, plastics etc, that we can't replace yet. Petrochems are used for pharmaceuticals as well, paints etc.. We are still going to need oil long after we use it for powering vehicles.

But yes, I do hold some eco-friendly stocks for the long term. And I do drop stocks for environmental reasons. I don't think I will be buying ZFX in a hurry because of this.

Unfortunately, there does seem to be a lack of viable environmental companies listed. Would like to see some be able to turn a profit in the medium term. And I'm not sure if there will be any point holding enviro stocks if the Libs win at the end of this year unfortunately.

And 20/20... Lol! BHP is listed on that index and rated highly. Makes me laugh. Wouldn't take any notice. I know John Hewson had a listing at one stage... for Australian companies, ranking them on their performance with the triple bottom line. I'll see if I can dig that one out. Was much better.

 

[Freeballinginawetsuit]

I have travelled many a road and stopped in many a town in W.A.> that would not exist or be accessable without the financial handouts and close proximity to producing mines. 'Beenup> for its rugged coastline,dunes and treed areas', 'Whaleback TP, Parra, Goldsworthy> for the gorges, sparceness etc etc'.

West Australia is a vast and largely uninhabitable state and it is a simple fact that our government has zilch resources to sheet roads to these areas. Mining Companies do!!!!!......and what a bonus for that .

Mining ore or is a relatively clean process. Blast it...dig it....crush it.....process it......and ship it off. Most of the value add processing is by slurry benificiation and cyclonic screened, no caustic soloutions whatsoever.

The bulk of ore out of this state has come from primarily two hills and a handful of other minor localities. If youve been up North, thiers ****loads of identical hills and the whole landscape looks the same.

The impact environmentally is negligable and if it wasn't for the accesability mining has enabled for the 'Greenies', they would be none the wiser and still eating mongbean soup at home in the city .

So while our commodities are sought after by developing nations, I reckon dig em up and flog them off, before their obsolete and everythings made out of composite materials and urethanes.

 

[chops_a_must]

What i'd like to know is how many of us on this forum who are genuinely concerned about the environment own stocks in companies who directly or indirectly add to the growing problem of greenhouse emissions i.e mining companies, petroleum companies and other related heavy polluting industrials in search of a quick buck.

And I could never ever even remotely consider buying Woodside for the illegal action they are indulging upon on the Burrup. Up there with James Hardie for the least ethical organisation in Australia. I really question how people sleep at night after doing such damage there.

I wish evil things upon Woodside. I have no sympathy for them.

 

[Smurf1976]

It's not just the changing water levels that has caused this. A big part of foundation deterioration is caused by salt being drawn up through porous materials like clay and bricks. The salt, is not as damaging with the water there, but when there is no water with it, it starts crumbling the foundations and bricks. This was seen in Broken Hill a number of years back. Salinity is not just an issue for farmlands...

As to the argument about dams, just creating one environmental problem to solve another. Why not water recycling?

Salt's one thing. Shrinking clay under the foundations is another and both are bad news.

As for recycling versus dams, both are simply another source of bulk supply from an engineering perspective so it doesn't really matter. My point is that we do have options, dams being just one of them, and we need to get on and develop those options rather than constantly applying restrictions.

That said, getting rid of bottled water would be an environmental bonus in itself and this may, on emotional grounds for the people drinking it, swing the balance away from recycling at least as far as putting that recycled water back into the main supply is concerned. The last thing the environment needs is everyone refusing to drink from the tap because they refuse to drink recycled sewage. That doesn't prevent us from using recycled water in industry etc however.

 

[2020hindsight]

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1843524.htm
for the record and/or future reference, here's a transcript of "Turnbull, Garrett debate climate change, Reporter: Kerry O'Brien". good stuff. Here's a very brief excerpt.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Sure. OK, the Howard Government has spent $2 billion over the last ten years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet its Kyoto target. We will meet our Kyoto target. Many countries Canada being a classic case - who ratified the protocol will miss that target, and by a long way. Now we will meet it and we will meet it because of investments made by the Howard Government in renewable energies, in the mandatory renewable energy target - MRET - and a whole range of measures, and that is a result of Government policy. Now, 10 years, more than 10 years ago, the Howard Government set up the Australian Greenhouse Office, which has been publishing data about greenhouse. It's been promoting reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and to say, as Peter did, that we are not part of the international work on combatting greenhouse is ridiculous. Howard Bamsey, who is head of the Australian Greenhouse Office, is the co chair of the new international talks on the post Kyoto approaches. So we're not only at the table, we're at the head of the table. Now, this proposition --

KERRY O’BRIEN: You've got 20 seconds to finish, Malcolm Turnbull. You're yielding - Peter Garrett?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Let Peter Garrett go on.

PETER GARRETT: The team that was set to look at national emissions trading was disbanded. The AGO has been folded back into the department. The rhetoric and the actions of Mr Howard and his Government for ten years on climate change have been hostile. There's no question whatsoever that Australia's record in this area is a dismal one. Not only that, but we've missed the opportunity that countries that Malcolm talks about, like Germany and Japan, actually undertook when they started to develop alternative energy industries like solar, where they now are amongst the world's leaders and our solar engineers and solar businesses are going offshore. But even more than that, they have set about trying to reduce their emissions. We're not reducing ours and, Kerry, what the science tells us from this climate change report is that our entire economy, as well as our ecology, is at risk. I mean, it's tourism, it's agriculture, it's the likely impact that the sort of higher temperatures and less rainfall will make on drought. Those are the sort of effects that will be seen as we go forward, and when Nicholas Stern, who was commissioned by the UK to address this issue, said, "This is an issue of a scale of, terms of economic cost, two world wars and a Depression", he pretty much had it right.

etc etc

 

[Smurf1976]

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1843524.htm
for the record and/or future reference, here's a transcript of "Turnbull, Garrett debate climate change, Reporter: Kerry O'Brien". good stuff. Here's a very brief excerpt.

etc etc

Oh great, Labor are worried about the effects on tourism. Never mind that tourism is one of the causes of fossil fuel use / greenhouse emissions in the first place.

What next? We're worried about warmer weather cutting demand for coal?

 

[BIG BWACULL]

What next? We're worried about warmer weather cutting demand for coal?

It happened just recently in the US i think, they had warmer than expected winter reducing demand for petroleum and price of oil went down, Then they got that cold snap and know prices rising again cause demand went back up. CRAZY S#$T . We gotta kick The OIL habit. Reminds me of a few years back when GM in the U.S Brought out an electric car The EV1 from memory, It was a low maintence full electric car. 0-60 miles an hour in 7.4 scs top speed of 140 miles an hour with a range of 120 Miles then plug it in and off you go, Brilliant, You could only lease them though then they scrapped the whole idea I mean literally scrapped the idea They rounded up all the cars took them To the US equivalent of SIMS metal and shredded every last one of them. And what car replaced this car you ASK,Yes thats right the Gas guzzling HUMMER . GEE i wonder who or what factor influenced them to change their minds on the EV1 all electric car The mighty OIL dollar
Every one should check out the DVD "Who Killed The Electric Car" Brilliant

 

[BIG BWACULL]

All This rain were getting and wheres it going? Staright down the gurgler straight to sydney harbour you think if the polies were really concerned about water issues theyd find a way to divert all this useful water in an underground reservoir.
maybe they could close off the useless tunnel they built under sydney and use it to collect all this much needed water.

 

[2020hindsight]

Oh great, Labor are worried about the effects on tourism. Never mind that tourism is one of the causes of fossil fuel use / greenhouse emissions in the first place.

Garrett doesn't go into detail here, but...
Maybe it's related to this maybe not, but I did hear that some of the C-change in the Federal Govt's thinking might have followed someone pointing out that there's a fair chance that the Great Barrier Reef will die in about 20 years. Until then, they had the attitude - "too bad if the glaciers melt, what's a glacier anyway?"

But I hear you, and as usual you are pioneering off way ahead of the govt - but imho, no one is going to back anyone who proposes cutting back on tourism. Here's another excerpt where Turnbull taunts Garrett about "green" being "anti-progress". Garrett changes the emphasis to " progress now involves new thinking, new energy sources , preferably under Kyoto arrangements etc"

KERRY O’BRIEN: But what definable benefits do you believe that Kyoto has delivered? What cuts in greenhouse do you believe Australia should be targeting? And over what timeframe?

PETER GARRETT: Well, it'll deliver about a 5 per cent greenhouse gas emissions across the board in terms of the countries involved. But it's also a very big carbon market that's developing out there, Kerry, and you've got the existence of clean development mechanisms in countries where Australian businesses who could export, for example, their solar energy or their wind power to other countries in the world, who are part of Kyoto, don't get to take the benefit and can't get in on the action. So Australian businesses have actually been sacrificed on the altar of the Howard Government's very, very strong rejections of Kyoto. The second thing is that, in order for us to build a sustainable economy into the future, including looking after the environment and addressing greenhouse gas emissions, we need to have a significant investment in renewables, in energy efficiency the kinds of things which we can employ people in, whether young scientists coming out of our universities - it's an education and knowledge challenge for us as well, and we need to get stuck into it right away.

KERRY O’BRIEN: Malcolm Turnbull, the Government has consistently refused to sign Kyoto. Do you believe that the Kyoto treaty has delivered any benefits at all?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, I think Peter almost put his finger on it there when he said it's resulted in a 5 per cent reduction in emissions. Now, let's just put that in context. Most of the countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol in Europe that have reduced their emissions - and remember, the benchmark was 1990 - were countries whose emissions were reduced not because of any environmental awareness, but because, in the case of the Eastern Bloc, the Soviet Union and their satellites, their old sort of rust belt industries, defence industries, collapsed. That's why they've got so many credits, is because they're not building tanks any more. If you look at Britain, the reason Britain's emissions dropped was because Margaret Thatcher basically shut down Britain’s coal industry and moved to gas, North Sea gas, which is running out. So Britain is now importing coal, so you actually are importing coal to England in Newcastle in England, it's amazing. But the point I'm making, Kerry - let me just go on - the reduction in emissions that's occurred because of sorry, growth in emissions. The reduction in global growth in emissions that's occurred because of Kyoto is only 1 per cent. So it has not made a material impact. Why is that? Because the largest emitters are not party to it. The United States and, most importantly, the fastest growing emitters - China and India and other countries. China will overtake the United States within a couple of years as the world's largest emitter. You see, the best way to reduce emissions is to have no economic growth. If your economy collapses, then your emissions will reduce. And I'm afraid to say that Peter is on the record as favouring low economic growth.

PETER GARRETT: Oh, Malcolm, come on.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Let me just quote this.

KERRY O’BRIEN: Better be quick, Malcolm, in the interest of fairness.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: You said in 1987, Peter, in a book you wrote about politics, "The higher the standard of living, the greater burden on future generations to repair the damage by those living it up in the present." You said only a few years ago in 2004, let me finish, "Economic growth is always accompanied by a commensurate increase in environmental degradation." You see, your answer is to cut economic growth, okay? Good.

KERRY O’BRIEN: Okay. I'm going to go to Peter Garrett now.

PETER GARRETT: Oh look, Kerry, there's only two developed countries that are outside of Kyoto, and that's Australia and America, and I think everybody watching this program who's taken an interest in this issue will know that Australia actually got a very good deal on its targets, the kind of targets we may just meet, but the Government continues to bag Kyoto even though it talks about reaching the targets. But, more importantly, what we're interested in is sustainable economic growth and the point about the challenge and the risk of climate change is that unless we actually now energetically and vigorously pursue the kinds of policies that are needed to reduce emissions and build industries as we go forward which, by the way, Labor and I are entirely committed to, then we will continue, ten years from this point in time, in facing an even more difficult problem. And that's simply this. We took a benefit in the Kyoto Protocol ratification process when we didn't sign on. But we took the benefit in those targets, because of the land clearing that we agreed to stop. Now, that land clearing benefit has gone. Australia's emissions are due to go up consistently over the next 10 or 20 years. 22 per cent by 2020, they'll go up. Now, that is an indictment of the Howard Government. But even more than that is the fact that we actually have industries who want a signal in the marketplace. We have industries who want to build sustainability - the solar, the wind, the geothermal. Our gas industry is ready to go forward. All of them still on the leash because of the Howard Government's position on Kyoto, and the fact that it’s sat on it hands for ten years and done nothing about climate change. I mean, the word "climate change" - there isn't even a climate change in the major environmental legislation in the Federal Parliament. They're allergic to climate change. They won't even have an environment trigger in their legislation to deal with it

 

[2020hindsight]

for polar bears or coral, creatures feathered, fur or fin,
some solar flaring horror now awaits for mankind’s sin;
and for man some thorny laurel, and some sordid victory cold....
that we take the blame immoral “for Earth's death, we're paid in gold”

 

[Happy]

From ABC, February 20, 2007

LIGHT BULB IDEA 'CAME FROM ENVIRONMENTALIST'


The Federal Opposition says a plan by the Government to phase out conventional light bulbs in three years is a good idea, but it did not originate in the Government.
Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull says the incandescent light bulbs will be replaced with more energy efficient ones.
"It'll be illegal to sell a product that doesn't meet the energy standard so that'll happen by 2009, 2010, and so by that stage you simply won't be able to buy incandescent light bulbs because they won't meet the energy standard," he said.
Opposition environment spokesman Peter Garrett says the idea for the change came from John Dee of Planet Ark, and the Government has reacted to mounting pressure on climate change.
Mr Garrett says the Government needs to do a lot more to help reduce greenhouse gases, but this plan is welcome.
"My understanding is that this was an idea that was initiated by Mr Dee and he'd been in discussion with the Government about it and how he finds it on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald," he said.
"It is a good idea, we're not going to pooh-pooh it on the basis of its merits.
"But we are going to point out that it hasn't come from the Government, it's come from a leading environmentalist.
"But sure, it's something we should address, it's something we should do."
Mr Garrett says the Government needs to do more to fight climate change.
"The major producers of greenhouse gas emissions in this country are not individuals, they're governments and business," he said.
Mr Garrett says the government should introduce an emissions trading scheme and sign the Kyoto protocol.
"There's no target, there's no timeline, we still don't have a national emissions trading scheme and senior ministers appear to be in disagreement about that," he said.
Mr Garrett says the Government is divided on climate change.

All of the sudden all dimmers will be modern age dinosaurs

 

[Smurf1976]

From a technical perspective there are serious problems with this lightbulb idea.

There is no "drop in" replacement for use in fridges, ovens, sensor lights or touch lamps.

Nor does it make environmental sense to install CFL's ("energy saving" globes) in toilets, pantrys or anywhere else where they will be used for short periods at a time. The seriously reduced life span (in terms of hours of light) under these conditions combined with their mercury content and overall higher energy use in manufacture will more than offset any benefit from lower electricity use.

So I wouldn't be banning light bulbs. Banning the sale of any type of decorative fixture or halogen downlight would be far more sensible IMO. That would enable continuing maintenance of existing lighting and use of incandescent bulbs where they are appropriate but would over time get them along with their energy guzzling halogen cousins out of the lounge rooms, shop counters and other applications where they are used for long periods each day.

This is a classic case of being seen to be doing something without actually achieving too much. Ban the 0.06KW bulb whilst we fill the streets with 200KW SUV's. Hmm...

 

[Happy]

It is like flow restrictor for every water tap.

Say you need 2 litres of water for your kettle, it just takes longer to fill up the kettle, you still need 2 litres.

 

[Rafa]

If this is Howards response to climate change... it can only mean one thing...

He doesn't believe its real!

 

[Smurf1976]

A bit technical and O/T but relevant to the issue of banning light bulbs, here's a comparisson of the efficiency of various light sources. The figures are lumens (of light) per Watt (of electricity) and are typica maximum values. Efficiency will be lower for smaller size bulbs or tubes - a 100 W bulb produces more light than 3 40 Watt bulbs, for example and it's a similar situation with fluorescent tubes and other light sources.

As you can see, the humble bulb really is bottom of the heap in terms of efficiency and that's the reason for them attracting attention as an energy guzzler. But they do still have legitimate applications.

Incandescent (ordinary bulbs) - 22 lumens per Watt maximum. It's about 13 lumens per Watt for a 100 W bulb, less for the smaller ones and more for the bigger ones. They last about 1000 hours. The long life version is considerably less efficient (used in traffic signals, for example, where reliability is more important than efficiency - these usually last about 8000 hours).

Halogen - 27 lumens per Watt. This excludes the transformer losses for those small 50 W halogens commonly used in houses. These losses bring the efficiency down to a level comparable to that of an ordinary incandescent bulb. They last about 2000 hours in normal domestic situations.

Mercury vapour self ballasted - 28 lumens per Watt. These produce white light (not yellow or blue tinted) and are a direct replacement for incandescent bulbs. They are used in small scale industrial applications, warehouses etc to get more and better quality light than the incandescents they directly replace. They have a rated life of 5000 hours.

High pressure mercury - 63 lumens per Watt. Commonly used in street lighting (the white ones not the orange lights), factories, sports grounds, warehouses etc. In the past they were quite common in shopping centres etc too although they are less common in that use these days. They typically last about 12,000 hours - hence their attraction for commercial use and individual bulbs offer very high light outputs so fewer are needed (another cost saving). They're not really useful at home however and they take some time to warm up.

Compact fluorescent - typically around 60 lumens per Watt although it does vary and can go as high as 80 lumens per Watt. These are available in various "colour temperatures" which approximate either the light of an incandescent bulb (warm white - 3000K), a white office type fluoro (white - 4000K) or natural daylight (daylight -6000K, these are the ones that appear blue and many people dislike for that reason). They last 4000 - 8,000 hours depending on quality and use. They are a direct replacement for incandescent bulbs and are what the government will be expecting most people to use.

Metal halide - 94 lumens per Watt. Another industrial lamp although they are increasingly used in streetlighting, office buildings, shopping centres etc. They are available in a range of colour temperatures similar to the compact fluorescents. An important point is that unlike fluoros they don't contain toxic mercury. They last about 6000 hours.

Fluorescent tube - up to 104 lumens per Watt including the ballast losses for common tube types. Some with even higher efficiencies are available but the common domestic type is around 84 lumens per Watt. Contrary to popular belief, they ARE available to match the light of an incandescent - you don't have to have that harsh white light if you get Warm White (3000 K) tubes. Other colour temperatures are the same as for compact fluoros. Modern tubes last about 10,000 - 13,000 hours although they go up to 20,000 hours with electronic ballasts (which also totally eliminate visible flicker). You can get electronic starters for existing flourescent lights which stop them flickering when turned on and will automatically shut down a failed tube (takes a minute or so) rather than leaving it flashing on and off.

High pressure sodium - 125 lumens per Watt. These are the soft orange colour street lights and they aren't too much use for anything apart from streetlighting or industrial applications. But their high efficiency, high output per bulb and 12,000 hour life is a big attraction in those uses. They are sometimes used on amateur sports fields, warehouses etc too. A good point is their lack of toxic mercury.

Low pressure sodium - 200 lumens per Watt. They produce a harsh orange light which limits their use to security and street lighting (though they are acceptable in factories and warehouses (and especially power stations) if mixed 50/50 with mercury vapour lamps to improve the colour). They last 10,000 - 20,000 hours. No mercury in these either.

So now you know why offices have flouro tubes and the street lights are orange. They're using the most efficient light source that produces an acceptable colour of light for the application. As I said, you CAN get very good light quality from fluoro tubes. Just get the right tubes...

Try Bunnings and look for "warm white" tubes if you want light that matches and incandescent bulb remembering that an 18 Watt tube is as bright as a 100 W bulb. So 2 x 36 W in the kitchen is always going to be bright (as would the equivalent amount of incandescent light - 5 x 100 W bulbs) although the right tubes will get rid of the harsh light quality - just take one tube out or get a smaller fitting if it's too bright for you (2 x 18 W fluoros generally won't work with only one tube but it's safe to try it. 2 x 36 W should work fine with only one tube).

 

[Happy]

First of all I would like to thank you Smurf1976 for comprehensive explanation.

This type of post takes time to compile and poster should be congratulated for making such an effort to provide so much information.

I would like to use your generosity Smurf and ask for some info on LED’s?

LED’s seem to make some appearances, and from what I know all the colours except white are very easy to obtain.

Claims are that diodes last 200,000 hours if I got it right, but they are more of the spotlight and currently lack of intensity of light and are prohibitively expensive.
I came past one for close to $40.

I also heard that there is one more type of incandescent globe replacement in a pipeline, but I don’t remember the name, maybe it is one of yours from the list.

I wander what is the LED’s efficiency in lumens per watt?

 

[wayneL]

Smurf,

Agree with Happy, very interesting. Thanks for the effort.