Michael Green

Writer and producer

  • About
  • Print
  • Audio
  • Podcast
  • Projects
  • Book
  • Twitter

House energy ratings

In Architecture and building, Environment on August 28, 2010

IF you’re building, buying or renovating, there’s now more reason than ever to make your home as efficient as you can. Here’s a guide to house energy ratings and regulations, and the returns for going green.

House Energy ratings

House energy ratings are a measure of the thermal efficiency of a dwelling. Basically, the stars tell you how comfy the home will be throughout the year.

So how are they figured out?

Energy assessors plug the details of your plans, or existing building, into a software program such as FirstRate5, AccuRate or BERS Professional. The programs, accredited by the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS), analyse the home’s layout and orientation, and the construction of the roof, floor, walls and windows.

This information is matched with the local climate to calculate how much heating and cooling you’ll need to stay comfortable every day of the year. Homes can score between zero and ten stars. At zero stars, the building does next to nothing to protect against the temperature outside; at ten, it will be nice and snug without any artificial heating or cooling. A five-star home is good, but far from outstanding.

The ratings are one way to comply with the minimum standards for new buildings set out in the Building Code of Australia. It’s up to the states and territories to apply those standards – and they tend to do it haphazardly, with their own variations.

The New South Wales government has sidestepped star ratings altogether. Its planning tool, BASIX, contains caps on energy and water use as well as environmentally sustainable design considerations such as location, materials and fittings.

Last year, state and federal governments agreed to lift the residential energy efficiency standards from five to six stars (or equivalent), and bring the changes into effect by May 2011.

Six star

Six-star homes need one quarter less energy than five-star homes to stay comfortable, says Wayne Floyd, president of the Association of Building Sustainability Assessors (ABSA). “And of course, that reduction translates into lower utility bills.”

Despite yelping from the building industry about price hikes, Floyd argues that the higher performance can be reached at little or no extra construction cost. “Orientation is the key factor. If the house is designed correctly for that block of land, it can be cost neutral,” he says.

“We’re starting to see houses with bedrooms to the rear and living areas to the front, because that gets the greatest solar access. I’ve looked at projects that achieve over six stars with standard insulation and no double glazing, because they’re oriented and designed correctly.”

Poorly oriented homes can still reach six stars, but they need top-quality windows and insulation. Even in those cases, Floyd says, “the expense is very minor relative to the total cost of the house.”

So the higher standards might not cost much, but will they make a big impact?

Because the new regulations don’t take into account house size, appliances and behaviour they won’t necessarily reduce our overall household energy consumption.

New houses are much larger than in decades past, which means they gobble more energy, materials and consumer items, and spit out more waste, all of which take energy. Likewise, our habits around the home have a drastic effect on the amount of energy we consume.

Damien Moyse, energy policy officer at the Alternative Technology Association, says that in an international context, the new regulations are far from ambitious. “There are many regions, particularly in Europe, which require the equivalent of seven stars or above,” he says. “The UK has a program for zero net carbon homes by 2016.”

According to Moyse, in order to reduce the carbon emissions from housing, we must target existing homes. “The real trouble with the star rating scheme is that it’s generally for new buildings,” he says, “and new buildings are a very small percentage of our housing stock.”

Mandatory disclosure

The good news is that state and federal governments have also agreed to a measure that could lift the energy efficiency of existing houses.

Under new ‘mandatory disclosure’ rules, homeowners and landlords will be required to declare the energy, water and greenhouse performance of a house when they put it up for sale or lease. That means buyers and renters will be able to compare the environmental impacts and ongoing costs of different homes before they sign on the dotted line. “It will be very good because it focuses on the built environment, not the ‘to-be-built’ environment,” says Wayne Floyd.

The rules were scheduled to be phased in from May 2011, beginning with energy efficiency, but so far no details have been finalised. “It’s up to the individual states to adopt it, and each state is working on its own version. I feel that it will be a two or three year process,” Floyd says.

Moyse argues that although the added transparency will encourage more people to retrofit their dwellings, the changes could have gone further. “Mandatory disclosure just provides information,” he says. “You also need minimum standards to force landlords or homeowners to upgrade their properties.”

The growing market for green homes

Buyers are already getting the message, especially in the ACT, where mandatory disclosure at the point of sale was introduced in 1999. A study for the federal government found that in 2005 and 2006, lifting the energy rating of a median-priced house in the ACT by just half a star added about $4,500 to its value.

The study shows that, depending on the specifications of house, the cost of adding stars can be far lower than the payoff when it comes to selling.

Danielle King has just founded Green Moves, a sustainable real estate listing website. She says estate agents are split on the importance of eco-friendly features. “Some think that greening up doesn’t make a difference. Others believe it’s becoming more and more significant.”

With tougher regulations coming in, King says it’s unwise for people not to focus on energy efficiency, especially if they’re considering a renovation. “Like it or not, sustainable homes are the future of the real estate industry.”

She points to ‘green belts’ in the inner suburbs of our cities, such as Brunswick in Melbourne, where “properties with sustainable features have been selling at between $80,000 to $100,000 more than equivalent properties without them”.

“My view is that homes with good energy performance and lower greenhouse gas emissions will enjoy a noticeable increase a market price. It’s already happening regardless of mandatory disclosure and six star being in place.”

Case study: Rate as you renovate

When Peter Nattrass and his family decided to renovate their 1920s bungalow in the Adelaide suburb Prospect, they decided to give energy efficiency pride of place.

In his job as a development assessment planner and sustainability advisor, Nattrass had observed that energy rating is usually an afterthought, used only for council compliance. “People think about energy efficiency too late and end up rushing to fix something that’s fundamentally broken,” he says.

The Building Code of Australia is a model code for new buildings. When it comes to extensions, each state and territory applies the rules differently – for details, you’ll need to contact your local authority. Generally speaking, the new portions of the dwelling must meet the code’s specifications, but it isn’t mandatory to lift the rating of the whole home.

“We wanted our extension to lift the performance of the rest of the house,” Nattrass says. “We instructed the architect from day one that we wanted a passive solar design and that we would be having it rated as we went.”

He estimates that his original house would have scored about two stars. Based on the architect’s extension plans, energy assessors Sustainability House rated the home at just below five stars.

“They thermally modelled the whole house and that picked up the weaknesses in our existing home. We then tweaked the specifications,” he says. The family was able to compare the costs and benefits of measures such as ceiling and cavity wall insulation, double-glazing and a planned reverse brick veneer wall.

The process reduced their projected energy needs by another quarter, for very little cost – under $500 for the initial assessment and advice. “We lifted the whole house up to six star and went for the best bang for our insulation bucks,” Nattrass says.

The experience has given the family extra comfort, both physically and financially. “One of the key drivers for us was avoiding the risk of underperforming compared to new homes built to the six star requirements. If you don’t bring the rest of the house up, you could end up disadvantaged in the market when you sell.”

Published in Sanctuary Magazine 12.

Food glorious food!

In Environment, Social justice on July 27, 2010

But is there cause to get flustered?

THE great contest of the kitchen is over. For the second year in a row, MasterChef skewered the public imagination. Surprised and gratified parents are ceding command of the stovetop to their children – this can only be good.

And that’s not all. Every time the judges minced through their forkfuls and tenderise contestants with their ambiguous gazes, the nation was reminded that what we eat requires close attention. The show ignited passionate debate from newsrooms to tearooms. It inspired people to cook for one another.

Extrapolated slightly, these are three invaluable cooking lessons: food matters; food is cultural; and food is social.

But the show also had a bitter kick: food is corporate.

I visited a Coles supermarket recently. MasterChef flags cluttered the window and crowded the head space. Cardboard signs cloaked the alarms at the entrance, declaring: “MasterChef has chosen Coles to supply quality ingredients to the pantry.”

Spuds weren’t just spuds: they were MasterChef spuds.

Broad signs arched over each aisle, like banners at the end of a race, spurring the shoppers on: “To cook like a MasterChef cooks, shop where a MasterChef shops.”

But if you care about food, the aisles of a supermarket must not be your finish line – even if they are decorated with the logos of our most popular TV show.

This time last year, before the MasterChef finale, Chris Berg from the Institute of Public Affairs penned a column for the Sunday Age celebrating the show for disregarding “over-cooked moralising about the ‘ethics’ of food”. (The inverted commas are his).

“You get the impression,” he wrote, “that even if a MasterChef contestant used ingredients that were artificially grown in a chemical factory by robot arms, the only thing the judges would be interested in would be taste, texture and presentation. You know, the reasons why we enjoy eating.” (This, I should clarify, was intended as a compliment.)

Another of Coles’ slogans, however, is: “it all counts”. And so it does. The choices we make when we buy our food have a staggering array of consequences, not the least of which is visited upon our taste buds.

Other possible dangers, to list only some, are: obesity, diabetes, animal cruelty, land degradation, chemical runoff, biodiversity loss, climate change, packaging waste, rural social decline and worsening world poverty.

When we shop at a supermarket, according to the dictates of MasterChef merchandising, we outsource our responsibility for these problems to big businesses, whose concerns end with their shareholders.

There are alternatives. In a recent essay for the New York Review of Books, the American writer Michael Pollan lauded the rise of the ‘food movement’, the many citizens groups digging in on issues that span the industrial food chain.

Here in Australia, the food movement is similarly flourishing. It encompasses angry parents who are demanding better labelling and safety standards, bans on genetically modified crops, and an end to the junk food ads that target their children.

It comprises chefs and climate campaigners, permaculturalists and public health professionals. It includes, too, the swelling ranks of backyard and community vegie gardeners, and the gastronomists and convivialists who frequent farmers markets and slow food eateries.

The movement is disparate and sometimes contradictory – for example, animal rights activists might clash with organic meat producers. But Pollan argues that the views of these citizens and activists coalesce “around the recognition that today’s food and farming economy is ‘unsustainable’—that it can’t go on in its current form without courting a breakdown of some kind, whether environmental, economic, or both.”

Food, then, is political.

“Food is invisible no longer,” Pollan goes on, “and, in light of the mounting costs we’ve incurred by ignoring it, it is likely to demand much more of our attention in the future, as eaters, parents, and citizens. It is only a matter of time before politicians seize on [its] power.”

Despite our renewed flair for flavour, inspired by MasterChef, we must remember that not everything of consequence appears on the plate. The corporate conquest of our kitchens is still underway.

Published in Online Opinion.

‘Cash for clunkers’ is a lemon

In Environment, The Age on July 26, 2010

THE old warning about Detroit’s auto factories went like this: bad cars were built on Mondays and Fridays. The slackers on the assembly line didn’t show up for work and quality control was low.

So buyers beware: Monday and Friday’s cars were lemons. But the trouble was, buyers had no way of knowing which day their prospective model was manufactured.

During elections, policies keep on coming, like cars on a production line. And more often than not, it seems as though no one’s checking their quality. But unlike car buyers, voters are in luck – we can tell if the product’s a dud.

Labor’s ‘cash for clunkers’ scheme was launched on Saturday. I’m guessing it was manufactured on Friday. Let’s pop the bonnet, just to be sure.

From January 1, Labor will gift $2000 to owners of pre-1995 cars who buy a new car. It’ll spend $394 million dollars on the scheme, money hinged from three other climate change policies – the solar flagships program, the renewable energy bonus and carbon capture research.

To be eligible for the payout, old-car owners must purchase a new car that has a greenhouse rating of at least six out of ten on the government’s Green Vehicle Guide website. Labor’s policy fact sheet lists seven of the eligible cars, including the Ford Falcon EcoBoost and the Toyota Hybrid Camry.

EcoBoost-Hybrid – wow! That sounds green, right? But it neglected to mention those other – ahem – icons of fuel efficiency, the Toyota Prado 4WD, or the Hilux 4X4 ute, which are also eligible.

On closer inspection, over half of the 1800 new models sold in this country will qualify. Far from being an ambitious target, a greenhouse rating of six equates to the average performance of the entire Australian fleet, as it stands.

New vehicles here just aren’t very efficient. According to report released by Environment Victoria this year, new cars purchased in Australia are about 41 per cent more polluting than those bought in Europe.

When a similar ‘cash for clunkers’ scheme was wheeled out by the British motor industry last year, journalist George Monbiot described it as “the worst scam of all”. He analysed the cost of carbon reduction under the proposed scheme, and observed “you’d get almost as much value for money by reclassifying ten-pound notes as biomass and burning them in power stations”.

On Labor’s estimate, its policy will cost $394 per tonne of emissions abated. Environment Victoria claims that under a basic emissions trading scheme, it would cost just $20 to save a tonne of carbon dioxide emissions.

Monbiot identified other flaws that also apply to Gillard’s payout. Firstly, there’s the ‘rebound effect’. Typically, gains in efficiency are offset by increased consumption – when driving costs less, people tend to drive further. Any benefit is cancelled out, at least in part.

Secondly, many people who drive old models would have bought new ones anyway. Under cash for clunkers, they’ll get money for nothing.

Thirdly, some people who would otherwise have given up their car may decide to buy a new one instead. After all, $2000 is a hefty incentive to drive. In those cases, the policy will actually increase their personal emissions.

And it gets worse. There’s some research to suggest that scrappage schemes increase greenhouse gas emissions overall.

A Dutch study, published in the journal Transportation Research in 2000, concluded that “reducing the age of the current car fleet may result in an increase of life-cycle CO2 emissions”.*

The researchers argued that because about one-fifth of the energy consumed by a car over its lifetime is burnt in manufacturing, the optimal car lifetime is 19 years. They also found that the owners of new cars drove more than twice the distance each year than people with cars more than ten years old.

When our politicians set the course for our transport future, money spent on cars is money that hogs the road from the alternatives – public transport, bicycles and walking.

But if the Labor Party really wants to improve the efficiency of our car fleet, it should impose strict fuel efficiency regulations, not give away wads of cash to a select few for no demonstrable gain. Japan and the EU are phasing in standards that equate to almost half the fuel consumption of an average new Australian car.

As an advocate for action on climate change, Gillard does a perfect impression of a shonky used-car dealer. Sure, she’s put ‘cash for clunkers’ through a greenwash, but it’s a lemon. Don’t buy it. 

Read this article on The Age website.

* B. Van Wee, H. Moll, J. Dirks, ‘Environmental impact of scrapping old cars’, Transportation Research, Part D, 5 (2000), 137-143.

The shadow in the valley

In Environment on July 26, 2010

Published in the June 2010 edition of Meanjin Quarterly. On climate change at the ground level, exploring the painful but constructive dialogue that is taking place in the Latrobe Valley between coal workers and activists. 

Taegen, Sunday night

In early September, a week before the protest, Taegen Edwards and her partner Pablo pedalled to Smith Street in Collingwood, not far from the centre of Melbourne. It was ten o’clock and rain had begun to fall. Taegen uncoiled a roll of posters.

They had come to spruik trespass in the name of justice. The Australian climate movement was entering new territory. In seven days, scores of protesters – fingers-crossed – would be arrested at Hazelwood Power Station in the Latrobe Valley.

The young couple began taping the red and blue bills to light posts. The street was lined with opshops, cafes and bars; they were on sympathetic ground. Nevertheless, it was late, wet and difficult to stave off a sense of futility.

Pablo perked up as they came upon the office of a local politician. “Oh we’re definitely leaving one here,” he said, his bike helmet swinging from his backpack. An experienced campaigner, he was pleased at the thought of an office assistant tearing their poster down in the morning.

“Happy now?” asked Taegen, who wore a smart, charcoal jacket. She was 26 years old, a graduate of arts and economics at Melbourne University, with honours in management. Pablo smiled and she laughed, three crinkles lining each cheek.

In July, she had found herself, a little surprised, making a speech in Melbourne’s Treasury Gardens before a large crowd carrying placards. “Until recently,” she began,

“I wouldn’t have imagined speaking at a rally. I come from a long line of moderate mainstream lefties – the kind that read The Age and work as teachers and social workers because they care about people. The kind that have outraged discussions over coffee about racism, war or the treatment of refugees, but would still be more likely to go to the footy on a Saturday than take to the streets.

“But I’m here and it’s because, like many other people who haven’t got a long history in activism, the way the climate crisis is being treated by our so-called leaders has pushed me over the edge.”

Months earlier, at a summit in Canberra, representatives of 150 grassroots climate action groups, Taegen included, had voted to make September the national month of action. The summit had galvanised the disparate groups. Many people felt, for the first time, that they were part of a movement, a great global tide of truth and justice that could only swell as more scientific evidence rolled in.

Soon enough, however, plans for the month of action wavered. New South Wales would hold its climate camp in October instead, Western Australia in December. Victoria and South Australia held firm.

In Melbourne, an organising committee formed and resolved to target Hazelwood, the old brown coal power plant that supplies about a quarter of the state’s electricity. In 2005, a World Wildlife Fund report claimed that it was the most polluting power station among the major industrialised nations, per unit of electricity produced. Although the plant’s owners, International Power, questioned the accuracy of the report, its dirty reputation was set.

On Smith Street, not much farther on from the unsuspecting politician’s office, the couple decided to turn back. Through the open door of a bar over the road, they could see bodies in red silhouette dancing. Taegen had forgotten what normal people did with their spare time. She knew she had no balance in her life, but on the whole, she was pretty peppy. She had taken on a significant role in the Switch Off Hazelwood committee, as co-organiser of the large fundraising trivia night. She was also helping with the media, logistics and outreach sub-groups.

For more than a year now, she’d been employed at Melbourne University’s School of Population Health, researching the likely social and community wellbeing impacts of climate change. At work recently, she had stifled tears as she read a report detailing US plans to protect its borders against climate refugees. She clambered out of despair only by way of her involvement in the climate movement. She had to do something about it.

The tape ran out as they put up the last poster. They unlocked their bikes, wet from the rain, and put on their helmets and lights. It was nearly eleven o’clock. A small rally had been organised for eight-thirty the next morning the steps of parliament house, to launch the protest to the press. Pablo would be the media spokesperson.

It was going to be a nerve-wracking week. Taegen had no doubt that the action was right, but her mind skittered uncomfortably over the thought of arrest. She had never been to Hazelwood. Although she knew she would have to jump a fence, she could not imagine gripping it and pressing over. Nor could she envisage the moment, adrenaline and fear coursing through her body, when a man in blue would seize her and march her away.

Trevor, Wednesday afternoon

Trevor Birkbeck sat in the office of the local Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union headquarters. It was nearly five o’clock and he slumped in the chair, his bald head pale against the high backrest. It was a long meeting. The Mining and Energy division executive meetings were always long, but not always so willing. Today they had wrangled over a plan to start a workers’ cooperative to manufacture solar hot water tanks. Uncertain of their industry’s future, they would try to make their own bloody jobs instead.

The union office is a low-slung, brick building set into the hill overlooking Hazelwood, its unfashionable interior – shiny wood-veneer walls and faded Venetian blinds – a reminder of decades past, better years for unions.

It was only four days until the Switch Off Hazelwood rally. Before the protest came along, Trevor had more or less accepted that the climate science was settled and that change would eventually come because of it. But a flyer had been circulating among the workers, advertising a public forum to be run by the protesters that evening. It listed John Parker, an official from a different wing of the CFMEU, as a speaker. “One of the blokes from the power station come up to me saying he wanted us to stop John Parker going tonight,” Trevor told Gerry, the rep for the mine workers. “They’re all bloody angry, you know.”

Trevor was a senior employee and the union delegate for the plant’s workers. He considered himself a conservationist, of the common sense, each-man-for-his-family kind. A former dairy farmer and the son of a dairy farmer, he now lived on a small property out of town where he grew veggies and kept chickens and a few cows and pigs. Lucy, the big sow, had become a family pet.

He had turned 60 on the weekend. His blue eyes still bore their glint, but their lids had grown fleshier and his jowls slacker. He was tiring of shift work and union battles and thinking instead of how he could make his property more self-sufficient.

When a conversation strayed onto ‘the environment’, Trevor liked to steer it onto the topic of built-in obsolescence. To him, built-in obsolescence summed up all the rest of the shit. A product that was planned to fail, so you had to buy yourself a new one. It was a symbol of all that was wrong with the world: the greed, the selfishness, the corporate profit at the cost of honesty, reliability and thrift.

The other day he’d talked with his family about the activists. “They’re protesting because they believe in what they do,” he said. He respected that and compared them to the followers of a religion. “They are convinced that they are right. If you believed that this was detrimental to the world, of course you’d go and do everything you could. I would do the same.” But the trouble was, as he’d realised in recent weeks, the global warming debate had moved on without the public.

Now in the office, he told Gerry he’d been paying particular attention to what his members were saying about climate change. “And I haven’t struck anybody who is sympathetic to the CO2 or the green cause. Have you?”

“The mine guys aren’t happy with what the protesters say,” Gerry replied. “It’s a threat to their jobs, that’s what they see it as.” Hazelwood employed 530 people directly and up to 400 indirectly, through contractors. The workers were on good money, many on more than $100,000.

Under an agreement with the state government, signed in 2005, the plant had gained access to enough coal to last into the 2030s. But now the company’s management, locally and internationally, was warning that the business might collapse under the federal government’s proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Philip Cox, the CEO of the British multinational parent company, had written to Kevin Rudd, stating, “the CPRS introduces fundamental uncertainties into our business – namely financial viability, asset life and high financing risk…”

Since it bought Hazelwood in 1996, the company had invested more than $400 million to upgrade the power station and increase its efficiency. Even so, it recently proposed an alternative policy, in which the government would strike a deal to close a number of coal plants on a staggered timetable, paying out the owners for the full value of their assets.

To the unionists, it sounded like cut and run. They’d seen it once already. Before the State Electricity Commission of Victoria was restructured and privatised, beginning in the late 1980s, it directly employed 12,500 workers in the region. Ten years later, the privately owned generators employed 2,200.

Privatisation had devastated the valley. In 2001, a state government taskforce detailed a community in crisis: population decline, property market collapse, unemployment and welfare dependence. In a health ranking of 78 local government areas, the City of Latrobe ranked 72nd for men and 73rd for women. Only in recent years had employment levels risen and life begun to resemble normality. But the demographics had changed – the average age of the CFMEU Mining and Energy Division membership was now 54.

The union was unusually progressive. Its straight-talking president was once a local Greens candidate, and this year, they’d employed a new organiser, Dave Kerin. He was tall and solid, but wore the black-and-gold rimmed glasses of a jazz musician. He’d come with a plan; for years he’d been working on a scheme to manufacture solar hot water heaters in cooperatively run factories.

Today, after a two-and-a-half hour debate, Dave got his resolution. He had support to develop a serious business plan. “It went further than anywhere else in the union movement for the last ten years,” he said afterwards, pleased and tired, leaning against the president’s desk. “We’ll have shift meetings in every nook and cranny to mobilise support solidly behind the idea of jobs. And that we’ll be making the jobs.”

Trevor approved. “When you think of it, if it’s not an organisation like this, who is going to do it? Nobody. No one.”

As well as working on his small farm, Trevor planned to devote a good deal of energy to the social enterprise. He believed in social justice, cooperation and saving resources. The project ticked all three. He did not, however, want to promote the scheme as driven by green jobs, let alone climate change. Upheaval might be coming again to the valley, politicians round the world might agree and Hazelwood might be forced to close. But it might not. He didn’t want concede the fight before it began.

Dan, Wednesday night

Shortly after Trevor left the union office, Dan Caffrey, a high school science teacher, headed out from home. After a hurried dinner, he drove from suburban Traralgon, the eastern-most of the three large Latrobe Valley towns, to the meeting place, the Migrant Resource Centre in Morwell – carpooling with Roland Good, the retired GP who lived down the street.

It promised to be a fiery meeting. The protesters would have a hard time explaining their event to most folk from the valley. Dan had heard about it through the Latrobe Valley Sustainability Group, of which he was a co-founder. Last month, at the group’s executive meeting, the chairman read an email he’d received out of the blue from Taegen Edwards, asking for the group’s support and attendance at the protest. He read slowly and carefully, as though relaying correspondence from outer space. Around the table, the group members agreed that the rally would alienate too many locals. The chairman summarised for the sake of the minutes. “We’ve decided that as a group we won’t be involved, but some individuals may attend.”

Despite his qualms about civil disobedience, Dan decided to attend both the protest and, tonight, the pre-protest meeting. Just before six-thirty, utes and four-wheel drives began to arrive. Men gathered before entering. Inside, the organisers had set out rows of chairs and a projector. About two-dozen people showed up. Just as the proceedings began, a short man entered, complaining loudly that he’d sacrificed his hot dinner and TV to be there.

Dan sat at the end of a row. Slight, with grey hair and glasses, he wore a woollen jumper over the shirt and purple tie he’d worn to work that day. Around him were solid bodies, barrel stomachs. The men were courteous while a retired local school principal explained why she was involved in the climate movement, but began to shift in their seats as a campaigner from Friends of the Earth started his PowerPoint presentation on climate science. A ruddy-cheeked couple in their late forties, both wearing polar-fleeces, muttered to one another. When the campaigner said there was no longer any doubt climate change was caused by humans, the woman spoke up: “It’s all very well to say everybody believes in the so-called climate change, but you read different articles in the paper one day and the next. How are people supposed to make up their minds?”

Dan had researched the issue extensively. When he was in his early twenties, he had left the family farm in Maffra, east of the Latrobe Valley. He had been an odd jobs man – dairy technology, gherkin farming, oil fuel supply, even a few months as a trades assistant at Hazelwood – before completing a science degree and settling on teaching. Since the late 1980s, he had kept up to date with reports on global warming.

The previous year he had taught a subject called Earth Justice at the local Catholic high-school. When he fished through church documents, he found that the Australian bishops advocated stewardship, a belief that we’re entrusted to care for the planet for future generations. As a practicing Catholic, it pleased him he could claim the moral backing of the church, though he decided long ago to seek a scientific explanation of the world and fit his faith around it.

Although Dan was drawn to the science of the issue, recently he’d turned his attention to writing letters-to-the-editor, to great success. In the Latrobe Valley Express, he was conducting a vigorous exchange with the valley’s climate change deniers. “Would Mr Caffrey be kind enough to describe the process whereby human generated CO2 will acidify the oceans?” challenged DJ Auchterlonie, from Trafalgar, on 9 July.

Dan replied the following week: “As it happens, this is hardly a challenge at all.” His writing was assured and well researched, with the occasional rhetorical flourish – as in The Age, 1 July: “People who advocate the expansion of fossil fuel use are like the lemming scouts who lead the others over the cliff. Well, I am one little lemming who says no.”

Not long ago, Dan’s sustainability group arranged for Charlie Speirs to speak at their public meeting. Speirs, a former coalmine manager and now head of Clean Coal Victoria, was the state government’s new brown coal champion. He wore shiny RM Williams boots and spoke warmly. He charmed his audience. “For those who don’t know me, I grew up in the Latrobe Valley,” he began. He was a Baptist and a Rotarian, and had run the kiosk at the local junior footy for many years. He had worked for 40 years at the State Electricity Commission and Loy Yang Power. Some activists joked that he sprinkled brown coal on his breakfast cereal.

“The Latrobe Valley’s had a long history where it’s relied on coal,” he told the audience. “The challenge in front of us is utilising the coal in a sustainable manner. The engineer in me comes out and says there are no problems, just solutions we’ve got to find.”

On one slide, entitled ‘Clean Coal Can be a Reality’, he outlined techniques for reducing the carbon dioxide emissions from brown coal: drying it before burning, improving combustion efficiency, gasification, and carbon capture and storage. He outlined a scenario in which Victoria’s emissions from power generation could be reduced by 63 per cent from 2000 levels by 2050 by employing available and predicted clean coal technology, as well as renewables. Under that scenario, the first carbon capture and storage plant would not be built until the 2040s.

Speirs explained that his role was two-fold: to define the coal resource and plan its next use; and to inform the community about clean coal technology. The state government intended to use all the coal it could.

But when Speirs confirmed that large-scale carbon capture technology would not be possible before the 2020s and even then, would not be retrofitted to existing power stations, Dan felt justified in his belief that the politicians should be funding renewable technology instead. As he had written in the Express, 10 August, “after 2020 … may be too late to help avert irreversible climate change.”

Tonight, however, just four days before the rally, he was attending the Switch Off Hazelwood forum with people who didn’t believe in climate change at all.

John Parker, the unionist who’d angered the workers by agreeing to speak, began by stating flatly that he did not endorse the protest. He wanted a transition plan. “What I’m wantin’ to say to this gathering is what I say to the employers and to the governments: we want people to show us how we’re going to create work for Bill and Jane with the climate change regulations coming in.”

After the speakers finished, questions turned to the protest. The short, combative man who’d missed his hot dinner, set the tone. “I don’t think any of us here have got a problem with renewable technology but what I object to is: you want to shut my power station down and put me on the bloody scrap heap. I’ve been around a long time mate, and I saw what happened with privatisation. All this bloody bullshit about employment opportunities and it didn’t happen. We’re going to have to be convinced otherwise before you chuck me out the door.”

The polar-fleeced woman felt threatened by civil disobedience. “You’re actually putting fear into the staff at Hazelwood. It’s not fair,” she said, voice quivering. “We’re constantly labelled, we’re put down. ‘Oh, you’re the dirtiest power station in Australia or the world’, and ‘The Latrobe Valley, the stink-hole of Australia’. Well it’s not. It’s a bloody good place to work. And I feel that this protest is just reinforcing all those views about the Latrobe Valley.”

After nearly three hours, a tall, young, bearded activist, the only one who’d travelled from Melbourne to listen, stood and asked for ideas on how the dialogue between the groups could continue. “Should we swap email addresses tonight?” he asked. It was naïve, nearly absurd, but somehow, it helped. The great haze of mistrust lifted briefly, and carbon dioxide was exhaled around the room.

The woman, so indignant, was now appreciative. “I think this is one of the more unusual meetings and this doesn’t happen very often. You’ve always got your eye on what you believe is right, but you think, ‘Oh, well he does make a bit of sense.’ The more you hear those things the more your ideas can spread and you accept a bit more. I think that’s the important thing, getting the different groups together.”

Sunday, protest day

Trevor arrived home from night shift not long after seven o’clock in the morning. He sat on his wide verandah talking to Micky, the mother of two children he and his wife fostered years ago and who’d since become a fixture around their bustling house. The chooks were pecking at the grass. He was tired after work and tired of the protest bullshit.

His members continued to spout more evidence that climate change was a hoax. One man said he’d visited New Zealand and the glaciers there had been in retreat well before the industrial revolution. Another said Greenland was green not so long ago and the Thames River had frozen over. Someone else said Al Gore was a secret bigwig in the nuclear industry. And besides, India and China were going ape-shit putting up coal plants. Trevor was worn out, flummoxed. He told his workmates that the governments, the scientists and the greenies had made up their minds and left everyone else behind.

He didn’t know what was true anymore. But he had a Trevorism that helped him deal with situations like this. “When I was twenty I used to know,” he’d say. “Then when I got to thirty I realised when I was twenty I was a dickhead, but thought ‘Now I’m thirty I’m pretty smart.’ Then when I got to forty I looked back on it and I said, ‘Gee when I was thirty I was a dickhead, but I’m glad I’m forty.’ Now I’m just looking forward to the future, because when I’m seventy I‘m going to be bloody brilliant.”

Over a cup of tea, he recounted to Micky the extent of the security measures at the plant overnight. There were more than 100 security staff, plus employees stationed on each corner and cars cruising with flashing lights. The whole plant was lit up like a Christmas tree. Searchlights swept over the mine. Nothing happened.

It was a warm morning, but dark clouds massed to the south and west. Before Trevor went to bed, they both admired the view across to Morwell and commented on the bird song. “There was a good photo to be taken last night with all the lights,” Trevor said. “I dunno whether anyone took it.”

At the campground, Taegen Edwards was already awake. About 200 protesters had spent the night at a caravan park five kilometres from Hazelwood, by the large artificial lake used to cool the water from the plant. She had slept fitfully and then a police helicopter roused her before dawn. She was fully prepared to be arrested for trespass, if she could do it with dignity. The issue warranted the action: there was a climate emergency. Brown coal power stations like Hazelwood couldn’t go on polluting as if nothing was wrong.

In May, she had given a speech to the Future of Local Government Summit in Melbourne. She described the coming decades as “a black hole”, and went on:

“When I hit my thirties, it’s looking increasingly likely that there’ll be no sea ice in the Arctic in summer, which would be abstract enough not to bother me if it didn’t also mean accelerated warming in the region, melting of the Greenland ice sheet, a seven-metre sea level rise, and melting of massive stores of greenhouse gases locked in permafrost. In other words, the first stumbling block on the path to runaway, unstoppable, game-over kind of climate change.

After detailing the likely loss of the Himalayan glaciers by her forties and fifties, and the resultant tragic consequences for billions of people throughout Asia, she continued:

I realise the odds that I’ll reach 117 to see the end of this century are pretty slim, but if I did, I might be one of only 1 billion people still left on Earth, if we see the 4- to 5-degree temperature rise we are currently polluting our way towards. That is coming from Professor Hans Schellnhuber, the head of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and scientific adviser to the EU and Chancellor Merkel in Germany. He is actually telling them that we’re looking at losing at least five-sixths of the world’s population.”

Having accepted this to as the mainstream science, Taegen could no longer live as though she didn’t know it.

She believed in the rally’s core message that there must be a “just transition” for people in the valley. It would be no snap of the fingers, but with careful government planning, solutions could be found; the region could be transformed into a renewable-energy manufacturing hub. She understood why the workers were angry about the protest, but that didn’t mean it wasn’t right. They just weren’t thinking about the issue the same way she was.

The night before, from the shore near the campground, the protesters could see Hazelwood’s orange glow across the water, the eight tall thin stacks white against the dark sky, the smoke drifting away. When it was being built, locals called it ‘The Battleship’. Now, five decades later, it was trimmed for the battle.

***

Just before eleven o’clock, Dan Caffrey and his wife Jane arrived at the gathering point, one kilometre from the power plant’s main gates. The humid early morning had given way to a cool, wet change. Dan wore a long raincoat and a battered akubra; Jane, a purple spray jacket and a hesitant smile. She commanded a smaller space than many of the protesters, with their colourful costumes and placards. There were clowns and wombats, pink and black–clad cheerleaders and a giant owl. There were also young families, retirees and country types.

Of the 600 or so people there, Dan thought there might be a dozen locals. Far from houses, shops and bystanders, the march had the dreamy, absurd quality of a pantomime. The protesters were boxed in. Mounted police lead off and brought up the rear. More police walked alongside at short intervals. Beyond the uniformed chaperones were fences and behind the fences were bored-looking security guards in high-visibility jackets. A police rubber-ducky waited on the cooling pond. The road was closed, the air was still and the huge power station stood ahead of the marchers, benign and inert, like an oversized, old-fashioned toaster.

The marchers gathered on a grassy patch in front of the main entrance. The company had erected extra temporary fencing and that became the trespass line. If the protesters jumped it, they would be arrested. A police helicopter hovered low over the group and drowned out the speakers as they insisted that, symbolically, Hazelwood’s community license to operate had been revoked.

Dan and Jane left after the speeches, at one o’clock. Dan considered it a damn good demo. He thought it would get people talking. On the march, he had noticed a long eagle hovering overhead and told Jan that the Ancient Romans would consider it a good omen – victory was assured.

Meanwhile, Taegen had been flitting around, helping and checking, and had marched with Pablo at the rear of the crowd. The talking was over now and the games began. Police guarded the temporary fence. In front, they stood two metres apart; behind, they spread out, ready to tackle.

For a while, not much happened. Then, at one-thirty, the protesters linked arms and spread along the fence-line. The opposing sides faced each other, football teams waiting for the siren. The more radical activists clumped on the hill and began to push at the fence. For a mad half hour, the sport turned nasty. Cops and protesters were nearly equal in number. Two-dozen young protesters came at the fence again and again and the mounted police charged hard at them along the line forcing them back in a mangle of legs and arms and fear.

Taegen stayed away, down the hill, worrying about what was happening. She had been helping herd the journalists and TV crews for a press conference. Now she despaired over how the event could be reported. Would it benefit the climate movement, or set it back? An hour passed in a daze. She began several conversations and didn’t finish them. Cheers rang out now and then as another protester cleared the fence and was immediately apprehended.

At two-thirty the protesters gathered on the lawn and decided to end the struggle. A man dressed as a wombat, who had been among the 22 people arrested, put up his hand: “I just want to propose that today was a really kick-arse action,” he said. The hundred people remaining cheered, formed themselves into a ragged human windmill to mark the end of the rally, called out another three cheers, and dispersed.

Taegen was exhausted and overwhelmed. The event, in part, had descended into farce. She was proud of what they had achieved, but journalists, with their simplistic angles, might become the judges of their success or failure. She had not gotten herself arrested this time. But if the situation was right, and it would aid the climate movement, she would do so another day.

As she packed up her tent and debriefed with a few of her friends on the organising committee, Trevor prepared for nightshift. He ate pea and ham soup with his family – the ham from pigs he’d raised in his yard. He swapped his moccasins for his boots and put on his Hazelwood jacket. His wife reminded him to take his glasses. The protest had made him realise that people were still arguing about whether or not climate change was real. He was more confused than ever. But for the time being, he knew he was needed at work. The old plant would keep running 24-hours a day, like it had for nearly fifty years.

The next day, Dan was ready to submit his latest letter to the Express, but he decided to check the paper first. He found a letter from Ron Bernadi, an outspoken, regular contributor who had previously likened climate change activism to a doomsday cult. Today, unexpectedly, he praised the activists’ public forum.

“… I found it an interesting and lively meeting where all who wanted a say were given time to be heard.

The union representative made a very good case for government intervention and funding to create jobs through new renewable industry in the Latrobe Valley and, why not seek more industry for the area?

But further, the union representative added, by ignoring the issue of climate change [and] not seeking renewable industry jobs, policies set by the federal government would cause the Latrobe Valley to suffer another economic shock if power stations were to close.

The climate change issue needs all parties to be honest and upfront, to not engage in mistruths, lies or exaggerations…”

It had been a remarkable week in the valley. Dan recalled his high school English teacher once telling him that the definition of drama was that it never ends. If anything, Dan thought now, this was the beginning.

Meet your neighbours

In Environment, The Age on February 21, 2010

From backstreets to the big end of town, there’s reason for neighbours to become good friends.

Last year, my neighbour and I leafleted houses in the streets nearby. We proposed something unusual. On our flyer, we wrote, “…we’d like to set up a system to share some of our resources and build a friendly local community”, and then we promised all manner of neighbourly fun, including street parties, movie nights, swap meets and veggie sharing.

And now, our block in Carlton moonlights as a ‘sharehood’.

The Sharehood is a social networking website that shows you everyone with a profile who lives within 400 metres of you. It includes lists of things to borrow and lend and a forum for upcoming events. The first one was set up in Northcote in 2008, but it works no matter where in the world you live.

The Sharehood’s creator, website developer Theo Kitchener, says connecting online can help meeting face-to-face. “It’s all about encouraging neighbours to get to know each other in real life – all kinds of good things can come from that.”

So, aside from a sensible impulse to borrow a circular saw rather than shell out for one of my own, what’s behind my wish to know my neighbours?

Associate professor Kathleen Hulse, from Swinburne University’s Institute for Social Research, says knowing our neighbours not only makes us feel safer, but also meets our deep need for a sense of place. “Being connected locally is strongly associated with a sense of belonging, and we all need to belong somewhere. It’s a profound thing – that is what a home is about.”

According to Gilbert Rochecouste, from placemaking consultants Village Well, there’s been renewed interest in “caring for place”. Governments, councils and property developers are all aiming to strengthen local communities. “People are changing their priorities,” he says. “We’re seeing that with developers building ‘neighbourliness capital’ into projects.”

Mr Rochecouste points to Delfin’s Laurimar estate, past Epping in Melbourne’s north, which includes a town centre lined with local stores within walking distance of all the homes. “People meet in main streets, that’s where the heart is,” he says.

Also at Laurimar, a community worker is employed to organise activities. “In greenfields developments like that one, we’re starting to see place managers who coordinate community gardens, events and food swaps,” Mr Rochecouste says. “To build citizenship you’ve got to invest in it.”

The trend isn’t limited to the urban fringe. Sue West from the McCaughey Centre at the University of Melbourne says that over the last decade, state and local governments have supported more and more initiatives to build community resilience. Now, about eight in ten local councils say they fund projects of that kind, be they community gardens, local action plans or activities to bring different cultures together.

“There’s been growing interest in programs that involve communities in getting to know each other,” Ms West says. “The research was showing that a country or a community can be doing really well economically, but people’s wellbeing is beyond just money and the economic measures. It’s about the connections people have with each other.”

Ms West coordinates Community Indicators Victoria, a set of measures gauging social, economic, environmental, democratic and cultural wellbeing in local council areas. “Feeling connected to neighbours does contribute to wellbeing. It can be really important in difficult times, like the one we’ve just been through with the financial crisis, and the ones we continue to go through because of climate change and drought,” Ms West says.

Improved neighbourliness also goes hand-in-hand with environmental gains. As well as The Sharehood, there are a large number eco-friendly neighbourhood groups across our suburbs, such as Sustainability Street (a group training program in eco-living) and community gardens. There were 75 community gardens in Melbourne at last count, in 2006, and interest has been flourishing since then.

Transition Towns is another grassroots eco-development movement. The people in each location determine what they’ll do, but generally speaking, the goal is to live better with less – to re-make your area into a food producing, low-energy, low-emission, tight-knit community. It was founded in England in late 2006 and there are already over similar 250 initiatives worldwide. In Australia, 27 groups have officially signed on and dozens more are joining up, including seven in suburban Melbourne.

Razia Ross is convenor of Transition Town Boroondara, which traverses inner-eastern suburbs from Kew East to Ashburton. She says the threats posed by climate change and peak oil will change our relationships with people nearby. “It seems to me that we really need our neighbours in a way we didn’t before.” For now, her group is scheming for community gardens, orchards and guerrilla gardening.

The good news, according to housing researcher Dr Hulse, is that we have a strong base of neighbourliness to build on. “I think that the connections in suburbs are underestimated. Special initiatives like community gardens are important, but they wouldn’t work if there wasn’t already a fabric there,” she says.

It’s true in my block. At our sharehood events, long-term residents pass on local folklore to newcomers – yarning, for example, about the old Maltese man who built a boat in his backyard (too big for the yard, it jutted over the footpath) then set sail for Malta. It’s all part of the sharing.

A new nature strip

Depending on how you look at it, Gilbert Rochecouste and his partner Amadis Lacheta have either taken their work home, or their home to work. They run Village Well, a placemaking consultancy that works on relocalisation and civic renewal.

And on the nature strip outside their house in North Coburg, they’ve planted a community herb garden and installed a seat, among other things. “The old ladies who get off the bus pause and sit down and we’ve gotten to know them,” Mr Rochecouste says. “They’re so appreciative – sometimes they drop over pickles.”

He says neighbourliness turns a street into a meeting place. “There are eyes on the street. It helps breaks down the fear culture – you feel comfortable to knock on someone’s door and meet together. And it’s much more fun.”

Read this article on the Age website.

Village Well’s 10 ways to be neighbourly:

1.     Say hello to your neighbours when you pass.

2.     Organise a potluck lunch, dinner or picnic and invite people in your street.

3.     Plant a community herb garden on your nature strip

4.     Organise a neighbourhood swap – share and exchange clothes, garden produce, plants, books or skills.

5.     Organise a neighbourhood ‘salon’ – share music, food, poetry or stories.

6.     Install a seat on your nature strip for neighbours to sit and chat.

7.     Organise a yearly street party.

8.     Do some street beautification or community art.

9.     Create a community garden or green area.

10.  Put a free table on your nature strip and give away food, books, furniture and bric-a-brac.

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • …
  • 17
  • Next Page »

Archive

    • ▼Print
      • ▼Environment
        • Contested territory
        • Community power
        • The last drop of water in Broken Hill
        • Totally Renewable Yackandandah
        • Electric vehicles lead the charge
        • You can never have too much garlic
        • Renewed interest in renewables
        • Reviving the race on a cleaner Yarra
        • Interview with Kevin Anderson
        • Renewable energy: power to the people
        • Left to pick up the pieces
        • Mining morality or vilifying coal?
        • A stake in the business
        • Round and round we go
        • A death in the family
        • Smarter urban water
        • Little fox, big problem
        • Flirting with disaster
        • Into the wind
        • The Great Barrier Reef: just unwell or terminally ill?
        • Seams of discontent
        • Bill McKibben
        • Unburnable carbon
        • Gelato at Brunetti's
        • The living fossil
        • Climate adaptation plan: the devil is in the appendix
        • Interview with Annie Leonard
        • Planning for a climate disaster
        • Bursting the carbon bubble
        • Doing the legwork
        • Repair Cafe
        • Switching to solar
        • Farming on the fringe: Q&A with Dave Sands
        • Farming on the fringe: Q&A with Anna Meroni
        • Farming on the fringe
        • Overshadowing
        • Greg Hatton's factory
        • Q&A: The Sharehood
        • Q&A with Carolyn Steel
        • Greener apartment blocks
        • Star ratings on the ground
        • Down to earth
        • Pacific islands face change that's hard to believe in
        • Life cycle assessment
        • Green renters
        • House energy ratings
        • Food glorious food!
        • 'Cash for clunkers' is a lemon
        • The shadow in the valley
        • Meet your neighbours
        • Six-star homes
        • Greensburg, Kansas
        • Towns in Transition
        • Sustainable House Day
        • Primate fear
        • The biggest catch
        • Close encounters: why medium-density living is the way of the future
        • Vegetable Power
        • From blue to green
        • Rubbish to riches
        • The old and the new
        • Teaming up and powering down
        • The green payoff
        • Power from the ground up
        • Permaculture club
        • Best footprint forward
        • Thinking outside the bin
        • They all want to change the world
        • When good neighbours become green
        • Beyond the stars: the rise and rise of domestic power use
        • Block busters: why apartment owners are seeing green
        • High five: why the new renovation rating is all about smart design
        • The lambs in winter
        • Global cooling
        • Waste not
        • Tour of duty
        • Powering down
        • Picking up the pieces
        • Pooling resources for a green future
        • Distance education
        • Globe trotter
      • ►Social justice
      • ►Community development
      • ►Culture
    • ►Blog
    • ►Audio
    • ►Projects

© Copyright 2017 Michael Green · All Rights Reserved