1. Transport companies are striking because their increased freight costs are often excluded from their transport contracts to supermarkets. So do the transporters have to continue striking before they get a fair deal or do they just go broke and the supermarkets establish their own freight companies, thus leading to greater monopoly control? Whichever way it goes, because we have become so wedded to consuming food that has travelled long distances, food prices will go up significantly under the current system.
2. The Australian supermarket food system has become divorced from the concept of selling locally grown food in season. The system is dependant on long distance transport and lengthy cold storage or preservation methods. This is driven by the notion created in consumers that it is OK to consume all types of fruit and veg at any time of the year. This notion comes at a hidden cost. Fruit and vegies, despite looking plump, are neither fresh nor nutritious, as nutritional value is greatly affected by freshness and transport/storage costs make a large proportion of food prices.
3. The food supply chain contributes approximately 30% of Australia's carbon emissions. Carbon emissions from transport and storage are a significant and increasing portion of this. When carbon trading comes in and businesses are penalised for carbon emissions, the costs will be transferred to consumers. Ultimately this is supposed to lead to a change in behaviour of businesses supplying food, but because of the monopoly market dynamics in Australia, this will be very challenging and consumers will bear the cost.
4. The economic viability of fruit and vegetable growers has been on the downhill slide for a number of years now. Up to 70% of Australia's farmers are heavily in debt and their average age is 61 years. Attracting young people to the industry is getting harder by the year because there is "no money in it". This seems a crazy proposition when the mark-up of most fruit and vegetables from grower to consumer along the current supply chain can be up to 10 times.
5. Farmers are being "screwed" because of centralisation of power in the market and the huge amount of costs, pushed down to them in lower farm gate prices, which are built into food prices because of long distance transport and lengthy cold storage.
6. Without viable food growers in our country, there is no supply chain to the supermarkets. The big guys have also found a way of temporarily getting around this problem by importing food, such as garlic from China or oranges from Brazil, when they are in glut in those countries and out of season in Australia. Transport costs are huge in this case and food is never fresh.

Electric Car Dreaming

Lila Parry - PR CAN Member

My husband rues the day he bought me the award winning documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car?” because I will not stop banging on about it. He begged me to stop “at least for the weekend,” so I turn to you, dear reader. I trust you’d be interested to know about an emission-free, quiet car that could have travelled 480 km, averaging 110kmph and costing one hour’s electric charge?

General Motors had them, crushed them and replaced them with the Hummer.

Now, I don’t want to drone on about company conspiracies (although I’d love to) and vested interests manipulating the market, but by way of illustration, I’d like to mention a documented account of company conspiracy that killed the electric tram system in most cities of America.

General Motors systematically bought up the trams and replaced them with General Motors’ buses, using Firestone Tyres and burning Phillips Oil in the east and Standard Oil in the west.

In 1947 the Federal Government convict-ed General Motors and its partners of Criminal Conspiracy and fined them $5,000 and its key official who orchest-rated the operation, $1.00. My library fines are more than a dollar. Note: not one Opus Dei albino monk anywhere.

General Motors’ electric vehicle (the EV1, 1996 -2006) was also destroyed through conspiring interests, along with other electric cars that have dared to show their heads in the Oil Age.

“Who Killed the Electric Car” tells the story of those who developed the EV1, those who tried to save it and those who sought to destroy it. It’s a cautionary tale but it ends with energizing optimism because this time technology has to change.

This oil crisis is not like the oil embargo of the 1970s – this time the price of oil is going to keep climbing with its insatiable demand and global warming is coming up the drive like an unwanted guest who won’t go away.

It’s hard to believe that 100 years ago there were more electric cars around than petrol cars. Even hybrids were around 100 years ago and amazingly, an electric car as far back as 1834. You don’t believe me, but Google electric car history and prepare to be amazed.

The electric car got left in the dust when the automatic starter was invented (tad easier than the crank), oil became cheap and mass production made petrol vehicles a much cheaper option than electric.

Present day high-performing electric cars like the Tesla Roadster are not in mass production and so are not cheap ($150,000) except they only cost 2 cents a mile to run. (www.teslamotors.com)

The electric car’s biggest challenge (apart from competition with old technology) is with the range of the battery.

Battery technology is evolving rapidly however and has come a long way from the short range and heavy, lead acid batteries.

EV1 designer, A Cocconi refers to a battery like those in laptop computers that can go “300miles (483km) on one charge, running about 70mph (110kmph).” Recharging would take about an hour.

There is one cheap electric car, a US designed, Indian made, two-door hatch-back city car, with a top speed of 65kmph and an 80km range, called the Reva.

Adrian Ferraretto, general manager of The Solar Shop in Adelaide tried to start a dealership, but was knocked back by Australia’s Design Rules.

Green’s Senator, Christine Milne, tried to trial the Reva in Perth but was frustrated by safety regulations despite the car being approved for driving in the US, Japan and the UK. How has the motorbike been approved for safety?

Even if there were mass-produced, family-friendly, all-range electric vehicles ready to be imported, the law currently states that it is illegal to import and register zero emission electric vehicles (scooters excepted). How mad is that?

We may not be able to import electric cars yet, but we can import the components to convert a petrol car to electric at a cost of about $15,000.

Shaun Williams of Mt Gravatt valiantly converted his Toyota Echo (www.electric-echo.com) and now zips around Brisbane emission free, recharging it at night on Green Power. The conversion looks like a Herculean task and daunting for one who only vaguely remembers how to change a tyre.

It’s regrettable that 90% of Australia’s power is coal-fired and it’s this that creates a problem for recharging an ‘emission-free’ electric vehicle.

Enthusiasts like Shaun stress Green Power and other renewable energy sources. AEVA (Australian Electric Vehicle Ass-ociation) also point out that off-peak power doesn’t ‘down-regulate’ because it isn’t cost efficient, so off-peak power is ‘dissipated’ if not used. Also, couldn’t you just turn off the fridge and stuff for a couple of hours while recharging? I don’t hear those recharging critics complaining about the sale of electric ovens or clothes dryers …

Now for the dreaming - imagine if Australia had its own, grass-roots funded, clean green quiet electric car, (preferably with auto-pilot) called …. The Davo, in recognition of the David and Goliath battle to create it.

As David Freeman, veteran Energy Adviser, says in the documentary - “We’re up against most of the money in the world. We’re up against the oil industry, the automobile industry. It’s David versus Goliath in a very big way, but if there are enough Davids in the world, we can win.” 

So, Go the Davo!

Leading by Example

Jason Kennedy - PR CAN Supporter

Much is said about the developing nations of the world, particularly India and China, and how our actions will have little impact on the effects of global warming if these nations do not act as we do. After returning from a business trip to China in April I hope with all my heart that the Chinese do not blindly follow the lead of the West, but see the potential for conservation and innovation to develop alongside their economy.

Through progress and necessity in our modern age, China has grasped the latest technologies and is quickly surpassing the Western world in its use. Solar hot water units can be seen on the majority of roofs, solar is used for street lighting, energy efficient light bulbs are the norm, electric bikes are prolific and vehicle registrations are limited to prevent over congestion and keep a cap on pollution. However, there are just as many air conditioners and flat screen televisions.

Now where does China get all these great and not so great ideas from? The rest of the world, and then they are blamed for an over consumption of the world’s resources. But it is us in the free market West that are creating this insatiable consumer demand, China is just utilising its resources, including its people, to capitalise on the global demand for all things new.

China has a population that has skipped several levels of technology; most Chinese homes have colour television not aware it was ever black and white. So insatiable is the appetite of the Western world, it is as keen to capitalise on the resources and cheap labour of China as it is to commercialise the market potential of 1 billion people towards which an appetite for consumerism is being taught. During my latest trip I read an article in the China Daily News entitled “Turkeys in China”, catchy title until you find out it’s a strategy of the Americans to entrench the Thanksgiving Holiday in China in order to sell more turkey. A disturbing thought in itself but a further disturbing insight into the Western world forcing its commercialism and over consumption onto others in the name of profit.

The vast growth and impact on the environment emanating from China as the world’s factory is our fault. We ask them to make all kinds of merchandise which the Chinese populous also adopts, from big screen televisions to wind power and solar technology. Unless we act to curb our own consumption and demand, China is poised to continue to follow in our footsteps. We must learn to tiptoe so those who emulate us can walk lightly too. 

So You Think You’re Green

By Stewart Gale - PR CAN Member

You’ve got the solar hot water, registered with Solar Neighbourhoods, you let the train take the strain. So you’re green, aren’t you? You’re doing your bit…

Well, 10 out of 10 for effort. But wait, there’s more. 

Sometimes it’s easy being green, but sometimes it’s hard. It’s hard, not just because of our own personal behaviour, but because sometimes the world seems to conspire against us when we try to do the right thing. Consider travelling to work in Albany Creek when you live in Samford.  The only way to get there is by car. You would prefer train or bus, but the option isn’t there unless you want to spend several hours on a journey that only takes 20 minutes by car. When weighing up the travel options you are more or less forced to take the planet-unfriendly car option because the public transport alternative is so limited and tortuous. 

In order for us to make a carbon-friendly choice there has to be a genuine carbon-friendly option. Since the early 80’s the notions of individual choice and responsibility have been promoted at the expense of the community oriented enterprise. This notion of choice is all very well when you actually have real choices. In the case of rail or buses, you or I cannot create a public transport connection to Albany Creek from Samford as individuals. Such an enterprise depends on the collective strength of the entire community.

Yes, as individuals we all have a responsibility to behave in an environmentally-friendly and sustainable manner. But sometimes the options available to us are outside our control. Being sustainable at the domestic level is not enough. There is a world out there that needs structural change and it is our responsibility to engage with that world to promote the big changes that need to happen. Big changes like massive investment in public transport, big changes like taxing 4WDs off city roads, big changes like solar-powered buildings.  

Take a look at your daily life and identify the areas where the sustainable option does not exist, is illusory, or is made outright unattractive due to structural or systemic factors in our society. For example, why is ‘green’ electricity more expensive than ‘normal’, climate-destroying, coal-generated electricity? Under the current cost and price structure, the true cost of coal is hidden. There is a penalty for trying to save the planet, but destroying it attracts no financial sanction.  

Green shopping bags and solar heating are necessary and good in themselves, but their purpose is not just to save the odd kg of C0₂ here and there. They also demonstrate the community’s desire to see change. Such real world actions can speak louder than words and provide the impetus to allow, and force, politicians to make the hard decisions that have to be made.