New England Voters are being provided with a unique opportunity to directly assess the policies of all ten candidates at an Accountability Forum. The Candidates Accountability Forum is focussed on one of the most serious policy issues and biggest opportunities for the electorate — energy.
“The New England Candidates Accountability Forum will use mobile phone technology to allow every citizen who attends to anonymously ‘vote’ on their preferred candidate,” said Adam Blakester, Spokesperson for New England Energy Futures.
“This is an unusual public forum where we actually want everyone to keep their mobile phone turned on and to use it to not only vote, but also to actively contribute to the discussion about energy policy priorities, issues and opportunities for our electorate,” added Blakester.
Current wind and solar farm developments in the New England have quickly grown to become the largest infrastructure projects in the region’s history ~ with more than $1Bn of projects set to produce enough electricity for some 220,000 homes, making the region a substantial net exporter of renewable electricity.
At the same time though, the overwhelming majority of the region’s current energy usage, as well as its energy exports, is from fossil fuels.
“While mining has underpinned the progress of our quality of life to date, it is now facing significant and increasing challenges,” added Blakester. “Food and water security are very real concerns, particularly for the Liverpool Plains and Murray Darling Basin, as are the impacts of mining on air quality, climate, soils, wildlife and their habitats.”
The format of the Accountability Forum will support voters to consider the energy policy platforms of all ten federal candidates. Six candidates have confirmed attendance to date to be active in the discussion ~ Rob Taber (IND), Tony Windsor (IND), Phillip Cox (IND), Mecurius Goldstein (GREEN), David Mailler (COUNTRY MINDED) and David Ewings (LABOR). Negotiations are continuing with the other candidates, and particularly the incumbent Member for New England, Barnaby Joyce MP. The policies of absentee candidates will still be presented and considered.
In addition, the deliberations of voters will be informed by short presentations from local energy leaders to provide a strategic energy snapshot covering: land, water and biodiversity; coal, gas & nuclear; the health affects of climate change; wind, solar & diesel; and community energy.
“The Forum will allow for a high level of voter participation in the discussion, through questions as well as the use of mobile phones for electronic polling and voting,” concluded Blakester. “The entire Forum is also being filmed, recorded and will be broadcast live by TUNE FM.”
The New England Votes ~ Candidates Accountability Forum is being held on Tuesday 21 June at Lazenby Hall, University of New England. Attendees are asked to arrive at 6:30pm to be ready for a start at 7pm sharp. They are also asked to bring their mobile phone with them!
For additional information or to contact the organisers, go to: The New England Energy Futures Forum. The forum is a collaboration funded by Sustainable Living Armidale and Starfish Initiatives and is being organised with the following partners: Australian Wind Alliance, Australian Youth Climate Coalition New England, Community Power Agency, Farming the Sun, GetUp!, New England Climate Action Group, New England Wind, Solar Citizens, TUNE FM and Voices of New England.
Join the discussion — 7pm, 21st June at Lazenby Hall, Armidale
The New England Energy Futures Forum is a collaboration funded by Sustainable Living Armidale and Starfish Initiatives.
“The sun provides Earth with as much energy every hour as human civili[s]ation uses every year”
Author: Oliver Morton
Article title: A New Day Dawning?
Sub-title: Silicon Valley Sunrise
Page: 19
Volume: 443 (7 September 2006)
Journal: Nature
Peer reviewed: Yes
The quote has been repeated in different ways via other media e.g. “The sun is enough to meet humanity’s energy needs x,000 times over”. By my arithmetic, especially conservative, it takes 38 hours of sunlight on the Earth’s desert areas to meet the world’s energy needs for one year. I have seen one calculation give the level of sunlight required as 44 minutes. It largely depends on how much of the Earth’s surface one includes.
Further research on my part: the United States Geological Survey calculated this level of energy coming from the sun in the 1880s. The calculations have since been confirmed over and over and over and over and over again e.g. the SOlar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) run by NASA (the National Aeronautics & Space Administration in the United States) and precursor experiments going back to the 1970s.
Am I permitted to bring an already prepared banner to the forum stating: “40 hours sunlight = one year energy”? Thank-you in advance if the answer is yes.
Best regards,
Tom Livanos.
tom.369@hotmail.com
Possible Questions:
Better regulation of the grid
We ended up with a gold-plated grid because inadequate and poorly-designed regulations allowed network companies an over-generous rate of return on infrastructure spending, irrespective of whether it was needed.
We are still plagued with this problem, e.g. not providing incentives to use energy efficiency to extend grid capacity, or organizations installing their own private wires because of excessive and unnecessary barrier to using existing capacity to distribute power to neighbouring properties. What additional resources does the Australian Energy Market Regulator need to ensure all energy consumers get at fair deal?
Selling off essential energy infrastructure to foreign corporations
In April 2016, treasurer Scott Morrison blocked the sale of the Kidman properties to a Chinese consortium for $371 million. If selling agricultural properties is not in the national interest, why would selling essential infrastructure such as 50.4% of Ausgrid in NSW for about about $10 billion – 30 times as much as the Kidman properties to the State Grid Corporation of China or Hong Kong-listed Cheung Kong Infrastructure?
Avoiding dangerous climate change
Spikes in methane emissions at fracking sites raise concerns that gas is worse for the climate than coal-fired electricity and will increase the risk of not meeting the target agreed at Paris of keep global warming well below 2 degrees. The same applies to methane emissions from domestic wood heaters, which cause more global warming in the critical period between now and when we expect the 2 degree limit to be exceeded than heating a dozen houses with an efficient heat pump. What is the best ways of solving these problems?
Avoiding dangerous air pollution
In the winter of 2015, Armidale had 34 days over the current air quality standard and 53 days over the standard to apply in 2025. Our air wintertime air pollution is unhealthier than Hunter valley towns next to coal mines and power stations generating electricity for 3.25 million homes, and the methane and black carbon emissions from households with wood heaters are contribute more to the risk of not meeting the climate goals set at Paris than households with other forms of heating. What measures would you support to encourage the transition to affordable, non-polluting, climate-friendly heating?
By: Dorothy Robinson