Young Engineers Australia Blog

Carbon Offset Ethics

Have you ever stopped to consider how ethical it is to pay someone else to compensate for the emissions you are responsible for?  In effect, offsets offer a way of buying yourself a clean conscience by paying others to undo the harm you are causing.  Thus, I had a chuckle recently when I came across an innovative English pair who have taken this market proven concept and applied it to the tricky and often rocky realm of human relationships.  On their website called CheatNeutral, these two students offer to offset your sexual infidelity by paying someone else to maintain a faithful relationship and not cheat.  Under the heading, “Can I offset all my cheating?” CheatNeutral offers the following advice, “First you should look at ways of reducing your cheating.  Once you've done this you can use Cheatneutral to offset the remaining, unavoidable cheating.”

This clever critique of carbon offsetting strikes to the heart of a very real debate.  After all, as demonstrated by a few cavalier corporations, carbon offsetting in some cases only buys a clean conscience, without really changing behaviour to reduce emissions.

Funnily enough, this is not the first time that such sordid schemes have been sold to unsuspecting consumers.  In his book The Rise of the Dutch Republic published in 1855, John Lothrop Motley describes the means by which the people of the Netherlands in the 15th and 16th centuries could redeem their sins.  Basically, priests were making small fortunes by granting God’s forgiveness for already committed or about to be committed sins.  Advertised on a graduated tariff, for the correct price you could be pardoned for poisoning, incest, perjury and even murder (if of course a means other than poison was used).

Just as in the 15th and 16th centuries you could sleep with your sister, lie and kill without fear of eternal damnation, today you can live exactly as you please as long as you hand over your hard earned to one of the many companies selling indulgences.  Problem solved!

So exactly what is it about carbon offsets that attract so much criticism?  Don’t get me wrong here, not every offset scheme is a scam and there are plenty that are legitimately reducing emissions.  However, in many cases, emission reductions are extremely difficult to quantify.  For instance, exactly how much CO2 does a tree absorb and over what time frame?  If you plant a tree, should you get credits over its entire lifetime or just a short period?  Further, many offset projects would have gone ahead anyway regardless of whether they accrue offset money.  Thus, these projects do not actually reduce total emissions.

To bring this subject into a modern day context, would you prefer to support drink drivers as long as they sponsored others to attend a defensive driving course.  Or rather, would you prefer they just not get behind the wheel while intoxicated in the first place?  Interestingly, one person interviewed on the CheatNeutral website noted that it would be much better to just stop people cheating, rather than try and compensate for their actions after the event.

So while we continue to back the schemes that allow us to persist in our polluting ways and take a business as usual attitude towards climate change, spare a thought for author George Monbiot who noted, "You can now buy complacency, political apathy and self-satisfaction.  But you cannot buy the survival of the planet."

The Challenge of Critical Thinking

I’ve noticed in the current media that there are a number of be-moaners lamenting the lack of critical thinking apparent in today’s world.  There are widespread claims that everyone from journalists to management lack critical thinking.  Over the past couple of weeks, one particular topic has stood out to me that reeks of an astounding lack in critical thinking from the government – the emissions trading scheme.

It’s hard to pick up a news paper or turn on the TV at the moment and not see something about this subject.  The vast opposition and varied opinion about the value of the ETS in its current form shows how far the legislation is from reaching resolution.  However, it has been nice to see an engineer in the headlines recently, actually asking some fundamental questions about the assumptions that all this is based on. 

Senator Steve Fielding (trained as an engineer) has drawn fire recently for challenging the science that climate change is based upon.  Fielding drew some interesting parallels to Galileo and Copernicus who challenged the indisputable science of the day – that the Earth was flat, the centre of the universe and that the Sun and all other planets revolved around it.  The backlash felt by Galileo was so severe that he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.  While such harsh physical persecution is unlikely today, there is no doubt that anyone who is prepared to offer a counter view on climate science is rapidly made subject to a wide ranging character assassination.

Regardless of what is eventually proved, congratulations to Senator Fielding for being prepared to stand up, take the heat and actually show the use of critical thinking. 

Have you ever heard of the phenomenon called group think?  Group think is a type of thought exhibited by members of a group who try to minimise conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analysing, and evaluating ideas.  Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages of reasonable balance in choice and thought that might normally be obtained by making decisions as a group.  During group think, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking.  A variety of motives for this may exist such as a desire to avoid being seen as foolish, or a desire to avoid embarrassing or angering other members of the group.

Doesn’t all this sound familiar in the context of climate change science?  Engineers are inherently taught to question facts and examine evidence.  In fact, these skills are critical to success in industry and it often pays to be sceptical.  As the total proportion of students enrolling in Science and Engineering disciplines continues to decline, those graduates who are able to express alternative views, show innovation and ask questions will become more valuable employers.  Given that we tend to work in multi-discipline groups, never underestimate the power you can bring to the table by taking a contrary angle to those around you.

Proposed Changes to Student Income Support

Did anyone notice that in the 2009 Australian Government budget, there has been a tightening of the workforce participation criterion for student income support?

I can't say I'm a fan of the proposed changes and I can't imagine too many students would be either.  In fact it will make higher study impossible for some students.  Under the changes, to qualify for financial independence, you have to work 30 hours per week for at least 18 months.  How can a student be a student if required to work 30 hours per week?  To meet this very strict criteria, students either need to take a year off, or only study part time.

In 2000, the Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee, the council of Australia’s university presidents conducted a survey of 35,000 undergraduate students.  This survey found that the majority of students either faced significant difficulty surviving on student income support or alternatively, struggled to find the time for proper study as they were having to meet the needs of full or part time employment so as to earn an adequate income.  One of the results of this situation is that students take longer to complete their degrees and thus take longer to contribute in a full capacity to the workforce.

The Australian University Student Finances 2006 final report shows that access to adequate income support for postgrads is a barrier to participation, and this is especially the case for Indigenous students.  Further, the findings from the report show that female postgraduates are less likely to be financially independant.

Interestingly, the single unemployment benefit is greater than most student income support payments that are available.

In reality, the current support system is geared against students, with young people from moderate income families most disadvantaged due to the family income test (although the threshold is likely to increase next year).  The current system seems to be aimed at maximising the participation in the workforce of those who have finished compulsory schooling.  However, in the case of those in higher education, the exact opposite is occurring.  Because students are unable to access adequate support, their degrees take longer to complete, delaying the period they are able to contribute in their full capacity to the Australian economy. 

I personally fail to see how tightening the access to student support can be a positive outcome.  How do our students feel about this issue?  Please post a comment and let us know.

Breaking the Gen Y Stereotype

With the global economic down turn now in full swing, and expectation building that unemployment figures will begin to climb, it’s not surprising media sources are gloating that Gen Y is finally being taught a lesson.  The infamous job hopping and lack of loyalty displayed by Gen Y has been lamented in the past, however now it seems employers have an opportunity to return the favour and exercise their right to terminate Gen Y employment as imminent downsizing looms. 

While many in the Gen Y category have been guilty in the past of treating their employment as a transactional relationship and generally expecting benefits to flow in one direction, I was heartened by the results of a recent survey released by the global HR company Randstad.

An online survey of more than 2000 adults was conducted by Randstad back in August & September 2008 amidst the back drop of a sinking global economy.  The results show that the youngest age group are the most willing to arrive early, work later and take on additional responsibilities.  If asked by the boss to work longer hours, 48 percent of Gen Y respondents said yes compared with 40 percent of Gen X and 29 percent of Boomers.

Thus, with job prospects becoming more tenuous in some market sectors, perhaps the standard flighty, demanding, praise-seeking type characteristics used to describe the Millennium Generation aren’t entirely fair.

But I don’t think it’s quite time for Generation Y to get their iPod headphones in a twist over the current career climate.  Young Engineers still have every reason to be optimistic about their future careers.  As highlighted at the recent World Engineers’ Convention in Brasilia, the demand for engineering skills still outstrips supply and such skills will be essential in tackling current global challenges.  Further, those with leadership potential can look forward to increased opportunities as boomers begin to retire.

So what can you as an employer do to help your Gen Y’s fit in and, more to the point, stick around?  Now, as always, the tenants of creating interesting, enriched jobs are applicable to producing an engaged and loyal workforce – give staff autonomy, package tasks so they require using a variety of skills, give employees tasks of significance and provide regular open and honest feedback.  Funnily enough, implementing such ideas will benefit employees of all age groups, not just those that seem most demanding!

Eating our Way to Destruction

I had never suspected that what I ate might contribute to climate change.  That was until recently when I read an article written by Angela Crocombe, author of Ethical Eating.  Crocombe compares the carbon footprint produced by the origins and production of some common ingredients in our diets.

Did you know that the ecological footprint of the average Australian – which measures the amount of biologically productive land and water required to produce the resources an individual consumes and to absorb the waste generated – is currently 7.8 global hectares, the fifth highest in the world?  To put this in perspective, the biological capacity of the planet is only 2.1 global hectares per person.  That means us Aussies are using 3.7 times the resources available to us…frightening.  Check out http://www.footprintnetwork.org/ to measure your own ecological footprint.

So how can changing our diets be good for the environment?  In 2005, New Scientist reported on a study that found removing animal products from your diet could save significantly more fossil fuels in a year than swapping your car for a hybrid!

So if you’re keen to help the environment, save yourself the $40k for a Prius and follow Crocombe’s five easy suggestions to reduce the emissions generated by your eating habits:

1. Eat less meat and dairy

According to the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2006, methane emissions from cows and sheep represent more than 10% of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions.  Add to this the fact that meat production is highly inefficient, with feedlot beef requiring seven kilos of grain to obtain only one kilo of meat, pork requiring four kilos and chicken the most efficient at two kilos of grain to provide one kilo of meat.  No wonder meat is the agricultural product with the highest environmental impact.

2. Eat sustainable seafood

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations report that a quarter of global fish stocks have been overfished and a further 52% are at maximum capacity.  Despite this, many overfished species can still be found readily at most supermarkets.  Add to this the many destructive fishing practices that result in large by-catches and your Thai fish curry may not taste so good all of a sudden.  Crocombe recommends products endorsed by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), an international non-profit organisation that sets environmental standards for wild capture fisheries.  You can find the blue MSC logo on some John West, Talley’s, Sealord and Bird’s Eye products.

3. Choose organic

The heavy reliance of modern farming techniques upon chemical fertilisers and pesticides accounts for nearly 85% of Australia’s nitrous oxide emissions reports the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2006.  A US study conducted by the Rodale Institute found that emissions from organic farmers can be between 40% and 60% less per hectare than conventionally farmed soils.  And some further argue that organic products are better for you.

4. Eat seasonally and locally

Produce grown locally generates much lower carbon dioxide emissions during transportation as they aren’t travelling as far as imported goods.  Thus, if you are enjoying a particular fruit out of season, odds are it’s come from half way around the world.

5. Eat less processed and frozen foods

Not only do processed foods consume more resources during production, they also require additional wrapping and packaging that tend to include nasty plastics and other non-biodegradables.  Add to that the requirement for refrigeration during transportation and storage and you have an emissions overload in every meal.

I dare say that in light of the above, the good old Aussie BBQ may be in serious jeopardy!  However, what the article did drive home to me was how our everyday decisions have wider impacts on the environment around us.

Gazing into the AC/DC Crystal Ball

One thing that I have learnt – unfortunately the hard way – from the current economic down turn we are experiencing is that market analysts have precious little idea what they are talking about.  I guess it’s easy enough to drum up evidence as to how and why the current trends will continue.  It’s another thing entirely to accurately predict real market conditions.  However, I had to laugh recently when I read an article in the UK newspaper, The Guardian and reported by BRW which has proposed a new way of looking at world markets.

The Guardian has tracked the highs and lows of veteran Aussie rockers AC/DC over the past 35 years and compared their performance to world economic conditions.  Would you be surprised to know that when AC/DC top the charts, the world economy sinks?

The evidence speaks for itself.  The band formed in 1973, just as the price of oil quadrupled, causing panic and sending the globe in to a prolonged downturn marked by high inflation and unemployment.

In 1980, AC/DC released the second biggest selling album of all time - Back in Black which had chalked up 42 million sales by 2003.  The UK in particular felt the immediate “AC/DC affect” with inflation that year reaching 20% while unemployment crept towards 2 million.

Nevertheless, the fans were not happy in 1985, when Fly on the Wall failed to impress, selling a paltry 1 million copies world wide. But like clock work, markets around the world released the bulls.  Five years later, in a return to popularity and stardom, AC/DC released The Razors Edge, which in turn marked what Paul Keating referred to as, “the recession we had to have.”

From the early nineties, up until the year 2000, the band stopped touring, due to in-fighting, replacement members and rehabilitation, giving financial markets a chance to build into the next boom.  Nevertheless, their popularity began to grow following the 2000 release of Stiff Upper Lip.  Economists should have taken note, particularly when in early 2007 the band announced its intention to record and release a15th studio album.

Within a week of its release on 18^th October 2007 Black Ice sold over 1.7 million copies, shipped a further 5 million world wide and topped the charts in 29 countries.  Unfortunately, since The Guardian uncovered this compelling parallel, the symptoms have deteriorated.  An 18 month world tour was announced on 11^th September 2008 in support of the new album and as of January 2009, sales have soared to 6 million resulting in this album becoming “the fastest selling new release ever by a mainstream hard rock album”.

Perhaps it is time for Standard & Poor’s to begin releasing an AC/DC index next to the All Ordinaries.  Otherwise, we might all be on the highway to hell!

Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme – a solution?

So climate change has made a change – 800+ pages without any analysis on the economic impact. Is this political or a solution to a critical problem?

Having read the 78 page summary and attempted to read the full outline, it is clear that the solution to climate change is not as straightforward as everyone using less coal-intensive energy. And there are definite fractions betweens doing what’s best for the environment and keeping business productive.

I was saddened to see though that Garnauts recommendations to Government did not go far enough to save some of our previous resources. It actually said that taking their recommendations would still mean:

1. Great Barrier Reef would be destroyed

2. Less flows through the Murray Darling Basin

Who advocates a solution that results in this? Surely it means that tougher action is taken?

But on the flip side, Australia is a trade-exposed country and there are no savings to greenhouse gas emissions if energy intensive businesses move off shore to avoid the higher costs.

Do we keep blaming India or China – or just get on with the job?

The Big Ideas

I was one of those watching the live streaming of action at the 2020

Summit

. Whilst I am still debating the merits of the

Summit

I was curious to know what 1002 of the ‘best and brightest’ had come up with.

PRODUCTIVITY

Parent and children centres

Learning for life

Golden gurus

ECONOMY

New Federation Commission

Sweeping review of the taxation system

Low-cost funds for housing

ENVIRONMENT

National Sustainability, Population and Climate Control Agenda.

Carbon and water accounts

Sustainable Cities Program

RURAL

New Government body to consider national and global food security

Northern Australia

as a new food bowl

Rural-city student exchanges

HEALTH

National Preventative Health Agency.

Bionic eye

Universal first aid training

FAMILIES

24/7 use of schools for day care

Micro-finance

National Disability Insurance Scheme

INDIGENOUS

High quality education

Indigenous future fund

National indigenous knowledge centre

CREATIVE

AUSTRALIA

National mentoring scheme

Digital art

Research priority

GOVERNANCE

Australian republic

Bill of Rights

Overhaul of federalism

SECURITY

Pacific Partnership

Regional energy security forum

High level advisory council

I had to admit I was bitterly disappointed at the summary remarks on the Environment. Nothing new, nothing hard fetching and nothing that wasn’t going to occur already… But some of the other sessions had some strong points and many of the sessions referenced climate change and environmental issues. For a summary of the big ideas: http://www.australia2020.gov.au/report/index.cfm

What are your thoughts on the ideas (leaving behind politics)?

Energy Efficiency VS Emissions Trading

You cannot open a paper without there being a discussion on energy. How much we use, where we use it, the scarcity of it and the alternatives. Recently Earth Hour asked Australian cities and other international cites to switch off, all in the aid of promoting the awareness around energy usage and climate change. I sat on the foreshore in Sydney Harbour to watch the lights switch off and overheard many animated discussions on energy (including whether Earth Hour was a gimmick – thoughts?) but the one thing that struck me was that even mums and dads had an opinion on energy. 

An emissions trading scheme is being set with implementation in 2010 and discussion is already occurring around an energy efficiency trading scheme (similar to GGAS in NSW).

Then there are the alternatives – renewable energy and then there was nuclear…!

Any thoughts on which is better?

Communications link

In 2007, 95% of all emails sent were spam and of the remaining, 50% were unnecessary.

I now dread the idea of going away for a week without email access. The terror of seeing several hundred emails on my return is too much. So what are the main cloggers in my inbox:

1. Your      faithful colleague that cc’s everyone in to say “thanks”.
2. ‘All      staff’ emails about the state of the fridge
3. eNews      from a myriad of companies
4. Invitations      to conferences unrelated to your field
5. Death/friendship      chain letters
6. Emails      from Facebook letting you know someone posted on your funwall
7. Those      FYI’s with no explanation except a link.

I find myself annoyed at the work colleague sitting 8m away who sends you emails like “have you completed the report?” Is it that hard to walk over, say hello and make the request? Has the personal touch gone?

And then there is email etiquette….

Is email the new sms? Can you be forgiven for lack of grammar and spelling mistakes? And how should you start an email?