THE University of Canberra has become the first Australian campus to ban the sale of bottled water, setting what environmentalists hope will prove a template for the rest of the country.
If successful in encouraging students to refill bottles, the ban is estimated to reduce water bottle sales by 140,000 a year.
Bottled water will be replaced in campus cafes and shops by water vending machines that refill a 600 millilitre container with chilled water for $1 or sparkling water for $1.50 - cheaper than a sealed bottle.
Advertisement: Story continues below Refillable plastic and aluminium bottles will be sold on campus. Backed by funding from the ACT government, the university has also installed six water bubbler and bottle refill stations on the campus.
Jon Dee, from the activist group Do Something!, helped organise the ban after a student campaign. He said it would save people money and help the environment.
''This sets a model that other universities can follow - we're talking to several universities that have expressed interest,'' he said.
A survey two years ago by the Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association estimated that more than half the plastic bottles sold in Australia ended up in landfill.
Mr Dee said government statistics suggested more than 105 million litres of oil were used to produce the bottled water sold in Australia each year. This translated to 126,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year.
Bundanoon, a southern NSW town with a population of 2000, banned water bottle sales in 2009.
The University of Canberra vice-chancellor, Stephen Parker, said the ban was part of a push to make the campus sustainable. ''We have plentiful supplies of fresh, healthy, free drinking water on campus. There is no need for our students or staff to buy bottled water.''
SMH
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Gadget charger harnesses walking power
Gadget charger harnesses walking power
January 6, 2011 - 9:11AM
This device uses kinetic energy to charge your gadgets.
A US company has come up with a baton-shaped device that charges gadgets using power generated by walking, hiking or running.
Tremont Electric was in Las Vegas for the Consumer Electronics Show, where it will tout the nPower PEG (personal energy generator) as ideally suited for today's gizmo-dependent lifestyles.
"It's for any outdoors enthusiast who is deep in the woods and doesn't have access to a power outlet or for a commuter who constantly needs backup battery power," said Jessica Davis of Tremont.
"You could use this for an emergency situation or just for your commute."
PEG batons measure nine inches (23 centimetres) and weigh 11 ounces (312 grams). Electricity is generated when floating magnets slide through coils, according to Davis.
The batons can be put in a backpack, brief case, or runner's pouch where they synch to up-and-down motion to generate power.
"It tunes to optimise the amount of power being produced," Davis said.
PEG works with more than 3000 handheld devices that are USB 2.0 compatible.
The Ohio-based company began selling the U$S160 "kinetic" chargers in September and has been scrambling to catch up to demand.
http://www.npowerpeg.com/
AFP
Monday, December 20, 2010
Aussies do their bit as solar panel use surges
Aussies do their bit as solar panel use surges
Australians have installed more than 100,000 rooftop solar panels this year, more than in the entire previous decade, new data shows.
The clean energy sector says it shows Australians are keen to do their bit in the battle against climate change.
A report by Clean Energy Australia, released by the peak industry body today, provides a snapshot into just how Australia uses renewable energy.
It showed there were 105,520 solar power systems installed in Australia in the 10 months from January to October 2010, more than the 81,232 installed from 2001 to 2009.
The council's chief executive Matthew Warren said it made solar power technology the "Hills Hoist of the 21st century".
"Over the past year, more than 100,000 households have made a significant personal investment to take individual action on climate change," he said in a statement.
It was also a sign Australians were bracing themselves against hikes in electricity prices, Mr Warren said.
Electricity costs are slated to rise by up to two-thirds in NSW and Queensland by 2015 to meet increasing energy demands, with at least $100 billion needed to upgrade aging infrastructure.
Mr Warren said investments in clean energy would be much cheaper.
The report forecasts that the government's 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target (RET) will dramatically boost the sector, with more than 55,000 jobs to be created by 2020, mostly wind and solar.
That's up from the 8085 that presently exist.
Mr Warren said policy uncertainty surrounding climate change and renewables had slowed investment in large-scale clean energy projects, which recorded just modest growth.
Seventeen major projects were recorded to October this year, although another 11 are under way.
Overall, 8.67 per cent of Australia's electricity was provided by renewable sources in 2010, creating 21,751 gigawatt hours, with the remainder coming from fossil fuels.
SMH 21.12.10
Australians have installed more than 100,000 rooftop solar panels this year, more than in the entire previous decade, new data shows.
The clean energy sector says it shows Australians are keen to do their bit in the battle against climate change.
A report by Clean Energy Australia, released by the peak industry body today, provides a snapshot into just how Australia uses renewable energy.
It showed there were 105,520 solar power systems installed in Australia in the 10 months from January to October 2010, more than the 81,232 installed from 2001 to 2009.
The council's chief executive Matthew Warren said it made solar power technology the "Hills Hoist of the 21st century".
"Over the past year, more than 100,000 households have made a significant personal investment to take individual action on climate change," he said in a statement.
It was also a sign Australians were bracing themselves against hikes in electricity prices, Mr Warren said.
Electricity costs are slated to rise by up to two-thirds in NSW and Queensland by 2015 to meet increasing energy demands, with at least $100 billion needed to upgrade aging infrastructure.
Mr Warren said investments in clean energy would be much cheaper.
The report forecasts that the government's 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target (RET) will dramatically boost the sector, with more than 55,000 jobs to be created by 2020, mostly wind and solar.
That's up from the 8085 that presently exist.
Mr Warren said policy uncertainty surrounding climate change and renewables had slowed investment in large-scale clean energy projects, which recorded just modest growth.
Seventeen major projects were recorded to October this year, although another 11 are under way.
Overall, 8.67 per cent of Australia's electricity was provided by renewable sources in 2010, creating 21,751 gigawatt hours, with the remainder coming from fossil fuels.
SMH 21.12.10
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Plastic bags could be going...
Plastic out, biodegradable bags in to reduce landfill
Days numbered . . . plan to ban supermarket bags. Photo: Jon Reid
THE state government plans to introduce biodegradable bags to supermarket checkouts and open more waste collection centres to reduce landfill.
They are part of a draft waste avoidance plan to be released today by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water. It encourages businesses to recycle more and invest in waste infrastructure.
If the draft is adopted, compostable bags would be trialled in several supermarkets to gauge public acceptance.
Food scraps wrapped in compostable bags would be mixed with garden refuse and councils would be encouraged to combine collections for the two.
''By separating food scraps for compost we can greatly reduce the amount of waste that goes to landfill,'' the Environment Minister, Frank Sartor, said.
Plans for a national ban on plastic bags were scrapped in 2008.
South Australia, the ACT and the Northern Territory have since banned them and Tasmania is expected to legislate next year.
The national technical manager of the recycling company Remondis, Mohan Selvaraj, said it was sensible to run a pilot program because compostable bags had variable success overseas and their strength is questioned.
Mr Sartor said a ban on plastic bags was likely once compostable bags were accepted.
The government will also increase the number of council waste collection centres for difficult items such as gas bottles, car batteries or paint. Talks to oblige manufacturers of problem wastes to help recycle products have become bogged down.
A scheme for electronic waste such as televisions and computers will start next year but there is argument over the cost and impact of so-called extended producer responsibility for other wastes. If there is no progress at a national level by 2013, NSW will introduce its own measures.
There will also be clearer land-use planning guidelines under the action plan in an attempt to attract more investment in recycling facilities.
The manager of sustainability at Veolia Environmental Services, Peter Shmigel, called on the government to follow Victoria and provide infrastructure subsidies. NSW collects more than $300 million a year in landfill levies but reinvests little in recycling, he said.
The action plan is designed to push NSW closer to its goal of recycling about two-thirds of waste by 2014. In 2008-09 the state recycled 59 per cent of the waste generated.
Consultation on the draft plan runs until February, when Mr Sartor will finalise the plan.
Aaron Cook
December 20, 2010 (SMH)
Days numbered . . . plan to ban supermarket bags. Photo: Jon Reid
THE state government plans to introduce biodegradable bags to supermarket checkouts and open more waste collection centres to reduce landfill.
They are part of a draft waste avoidance plan to be released today by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water. It encourages businesses to recycle more and invest in waste infrastructure.
If the draft is adopted, compostable bags would be trialled in several supermarkets to gauge public acceptance.
Food scraps wrapped in compostable bags would be mixed with garden refuse and councils would be encouraged to combine collections for the two.
''By separating food scraps for compost we can greatly reduce the amount of waste that goes to landfill,'' the Environment Minister, Frank Sartor, said.
Plans for a national ban on plastic bags were scrapped in 2008.
South Australia, the ACT and the Northern Territory have since banned them and Tasmania is expected to legislate next year.
The national technical manager of the recycling company Remondis, Mohan Selvaraj, said it was sensible to run a pilot program because compostable bags had variable success overseas and their strength is questioned.
Mr Sartor said a ban on plastic bags was likely once compostable bags were accepted.
The government will also increase the number of council waste collection centres for difficult items such as gas bottles, car batteries or paint. Talks to oblige manufacturers of problem wastes to help recycle products have become bogged down.
A scheme for electronic waste such as televisions and computers will start next year but there is argument over the cost and impact of so-called extended producer responsibility for other wastes. If there is no progress at a national level by 2013, NSW will introduce its own measures.
There will also be clearer land-use planning guidelines under the action plan in an attempt to attract more investment in recycling facilities.
The manager of sustainability at Veolia Environmental Services, Peter Shmigel, called on the government to follow Victoria and provide infrastructure subsidies. NSW collects more than $300 million a year in landfill levies but reinvests little in recycling, he said.
The action plan is designed to push NSW closer to its goal of recycling about two-thirds of waste by 2014. In 2008-09 the state recycled 59 per cent of the waste generated.
Consultation on the draft plan runs until February, when Mr Sartor will finalise the plan.
Aaron Cook
December 20, 2010 (SMH)
Monday, December 6, 2010
Doing nothing on climate is a fool's wager
Doing nothing on climate is a fool's wager
Barry Jones (SMH)
December 7, 2010
With nothing to lose and much to gain, action is in the national interest.
Climate change as a political issue has probably had a greater effect in Australia than any other nation. In 2007, when Kevin Rudd campaigned on climate change as ''the greatest moral issue of our time'', it was a major factor in defeating the Howard government and sweeping the ALP into office.
Last December, the Copenhagen climate change conference failed to secure international agreement for binding targets for greenhouse gas reductions and was beset by controversy about the validity of projections by climatologists.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Australia retreated from its aspiration to be seen as an international leader and exemplary model in setting greenhouse goals, and Labor made the inexplicable blunder of failing to involve the community in education and advocacy, despite opinion polls indicating that more than 60 per cent of voters favoured setting a carbon price and acting decisively on climate change.
In the 2010 federal election, climate change was barely mentioned as an issue and Prime Minister Julia Gillard's proposal to establish a ''citizens' assembly'' of 150 to promote public engagement in climate change attracted much derision.
Climate change was central in reducing Labor's primary vote to 38 per cent, increasing the Greens vote to 11.7 per cent, and may have contributed to the high informal vote.
Labor's vote fell sharply in the mining states of Queensland and Western Australia, increased in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. The ALP maintained a majority of seats in New South Wales despite growing distaste for the state Labor government.
Australia refuses to face a ''post-carbon'' future. The moral implications have been marginalised. National Times columnist Elizabeth Farrelly's coinages ''climate morality'' and ''carbon ethics'' are timely and appropriate, but they are not in the political lexicon.
After the 2010 election produced a hung parliament, Gillard negotiated a deal with the Greens and independents that put climate change back on the agenda. The concept of Australia ''going it alone'' to set a moral example and secure a stronger bargaining position in international negotiations had become a sour joke. We were trailing far behind.
Despite Barack Obama's problems with his Senate, he grasped the issues and some states, notably California, had taken leadership roles. China, potentially facing the greatest risk from climate change of any major state, seemed to be taking practical action. Britain and New Zealand have both adopted carbon prices.
In Australia, the opposition is strongly opposed to setting a carbon price and the Gillard government is hesitant. It is probably too late for Australia to act unilaterally - and courageously - on greenhouse targets. We may be able to regain some moral authority if we propose higher targets, developing new scientific programs for alternatives to fossil fuels and work constructively with the US, European Union, China, India and Indonesia.
I have proposed my own variant of ''Pascal's wager'' to examine the options for climate change:
■ If we take action on climate change and disaster is averted, there will be massive avoidance of human suffering.
■ If we take action and the climate change problem abates for other reasons, little is lost and we benefit from a cleaner environment.
■ If we fail to act and disaster results, then massive suffering will have been aggravated by stupidity.
■ If we do not take action and there is no disaster, the outcome will be due to luck alone, like an idiot winning the lottery.
Failure to act appears to favour the present but it certainly prejudices the future. As the French diplomat Talleyrand acutely observed 200 years ago, ''Not to choose is to choose''.
Political failure on climate change in Australia has had three direct consequences: inaction on the issue, political mayhem, and the sacrifice of international influence.
Crisis-driven policy is a consequence of inaction, which in turn heightens the risk both of environmental disaster and political upheaval. Public involvement in the climate change debate is critical and must be genuine. But there are limits to consensus and, ultimately, decisions will need to be made based on what needs to be done. Leadership matters and political will is required if outcomes are to be changed.
The electorate appears to want, or is at least prepared to tolerate, action even if tough. Policy and the debate that surrounds policy development needs to be informed and critical: opinion must be distinguished from fact, arguments must be supported, and not all opinions carry equal weight in the absence of such support.
A solution will need to be found to the ''two cultures'' approach that separates scientists and economists: the environment and the economy are interdependent. Ultimately, Australia can and should choose to set a moral example and work towards a new economic base. Moreover, as the new version of Pascal's wager suggests, action is the low-risk road with the prospect of highest reward. It is in the national interest to take it.
Professor Barry Jones is a writer, broadcaster and former federal Labor politician. He is currently a professorial fellow at the University of Melbourne. This is an edited version of an essay commissioned by the Whitlam Institute within the University of Western Sydney that will be launched today.
Barry Jones (SMH)
December 7, 2010
With nothing to lose and much to gain, action is in the national interest.
Climate change as a political issue has probably had a greater effect in Australia than any other nation. In 2007, when Kevin Rudd campaigned on climate change as ''the greatest moral issue of our time'', it was a major factor in defeating the Howard government and sweeping the ALP into office.
Last December, the Copenhagen climate change conference failed to secure international agreement for binding targets for greenhouse gas reductions and was beset by controversy about the validity of projections by climatologists.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Australia retreated from its aspiration to be seen as an international leader and exemplary model in setting greenhouse goals, and Labor made the inexplicable blunder of failing to involve the community in education and advocacy, despite opinion polls indicating that more than 60 per cent of voters favoured setting a carbon price and acting decisively on climate change.
In the 2010 federal election, climate change was barely mentioned as an issue and Prime Minister Julia Gillard's proposal to establish a ''citizens' assembly'' of 150 to promote public engagement in climate change attracted much derision.
Climate change was central in reducing Labor's primary vote to 38 per cent, increasing the Greens vote to 11.7 per cent, and may have contributed to the high informal vote.
Labor's vote fell sharply in the mining states of Queensland and Western Australia, increased in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. The ALP maintained a majority of seats in New South Wales despite growing distaste for the state Labor government.
Australia refuses to face a ''post-carbon'' future. The moral implications have been marginalised. National Times columnist Elizabeth Farrelly's coinages ''climate morality'' and ''carbon ethics'' are timely and appropriate, but they are not in the political lexicon.
After the 2010 election produced a hung parliament, Gillard negotiated a deal with the Greens and independents that put climate change back on the agenda. The concept of Australia ''going it alone'' to set a moral example and secure a stronger bargaining position in international negotiations had become a sour joke. We were trailing far behind.
Despite Barack Obama's problems with his Senate, he grasped the issues and some states, notably California, had taken leadership roles. China, potentially facing the greatest risk from climate change of any major state, seemed to be taking practical action. Britain and New Zealand have both adopted carbon prices.
In Australia, the opposition is strongly opposed to setting a carbon price and the Gillard government is hesitant. It is probably too late for Australia to act unilaterally - and courageously - on greenhouse targets. We may be able to regain some moral authority if we propose higher targets, developing new scientific programs for alternatives to fossil fuels and work constructively with the US, European Union, China, India and Indonesia.
I have proposed my own variant of ''Pascal's wager'' to examine the options for climate change:
■ If we take action on climate change and disaster is averted, there will be massive avoidance of human suffering.
■ If we take action and the climate change problem abates for other reasons, little is lost and we benefit from a cleaner environment.
■ If we fail to act and disaster results, then massive suffering will have been aggravated by stupidity.
■ If we do not take action and there is no disaster, the outcome will be due to luck alone, like an idiot winning the lottery.
Failure to act appears to favour the present but it certainly prejudices the future. As the French diplomat Talleyrand acutely observed 200 years ago, ''Not to choose is to choose''.
Political failure on climate change in Australia has had three direct consequences: inaction on the issue, political mayhem, and the sacrifice of international influence.
Crisis-driven policy is a consequence of inaction, which in turn heightens the risk both of environmental disaster and political upheaval. Public involvement in the climate change debate is critical and must be genuine. But there are limits to consensus and, ultimately, decisions will need to be made based on what needs to be done. Leadership matters and political will is required if outcomes are to be changed.
The electorate appears to want, or is at least prepared to tolerate, action even if tough. Policy and the debate that surrounds policy development needs to be informed and critical: opinion must be distinguished from fact, arguments must be supported, and not all opinions carry equal weight in the absence of such support.
A solution will need to be found to the ''two cultures'' approach that separates scientists and economists: the environment and the economy are interdependent. Ultimately, Australia can and should choose to set a moral example and work towards a new economic base. Moreover, as the new version of Pascal's wager suggests, action is the low-risk road with the prospect of highest reward. It is in the national interest to take it.
Professor Barry Jones is a writer, broadcaster and former federal Labor politician. He is currently a professorial fellow at the University of Melbourne. This is an edited version of an essay commissioned by the Whitlam Institute within the University of Western Sydney that will be launched today.
Friday, November 26, 2010
New Ausiie $10k Electric car from 2102
An Australian-designed designed electric car to be built in China plans to take on the world with a sub-$10,000 price, an iPad like dash capable of downloading apps and the promise of never needing fuel.
Set to debut at July's Melbourne motor show, the Noddy-like EDay hatch will initially arrive next year as 100 lease vehicles before going on sale in 2012 from $9990 (plus on-road costs), undercutting petrol powered competitors by thousands and about 14 per cent of the price of the only mass produced electric car on sale today, Mitsubishi's i-MiEV.
Able to travel up to 160km between charges, it has a top speed of just 80km/h and a weight of 450kg it will be the slowest and lightest new car on the market - and the cheapest, something sure to cement its appeal in a segment where shaving a few hundred dollars can boost sales.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The top secret project is being run by EDay Life, a small Australian company run by former Holden director of innovation and advanced engineering Laurie Sparke and car dealer Robert Lane. The pair have formed a team of 20 designers and engineers and are finalising plans to sell the cars in countries as diverse as Malaysia, Hong Kong, UK and France.
"What we're bringing ... is Australian innovative technology," says Sparke of the ambitious start-up project. "We are going to develop the new-generation of electric car."
While the prospect of a start-up taking on the established car makers may seem laughable, Sparke says the size, flexibility and clean-sheet approach brings advantages.
Just as fledgling brand Tesla prompted others to take notice - Toyota has since signed an agreement with the Californian electric car specialist - he predicts a rise of next-generation vehicle manufacturers driven from the IT industry, pointing to the Dell computers business model of lean manufacturing.
"If you look at who is driving [the technology behind] electric cars, they're not from the auto industry," says Sparke. "It's the new technology that is coming, and the global [automotive] manufacturers can't respond."
Sparke says a ground-up design allows engineering flexibility while Australian ingenuity - often leveraged by US giants Ford and General Motors with their local operations - and EDay's miniscule size gives it an advantage over established players.
"Currently an electric car is simply the smallest car in a global manufacturer's range. It's had the engine pulled out and an electric motor put in - that's a very compromised solution. An electric car needs to be different in a whole range of ways and we'll develop those in Australia.
The EDay will also get a touchscreen display to control major functions and the ability to download apps that could include everything from basic vehicle data to vehicle-to-home communication
Sparke believes the world will be accepting of an affordable electric car. Already there are various Australian fledgling operations converting conventional hatchbacks into electric vehicles, but the EDay promises to be by far the most affordable.
"Our global advantage is we'll be able to do that in a time frame of three to six months with smart solutions that aren't locked up in the way cars are always being done," he says. "And we'll have globally competitive vehicles."
However, he concedes manufacturing a budget electric car in Australia doesn't make sense, prompting the move to utilise the low manufacturing costs of China, which is fast becoming a global automotive powerhouse. With production set for a Shanghai plant with capacity of 50,000 (and potential for 100,000) EDay plans to sell the cars around the world.
"What we've been very skilled at in Australia the last 20 years is smart engineering. We [Australia] can't manufacture as cheap as China, but we can design, develop, test and certify and that's the automotive business that Australia can do, a world-competitive business."
Sparke admits the EDay is a specific vehicle that will sell largely on price and its zero emissions promise.
"We're starting with a car that's fairly mundane," he admits. "But we'll satisfy the market needs because people are eager to have an electric car and its looks are a secondary consideration.
Sparke, who was instrumental in introducing life saving safety features into the Holden Commodore is aware of the mountainous road ahead in a world where profits have slimmed and major brands been forced to change the way they do business.
"Today's challenge is to establish ourselves in the market as a credible supplier of electric vehicles," he says. "To ensure we don't compromise that credibility, we've gone to a lot of effort to monitor this fleet so we don't trip over when we go into a larger volume of production.
"We'll utilise Australian technology and suppliers to do the prototype and testing here. And when we've got a proven solution, we'll send that to our manufacturers in China and they'll produce it."
Set to debut at July's Melbourne motor show, the Noddy-like EDay hatch will initially arrive next year as 100 lease vehicles before going on sale in 2012 from $9990 (plus on-road costs), undercutting petrol powered competitors by thousands and about 14 per cent of the price of the only mass produced electric car on sale today, Mitsubishi's i-MiEV.
Able to travel up to 160km between charges, it has a top speed of just 80km/h and a weight of 450kg it will be the slowest and lightest new car on the market - and the cheapest, something sure to cement its appeal in a segment where shaving a few hundred dollars can boost sales.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The top secret project is being run by EDay Life, a small Australian company run by former Holden director of innovation and advanced engineering Laurie Sparke and car dealer Robert Lane. The pair have formed a team of 20 designers and engineers and are finalising plans to sell the cars in countries as diverse as Malaysia, Hong Kong, UK and France.
"What we're bringing ... is Australian innovative technology," says Sparke of the ambitious start-up project. "We are going to develop the new-generation of electric car."
While the prospect of a start-up taking on the established car makers may seem laughable, Sparke says the size, flexibility and clean-sheet approach brings advantages.
Just as fledgling brand Tesla prompted others to take notice - Toyota has since signed an agreement with the Californian electric car specialist - he predicts a rise of next-generation vehicle manufacturers driven from the IT industry, pointing to the Dell computers business model of lean manufacturing.
"If you look at who is driving [the technology behind] electric cars, they're not from the auto industry," says Sparke. "It's the new technology that is coming, and the global [automotive] manufacturers can't respond."
Sparke says a ground-up design allows engineering flexibility while Australian ingenuity - often leveraged by US giants Ford and General Motors with their local operations - and EDay's miniscule size gives it an advantage over established players.
"Currently an electric car is simply the smallest car in a global manufacturer's range. It's had the engine pulled out and an electric motor put in - that's a very compromised solution. An electric car needs to be different in a whole range of ways and we'll develop those in Australia.
The EDay will also get a touchscreen display to control major functions and the ability to download apps that could include everything from basic vehicle data to vehicle-to-home communication
Sparke believes the world will be accepting of an affordable electric car. Already there are various Australian fledgling operations converting conventional hatchbacks into electric vehicles, but the EDay promises to be by far the most affordable.
"Our global advantage is we'll be able to do that in a time frame of three to six months with smart solutions that aren't locked up in the way cars are always being done," he says. "And we'll have globally competitive vehicles."
However, he concedes manufacturing a budget electric car in Australia doesn't make sense, prompting the move to utilise the low manufacturing costs of China, which is fast becoming a global automotive powerhouse. With production set for a Shanghai plant with capacity of 50,000 (and potential for 100,000) EDay plans to sell the cars around the world.
"What we've been very skilled at in Australia the last 20 years is smart engineering. We [Australia] can't manufacture as cheap as China, but we can design, develop, test and certify and that's the automotive business that Australia can do, a world-competitive business."
Sparke admits the EDay is a specific vehicle that will sell largely on price and its zero emissions promise.
"We're starting with a car that's fairly mundane," he admits. "But we'll satisfy the market needs because people are eager to have an electric car and its looks are a secondary consideration.
Sparke, who was instrumental in introducing life saving safety features into the Holden Commodore is aware of the mountainous road ahead in a world where profits have slimmed and major brands been forced to change the way they do business.
"Today's challenge is to establish ourselves in the market as a credible supplier of electric vehicles," he says. "To ensure we don't compromise that credibility, we've gone to a lot of effort to monitor this fleet so we don't trip over when we go into a larger volume of production.
"We'll utilise Australian technology and suppliers to do the prototype and testing here. And when we've got a proven solution, we'll send that to our manufacturers in China and they'll produce it."
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Europe has banned baby bottles containing the chemical Bisphenol-A
Europe has banned baby bottles containing the chemical Bisphenol-A as of early next year over fears it may harm the health of children throughout the EU's half a billion population.
Parents across the European Union, the world's biggest open market, "can be sure that as of mid-2011 plastic infant feeding bottles will not include BPA", said John Dalli, commissioner in charge of health and consumer policy.
"This is good news for European consumers."
The ban will see the "manufacture of polycarbonate infant feeding bottles with BPA" outlawed from March 1, 2011, and from June 1, 2011, "the placing on the market and the importation into the union of these bottles will be prohibited", the commission underlined in a statement.
Dalli's spokesman Frederic Vincent told AFP that the commission successfully "tried its luck" by bringing forward a proposal originally intended for presentation in early 2011 and seek backing for a ban before a committee of national government experts already scheduled to meet on Thursday.
The decision does not require the approval of the European Parliament, which in any case called in June for such a ban.
"This is the result of months of discussion and exchange of views between the commission's services, the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), the member states and the industry," a delighted commission added.
Canada became in October the first country in the world to classify Bisphenol-A as a toxic substance despite industry opposition.
Only two EU countries, France and Denmark, had unilaterally imposed bans on baby bottles with the controversial substance. Danish authorities went a step further by extending the prohibition to all food products for children up to three years old.
Bans are already in place in Canada and a few US states. A similar voluntary move is under way in Australia.
EFSA issued in September an opinion by experts on the chemical, which said that Bisphenol-A was safe in very small quantities, but also pointed to areas of uncertainty.
"It cannot be excluded that there might be an effect on the development, immune response or tumour promotion," Dalli said in a statement on October 7.
Parents across the European Union, the world's biggest open market, "can be sure that as of mid-2011 plastic infant feeding bottles will not include BPA", said John Dalli, commissioner in charge of health and consumer policy.
"This is good news for European consumers."
The ban will see the "manufacture of polycarbonate infant feeding bottles with BPA" outlawed from March 1, 2011, and from June 1, 2011, "the placing on the market and the importation into the union of these bottles will be prohibited", the commission underlined in a statement.
Dalli's spokesman Frederic Vincent told AFP that the commission successfully "tried its luck" by bringing forward a proposal originally intended for presentation in early 2011 and seek backing for a ban before a committee of national government experts already scheduled to meet on Thursday.
The decision does not require the approval of the European Parliament, which in any case called in June for such a ban.
"This is the result of months of discussion and exchange of views between the commission's services, the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), the member states and the industry," a delighted commission added.
Canada became in October the first country in the world to classify Bisphenol-A as a toxic substance despite industry opposition.
Only two EU countries, France and Denmark, had unilaterally imposed bans on baby bottles with the controversial substance. Danish authorities went a step further by extending the prohibition to all food products for children up to three years old.
Bans are already in place in Canada and a few US states. A similar voluntary move is under way in Australia.
EFSA issued in September an opinion by experts on the chemical, which said that Bisphenol-A was safe in very small quantities, but also pointed to areas of uncertainty.
"It cannot be excluded that there might be an effect on the development, immune response or tumour promotion," Dalli said in a statement on October 7.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
