Front Page News Slider

Hub Bellarine –


HUB Bellarine …. Introduction                                                           21 December,2014

We believe people should be included in the processes and decisions that both shape and determine their present and future. Those with passion for the issues at hand should always be allowed and encouraged into the tent to have their conversations heard and respected.

As such, this brand new Website platform – – has been created to provide a readily available forum within which our community is encouraged to put forward their vision and views on topical issues.    In other words, a comprehensive, publicly available space within which which people like yourselves, living on and visiting The Bellarine region, are able to have their say.

What this Website platform is designed to achieve –

  • · Encourage and enable the community to identify and raise projects and issues for regular consultation through the process of open discussion topics .
  • · Encourage community feedback on multiple projects and issues and provide for multiple feedback options in the one online consultation.
  • · Enable an increase of the the demographic diversity of participants with an overall improved level of community participation.
  • · Encourage community feedback and create a sense of immediacy  within the limited time frame for each of the monthly consultations.
  • · Build a strong rapport between between community and Council through the capability and involvement of project team key staff and community input.

The range of issues is broad and covered under the following headings – Community Elements / Infrastructure / Projects / Localities.

Each month the key topics will be highlighted for your reference along with information and pointers as to where the past and present feedback is recorded.

This concept and strategy is vastly different to Facebook, Instagram, twitter, etc. -          you manage the consultation process, with quantifiable outcomes, rather than just a series of ongoing chats with no actionable outcomes.

It will provide capacity for specific topic based, online consultations as well as for private panel and focus group consultations.

Overall, the monthly community panel will ensure the connection is maintained and strengthened through the frequency and diversity of use – designed to build an ongoing, engaged community with ownership of and accountability for the outcomes.

The HUB Suggestions category is there for your further input on how best this valuable platform may be further structured and shaped to improve its purpose.

Start now and Register on – the Registration column to the right of the page.


East Shore Geelong project



Application for a grant of crown land MAY 2012 | version 1.0

“ Elms Partners Limited has developed what we call a “Transformational Plan” for the City of Geelong, a plan that contributes socially, economically and environmentally to the City.

In order to commence detailed analysis and planning work required to give effect to the “Transformational Plan”, the City of Greater Geelong has asked Elms Partners to assist with the preparation of this application for the grant of a small slice of Crown Land to be excised from the Eastern Gardens water front edge in Geelong. “

Lawrence Elms

Chairman and founder, Elms Partners


This rare universal support has been achieved because the basis of the Transformational Plan creates an outstanding, fully funded, community benefit that includes;

• A world-class arena with convention and exhibition facilities,

• Substantial improvements and beautification of the Eastern Gardens,

• A hotel and serviced apartments, together with the generality of the plan to underpin and support increased Geelong and regional tourism,

• A highly desirable water front lifestyle precinct, including an increased number of marina berths that capitalizes on Geelong’s northerly facing Corio Bay frontage, and

• An express water taxi service that connects Geelong to Avalon, Melbourne and Frankston.

In combination, the sum of all the component parts of the Transformational Plan contributes to the economic, environmental and social sustainability of Geelong and the Region.




The Transformational Plan has been developed with the objective of substantially contributing to Geelong’s economic prosperity and desirability through the catalyst of a comprehensive development thesis, the sum of which will transform Geelong and the wider Bellarine by including;

01:: Financial structuring, strategy and detailed analysis that integrates with the optimum master plan, and defines a complete build programme achievable at no cost to the public purse.

– A world class cultural and business landmark – the East Shore Centre to be retained as public property with an estimated net surplus in excess of $7.5 million per annum.

– Significantly enhanced public spaces including a privately owned and operated world- class hotel and serviced apartments,

– Privately owned shoreline residential apartments constructed on piers extending into the shallow water of Corio Bay

02:: Employment and flow-on business creation within the development project that ensures economically sustainable development.

03:: Differentiation of Geelong’s distinct character from Melbourne as a welcome lifestyle alternative.

04:: Iconic architecture that positions Geelong as a desirable destination in which to work|play|stay|live. G




High level analysis of the economic impact focuses on the macroeconomic, flow-on effects of introducing more income into the local economy from external sources. Internal regional cash flows into the project (endogenous) are a substitution of local spending from one locus to another.

However, increased external (exogenous) spend will add to the pool of local wealth.

The Impact of Construction

· The total project cost is currently estimated at A$725,000,000

· The estimated number of jobs created during the construction phase is 830 of which 500 are local

· The estimated number of jobs created during the operational phase is direct employment 550 and indirect employment 800

· Over the construction period of approximately four years, we estimate the direct injection of funds into the economy from external sources to be roughly A$450,000,000.

· The estimated annual economic impact during the operational phase is $86,600,000


We intend to uncover the value inherent in the site to attract private investment on a scale that will pay for the entire development including the landmark East Shore Centre.

The East Shore Centre and all of its economic and social benefits will be a gift to the people of Geelong, and in addition they will have access to an exciting and vital new hub for the city.

Our plan includes landscaping the shoreline park areas, and providing a promenade that houses vibrant cafes, bars, and restaurants. This too will become a major asset to the city at no cost to the ratepayer.


01:: Transformation of the waterfront adding a vibrant new dimension to the city’s character.

– State of the art infrastructure with an emphasis on a waterfront lifestyle and leisure precinct to match the best in the world.

– Public parks devised around the principals of genius loci, including public space features, sculptures and art.

02:: An iconic venue to host entertainment, business and education events.

03:: A “zero” cost to government on the basis of our plan and yet it is a major economic stimulus and jobs creator.

04:: An increased sense of city pride.



01:: Contemporary landmarks and World-Class Hotel

02:: Positive change in perceptions of Geelong

03:: Greater visibility of investment opportunities in Geelong

04:: More reasons to visit and stay in Geelong

05:: A greater experience in Geelong



01: The transformation of Crown Land achieving the required development approvals based on a coherent master plan creates land value conservatively estimated at $120,000,000 and as high as $140,000,000.

02:: We propose the realized value of the master planned buildable area will be invested in the necessary infrastructure, public place making, recreational facilities and the capital costs of The East Shore Event Centre.

03:: The East Shore Centre managed and operated efficiently will deliver an ongoing positive cash flow to the City. The significant residential and commercial components will also increase rate revenues to the City, however this plan does not assume or rely on any net increase in rate revenues.

Further development potential outside the water front precinct envisaged by the Transformational Plan could also be realised through capital raising financed by cash flow from the East Shore Centre.



Positioning Geelong as a waterfront lifestyle destination and events centre gives definable purpose to the downstream master plan ideas we have generated.

Elms Partners objectives are based on some key principals;

01:: Activating the Geelong waterfront to create an unmatched, purpose designed, culture and lifestyle precinct in Australia.

02:: Giving emphasis to the parkland by activating its edge and definition.

03:: Creating a place making architectural statement for the East Shore Events Centre.

04:: Aid the City’s efforts in attracting inward investment and further development.

05:: Creating a boulevard, anchored by the East Shore Events Centre and creating a vibrant retail and entertainment strip.



Climate change and health: IPCC reports emerging risks, emerging consensus

31 March 2014, 6.47am AEST


Anthony McMichael / Emeritus Professor, National Centre for Epidemiology & Population Health at Australian National University

Colin Butler / Professor at University of Canberra

Helen Louise Berry / Professor and Associate Dean Research at University of Canberra


Anthony McMichael receives funding from The National Health and Medical Research Council. He is affiliated with The Climate Institute.

Colin Butler receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is co-director of the NGO Benevolent Organisation for Development, Health and Insight.

Helen Louise Berry receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Research Council. She is a member of the Australian Labor Party.

Reproduced from :


The largest impacts will occur in poorer and vulnerable populations. ‘Collecting water’ by UNAMID,CC BY-NC-ND

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Impacts volume of the Fifth Assessment Report will be released today. Here, three contributors to the health chapter explain the ideas and evidence behind the report.

The consequences of human-driven global climate change as this century progresses will be wide-ranging. Yet public discussion has focused narrowly on a largely spurious debate about the basic science and on the risks to property, iconic species and ecosystems, jobs, the GDP and the economics of taking action versus taking our chances.

Missing from the discussion is the threat climate change poses to Earth’s life-support system – from declines in regional food yields, freshwater shortage, damage to settlements from extreme weather events and loss of habitable, especially coastal, land. The list goes on: changes in infectious disease patterns and the mental health consequences of trauma, loss, displacement and resource conflict.

In short, human-driven climate change poses a great threat, unprecedented in type and scale, to well-being, health and perhaps even to human survival.


Extreme weather events have contributed to a rise in global food prices. ‘Palm Trees, Wind and Ocean’ by Brooke/Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA

The human health chapter in the second (“Impacts”) volume of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Reportconcludes that the scientific evidence of many current and future risks to health has strengthened in recent years. The chapter, as in all IPCC reports, reviews all existing scientific evidence and is subject to external peer-review.

During at least the next few decades, the chapter states, climate change will mainly affect human health, disease and death by exacerbating pre-existing health problems. The largest impacts will occur in poorer and vulnerable populations and communities where climate-sensitive illnesses such as under-nutrition and diarrhoeal disease are already high – thus widening further the world’s health disparities.

Currently, the worldwide burden of ill-health clearly attributable to climate change is relatively small compared with other major blights on health such as from poverty, poor sanitation and exposure to tobacco.

Even so, in this early stage of human-driven climate change researchers in many countries have reported that rising temperatures and changing rainfall patterns have, variously, increased heat-related illnesses and deaths, altered the distribution of some water-borne infectious diseases and the insect transmitters (vectors) of some diseases (such as malaria), and have reduced food yields in some already food-insecure populations.

Less certainly, extreme weather events, influenced in part by climate change, are likely to have contributed to the recent rise in global food prices.


Climate change may render some regions uninhabitable. Shutterstock

The chapter discusses three impact categories in particular:

· under-nutrition and impaired child development due to reduced food yields

· injuries, hospitalisations and deaths due to intense heat waves, fires and other weather disasters and

· shifts in the seasonal duration and spatial range of infectious diseases.

There is also mounting evidence of the adverse health consequences of workplace exposure to heat extremes, including reduced work capacity and productivity.

Looking ahead to 2100, for which some modelled scenarios now project an average global warming of 4 degrees Celsius, the report foresees that in such conditions people won’t be able to cope, let alone work productively, in the hottest parts of the year. And that’s assuming social and economic institutions and processes are still intact. Some regions may become uninhabitable.

Impacts on mental health could be similarly extreme, further limiting our collective capacity to cope, recover and adapt.

Overall, while limited health gains from climate change may occur in some regions, the health chapter concludes from the evidence that harmful impacts will greatly outweigh benefits. The impacts of climate change will also undermine hard-won gains achieved through social development programs, impeding progress in the world’s poorest countries.

The world community has dithered for two decades over climate change since it rose to prominence during the 1992 Earth Summit. As valuable time to reduce the risks (mitigation) has been squandered, the need to also focus on managing risk (adaptation) has increased. But excessive reliance on adaptation carries its own risks – including fooling ourselves that we don’t need immediate and aggressive mitigation.

The health chapter concludes that the most immediate effective way to manage health risks is through programs that introduce or improve basic public health measures. It also notes the need to boost human rights-based access to family planning.

As climate change proceeds, additional climate-specific measures (such as enhanced surveillance, early warning systems and climate-proofed building design) will be needed to protect population health, even in high-income settings. Recent extreme events such as the severe heat waves and fires in Australia in 2009-2014 and in Russia in 2010 underscore this need.

The chapter offers some cheer in stressing that the near-term and relatively localised health “co-benefits” from reducing greenhouse emissions (mitigation) could be very large. Reducing emissions of methane and black carbon, for example, may avoid more than two million deaths per year.

Other mitigation actions likely to improve physical health, social connectedness and mental health include:

· encouraging communities to be more active via improved public transport and reduced car reliance

· reducing exposures to temperature extremes with well-insulated energy-efficient housing and

· promoting healthier diets through the transformation of food production and processing systems.

In economic terms, the IPCC chapter judges that the health co-benefits from reducing emissions would be extremely cost-beneficial. They would, for example, be one thousand times greater than the economic co-benefits to agricultural yields from reduced exposures to short-lived, crop-damaging, airborne climate pollutants.

Overall, the up-front costs of reducing emissions could be substantially offset by early and extremely large health (and other) benefits.

Of course, none of this matters if human well-being, health and survival mean little to us. In that case we can emit all we like, then suffer, dwindle or even die out as a species and leave this planet to recover and thrive without us. One way or another we will then emit less.

We have a closing window of time in which to do something about global climate change.

The trouble with offsets – delusional at best.

Reproduced in full with the gracious permission of Background Briefing:

Sunday 16 March 2014 8:05AM



Environmental offsets are supposed to compensate for ecosystems and biodiversity that are bulldozed to make way for development. But there’s mounting evidence the policy is being subverted, as governments approve controversial offsets across Australia. Di Martin investigates.

A Senate inquiry has just been launched into claims a key environmental policy, offsetting, is falling over.

Under offsetting, developers have to compensate for what they’re bulldozing. They need to protect other properties that contain the same sort of vegetation and habitat as what’s being cleared.

To me it is akin to some guy going into that art gallery and pointing at the Mona Lisa on the wall and ‘saying sorry mate we need that bit … so the Mona Lisa has to go. But we will paint you another one’.


The promise of offsetting is that development can happen and biodiversity will be no worse off.

However offsets have always been controversial and an increasing number of scientists, ecologists and conservationists say there are many loopholes and the policy is being manipulated by governments who won’t say no to developers.

Federal Greens Senator Larissa Waters pushed for the Senate inquiry, listing five developments for investigation.

They include the Abbot Point Coal Terminal and Waratah Coal’s Galilee Coal Project in Queensland, the Jandakot Airport in Perth, and the Maules Creek coal mine in northern NSW.

Clearing has already begun on the Maules Creek mine site, destroying critically endangered white box gum grassy woodland which is down to 0.1 per cent of its original range.

The mining company, Whitehaven Coal, says it’s protecting large areas of critically endangered box gum woodland on its offset properties.

This article represents part of a larger Background Briefing investigation. Listen to Di Martin’s full report on Sunday at 8.05 am or use the podcast links above after broadcast.

But local ecologist Phil Spark says Whitehaven’s claims are wrong. He took Background Briefing to the two largest offset properties in an area marked as white box grassy woodland.

‘We are looking around us and we see the dominance of stringy bark, probably 80 per cent stringybark. And it’s not white box at all,’ Mr Spark said.

There are now four local ecologists who’ve looked at Whitehaven Coal’s offsets and found serious problems.

Dr John Hunter is a botanist who specialises in critically endangered communities and has helped develop offset plans for other mines. He has prepared a preliminary report on 1600 hectares of Whitehaven’s offsets, and says that 95 per cent of their mapping is wrong.

‘I think there’s at maximum, five per cent of what they are saying is box gum woodland there,’ he said. ‘All of the dominance that we found there, are actually trees that they haven’t listed as occurring.’

Instead, the dominant trees that Hunter found were stringybark, New England blackbutt, orange gum and Bendemeer white gum, which weren’t represented in the mapping.

‘The maps are patently wrong. They are just completely wrong,’ he said.

Another local ecologist, Wendy Hawes, sat on an expert panel that wrote the condition criteria used to identify box gum grassy woodlands. She has looked at four areas mapped as box gum grassy woodland, and found hardly any at all.

‘It is not the community they claim it is,’ she said. ‘There are within their offset areas … small patches that could potentially meet the [criteria], but they are very small areas, so they are a couple of hectares. Nothing like the hectarage they are claiming.’

‘So the majority of the stuff that they are protecting its stringy bark communities. Not white box,’ Hawes said.

Neither the state nor the federal government did on the ground surveys of the offset sites before approving the Maules Creek mine.

Whitehaven Coal’s CEO Paul Flynn was not available for interview, but the company said in a statement that it is committed to meeting its offset obligations. It also claimed that reports critical of its offsets are incomplete and deliberately distorted, and the company is protecting an area far larger than what is being cleared on the mine site.

The dissenting ecologists agree that Whitehaven’s offset area is larger, but maintain the vegetation it contains is not the same as what is being bulldozed.

When the Maules Creek mine was approved, Whitehaven Coal was required to complete an independent review of the offset sites. That report has been handed to the Federal government, but has not been released.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt declined to be interviewed, but issued a statement saying he’s aware of the issue, and his department is now considering the independent review.

The department recently told a Senate estimates hearing that it’s investigating what it calls a criminal matter regarding the Maules Creek offsets. It is a crime to be reckless or negligent in providing false or misleading information about offsets.

The Environment Department said it could be some months before its investigation is complete.

The ANU’s Phil Gibbons, who helped develop offset policy for the federal and NSW governments, says the theory behind offsetting is very attractive.

‘A fair-minded person would agree that if a developer destroys some of Australia’s natural capital in making a buck, then they should really offset that impact elsewhere,’ he said.

‘But the devil is in the detail.’

Gibbons said he sees an increasing number of examples where governments are cutting corners. Some offsets are not like for like and others are not being properly managed or restored. Some sites have been approved that weren’t in danger of being cleared or lost in the future.

‘Anything that you do in terms of an offset must be a genuine gain, must be something that would not have happened anyway as under business as usual,’ Gibbons said.

‘I think what people are doing is getting very creative in finding biodiversity gains when really they are things that would have happened anyway.’

With less and less good quality bush to be found, developers are putting up old cattle paddocks and mine sites as offsets, land which they say will be restored to its original state.

However, according to restoration ecologist Professor Richard Hobbs, those sites can take decades to develop, and there’s no guarantee they will be the same as what was cleared.

He scoffed at the idea that Australia’s biodiversity will be no worse off under offsetting, and called the practice ‘a Faustian pact’.

‘I’ll say it’s a furphy. To me it is akin to some guy going into that art gallery and pointing at the Mona Lisa on the wall and saying sorry mate we need that bit … so the Mona Lisa has to go. But we will paint you another one.’

‘We run the risk of trading something irreplaceable for the short term development gains with the mirage of having a good conservation outcome in the future through the activities of the offset.’

Pay 31% Less for electricity – The Bellarine and beyond ……..

Guess Why People in This Tiny German Town Pay 31% Less for Electricity?


BY CLIMATE COUNCIL     08.03.2014

CC photo by SuluSolar from Flickr

Hint: they’ve done something totally amazing to power their town.

Cross-posted from Greenbiz

Regardless of debate about the success of Germany’s renewables revolution, there is no denying that a small town in the corner of rural eastern Germany, 40 miles south of Berlin, may be one of the best examples of decentralized self-sufficiency. Feldheim (pop. 150), in the cash-strapped state of Brandenburg, was a communist collective farm back when Germany was still divided into East and West. Now it is a model renewable energy village putting into practice Germany’s vision of a renewably powered future.

In 1995, a local entrepreneur paid for Feldheim’s first wind turbine. As farmers started to worry when prices for their milk, potatoes, and beets began to fall and energy prices started to rise, they learned they could earn cash by renting their land to energy companies wanting to install a wind turbine. A local renewable energy company, Energiequelle GmbH, saw the potential as well, and decided to install a wind farm in Feldheim. Forty-three wind turbines with an installed capacity of 74.1 MW soon dotted the Feldheim landscape, providing income to farmers who leased their land to the energy company.

Renewable fervor was catching on, and in 2008 Energiequelle bought a 111-acre former Soviet military site about five miles from Feldheim, cleaned up the toxic military waste and hidden ammunition, and constructed a 284-panel solar farm that produces over 2,700 MWh per year. Its power is fed into the grid at the feed-in-tariff rate.

That same year, the town of Feldheim and Energiequelle established a joint venture, called Feldheim Energie GmbH & Co. The new company built a biogas factory that converts pig manure and unused corn into heat, taking advantage of the community’s 700 pigs and 1,700 acres of arable farmland. The biogas plant is fed from the town’s agricultural cooperative and produces 4 million kWh of electricity a year. A 400-kW wood-chip furnace fueled by the byproduct of forest thinning helps to firm the power from wind and biogas.

By 2009 Feldheim was producing all its own energy with renewable sources. Residents then wanted to take things a step further and free themselves from the large utility company, E.on, which was supplying the grid.

E.on refused to either sell or lease the part of its energy grid that ran through Feldheim. So the people took the matter into their own hands, and decided to build their own. Each of the 150 residents contributed 3,000 Euros (~$4,000 at today’s exchange rates) so that they could build their own smart grid. With help from Energiequelle, and financing from the European Union and government subsidies, the smart grid was completed in 2010, making Feldheim then the only town in Germany with its own mini-grid. This allows the locally produced heat and electricity to be fed straight to consumers and gives them control over their electrical prices, which are set at community meetings.

They now pay 31 percent less for electricity and 10 percent less for heating than before. The town consumes less than one percent of the electricity produced annually by its wind turbines and solar panels, selling the rest back to the market. This lowers their electricity bills to around half the national average. The biogas plant not only sells electricity back to the market, but also supplies the entire community with heating, saving over 160,000 liters of heating oil each year. As an added benefit, the plant produces over three million gallons of high-quality fertilizer annually that the agricultural cooperative uses.

Feldheim has also installed a plug-and-pay EV charging station in the town center, and next plans to install a 10-MW battery later this year. The storage will help balance the community microgrid’s generation and load.

The Bellarine & beyond ………

Wind turbines in Feldheim (Credit: Energiequelle)

There are now more wind turbines than houses in the town. While residents don’t mind the noise or aesthetics of the wind turbines, there has been some opposition from neighboring towns, which didn’t—until recently—directly benefit from the wind farm. “In order to make neighbors feel more at ease with the wind farm, we are offering power at a special rate,” Energiequelle spokesman Werner Frohwitter told RMI. “Our aim is to let as many people as possible directly benefit from our turbines, thus encouraging social acceptance for renewable energies.”

All the renewable projects also created jobs. While other villages in the economically depressed state of Brandenburg have roughly a 30 percent unemployment rate, Feldheim virtually erased its unemployment. Most residents work in the biogas plant or maintain the wind and solar farms. And the town, which has not a single museum or restaurant, has seen an influx of visitors. Three thousand people visit the small town of 150 each year. This has prompted the foundation of a new organization, Förderverein des Neuen Energieforums Feldheim (Friends of the New Energies Forum Feldheim), which is converting an old inn into a renewable energy information and training center. The hope is that when the center opens in the fall of 2014 it will bring even more visitors to Feldheim, generating more jobs and income for the villagers.

Feldheim has proven that a high-renewables energy future is possible today. “There have been and are still occurring remarkable changes (in Feldheim),” says Frohwitter. The small town is thriving thanks to its confidence in renewable energy technologies.

by Laurie Guevara-Stone
Cross-posted from Greenbiz



 If only it was as easy as building the model above to put on top of your xmas tree and dream it may come true in Port Philip Bay.

Imagine the benefits of a power generating turbine below the waves silently powering the Bellarine. It could be true if the government would look at it seriously!


Morgan Stanley-Backed Atlantis Raises $33 Million for Tidal Plan

By Louise Downing Feb 20, 2014 7:00 PM ET


Atlantis Resources Corp., a Morgan Stanley-backed maker of tidal turbines, raised 20 million pounds ($33 million) with a European grant, funds from a government institution and an initial public offering in London.

The Singapore-based company raised 12 million pounds by selling about 12.8 million new shares at 94 pence each on London’s Alternative Investment Market, Chief Executive Officer Tim Cornelius said. That values Atlantis at 72 million pounds.

Most investors were London-based institutions, with some from continental Europe, Cornelius said. Morgan Stanley, which had 45.7 percent before the placing, didn’t sell any shares.

“We chose AIM because people in the U.K. market are familiar with the renewables sector and there is good support,” Cornelius said. “People understand the landscape here.”

Atlantis also raised 8 million pounds through a cash grant from the European Commission and from a government institution that offered non-recourse financing repaid from future profits.

Funds investing in renewable energy have listed in London in the past year as investors seek steady dividends that beat returns on government bonds. Ingenious Media Holdings Plc last month said it was planning to raise 160 million pounds.

The tidal-power industry is in its infancy, with developers testing prototypes in the hope of bringing systems to market. As yet there are no commercial-scale projects in operation.

“It’s a growth story because we have a global portfolio and it’s a new and emerging market,” Cornelius said by phone. “From that perspective I think people tend to find it really interesting. It’s not solar and it’s not wind.”

MeyGen Project

Part of the proceeds will be spent on developing the 86-megawatt first phase of Atlantis’s MeyGen project in Scotland.

Construction is expected to start early in the second quarter, generation is projected from early 2015, and capacity may eventually reach as high as 398 megawatts.

The project seeks to take advantage of government subsidies for the power it produces, withScotland offering one of the highest for tidal energy. Waters in the region are estimated to account for as much as a quarter of Europe’s tidal resource.

Any remaining money from the funds raised will be invested in development of turbine technology alongside Lockheed Martin Corp. and for investments around the world, Cornelius said. The company is pursuing projects in Canada, India and China.

To contact the reporter on this story: Louise Downing in London at

Are we too late to learn and act

I am a newbie gardener so I was not surprised by the crop failures last Tuesday threw at me but it was eye opening. Resilience is the only way forward for now.

I have been absorbed on the internet lately and have come across stuff this past month or so that is amazing.

The solutions are out there and Ted talks and the internet are spreading them around. I find some pretty cool stuff. Exciting times.

My fungi guru (meaning, I love his work) even hinted at the fact that mushrooms may have given us the internet in order to alert us to the fact that they are the solutions and to stop destroying the old growth forests before the true bounty of them is known to man.

It was suggested, no stated, that mycelium are sentient forms. They respond to human movement on the earth and react for nutrient mining, or something I didn’t quite grasp the first time around, more than pain or anything.

Pain was my first amateur thought but it was infinitely more detailed than that. How cool? Another scientist. Really a scientist, not a feral hippie, informed me last week via U tube that he also truly believes mushrooms and in particular psilocybin(magic) mushrooms held the great answers.

He proposed that mankind could be truly enlightened as to how interconnected everything is simply by experiencing the wonders it opens up – the weather, the climate, the animals, the humans.

He was proposing that if enough humans had the experience then it would naturally follow that there would be more leadership and widespread programs in place to do the very things that can be done in the time frame we have left to act. Ecologists have known forever that everything on Earth is helplessly and miraculously interconnected and many humans have also known this for a long time. Yogis in particular spring to mind.

So I have learned that is too late for renewable energies to make the difference needed to maintain our lifestyles and that man will not give up the lifestyle and that is easily obvious to everyone. It is also simply too late for that to help. That was big news to me.

We all understand that our old growth forests are worth protecting and that, in so called less developed worlds, they are still being destroyed legally and illegally.

The knowledge in what is left of the world’s old growth forest is not beyond our grasp anymore. We need leadership to act as a matter of urgency to stop the destruction as soon as possible of what is left of the planets old growth forests.

So many reasons for this would make this email ten times as long. The value of them is priceless beyond the many sustainable pharmaceuticals that we will gain. Priceless beyond what most human brains currently understand. The current wealth we enjoy may not come at such a huge cost if we can reverse some of the damage and quickly.

Our future lies somewhat intact in some parts of the planet and maybe our money would better spent protecting and regenerating it as an urgent human action. That is the kicker isn’t it? When is that tipping point? They keep us focused on the carbon tipping point. What about ecology itself? When did the loss of 200 species a day become acceptable? Did it ever? This is a completely different tipping point to the one I have bought into for the better part of two decades. It has always been there, blowing in the wind as Dylan said but are we ready to really understand as a cohesive group?