A medical centre on busy Sydney Road in the Melbourne suburb of Brunswick collapsed after construction work on the adjacent block went awry. According to ABC News,  a building was being demolished in nearby Albion Road.

Reception staff at the medical centre noticed cracks appearing in the walls and floor of the building at lunch time, and informed the construction workers next door. The construction workers ordered everyone to evacuate the building before it collapsed 30 minutes later.

The impact of the collapse was dramatic. Bricks and debris were sent flying across Sydney Road, and a tram stop was completely buried in rubble. Power lines and a tram cable were taken down, but fortunately there are no direct reports of injuries. However, an 83-year-old man was struck by a slow-moving tram in the ensuing chaos and has minor injuries.

Peak hour traffic in Melbourne was severely interrupted this afternoon, and the No. 19 tram cancelled. Police had cordoned-off the scene and the various media as well as Victorian Workcover Authority inspectors were in attendance, to survey the damage.

Here are some photos which I was able to take this afternoon, showing the extent of damage:

In the rush to develop climate change mitigation technologies, some truly bizarre ideas have been conceived of late.

One concept that has caught my eye recently is the “artificial tree” (otherwise known as a “synthetic tree“) that will use air-capture technology to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere.

Unlike a real tree, the synthetic version has only one purpose; to ‘capture’ carbon. Yet it has been claimed in the media that these devices could entrap carbon 1000 times more efficiently than a real tree. Only time and independent research will allow us to determine the accuracy of such statements.

^{An artist’s impression of artificial trees. (Image source: IME)}

As a plant scientist, I find the idea of artificial trees intriguing on so many levels.

Photosynthesis (the process that uses carbon from the air to convert light energy into chemical energy, and which results in the production of oxygen) is a truly amazing biological system that underpins all other life on earth.

From a carbon reduction perspective, the “problem” with plants is that being living organisms, they also respire, which means that a portion of the carbon that they ‘capture’ is later released. Also, plants can’t photosynthesise at night. Despite this, when the balance is calculated plants absorb much more than they release and so their value – in economic terms alone - is beyond calculation. Yet this is one of the catalysts for developing an artificial tree that can work day and night.

That aside, it’s worth remembering that plants do much more than “capture” carbon and release oxygen. Plants provide shelter, prevent soil erosion, provide herbivores with food, prevent soil salination and of course underpin the whole concept of “landscape”. All this is done for free. An artificial tree can’t perform any of these other functions and will likely be very expensive, each costing as much as $25,000 each.

So, how do artificial trees work?

The science behind the artificial tree is being developed by Klaus Lackner and others from Columbia University (USA). According to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IME), there are three main process steps in the operation of an artificial tree (source):

1. Capture of CO₂ from atmosphere and transfer to a carbon filter.

2. Removal of CO₂ from the filter.

3. Storage of the removed carbon.

The specific details about the mechanism of the storage filter remain elusive. According to the IME report Geo-Engineering: Giving us the time to act?, sodium hydroxide (NaOH) was initially used to absorb the carbon dioxide, thus producing sodium carbonate. However extracting the carbon was found to be energy-intensive, and so a “proprietary sorbent” has been developed by Global Research Technologies (Prof. Lackner’s company) which is claimed to be much cheaper and more efficient than NaOH.

Is this science, or science fiction?

The problem with artificial trees, as well as other ‘creative’ carbon-capture and related technologies is the “crackpot element”. Sure, even if they are technically feasible, are they economically, socially and most importantly, environmentally feasible?

Other suggestions for delaying a catastrophic change in our climate have included: erecting giant mirrors in the sky to deflect energy from the sun, sprinkling clouds with sea water to deflect light, adding iron filings to the ocean to encourage algal growth, adding sulphur to the upper atmosphere and even putting long pipes in the ocean to bring up cool water.

These left-of-centre proposals, which have been advanced by academics rather than  loony environmentalists, tend to breed scepticism amongst the general community. Given that the actual technology behind artificial trees is top-secret (and therefore the claims cannot be verified), one wonders whether this is another wacky technological concept or should be taken  seriously?

Technology aside, I see three primary concerns raised by the artificial tree; (1) Financing the trees (2) Finding space to store the harvested carbon and (3) Finding a location for the artificial trees.

In terms of paying, I imagine with a carbon emissions trading scheme, there would be a financial initiative for the private sector to pay for the installation of the trees, provided their effectiveness was demonstrated. In terms of storing the carbon, it has been suggested that it can be stored in depleted underground gas reservoirs using theoretical carbon sequestration technology. As for the location, Wallace S. Broecker of Columbia University suggested that they should be dumped in the middle of Australia. All I will say in regards to this arrogant suggestion is that the US should deal with it’s own waste, thank-you.

Regardless of whether the artificial trees can efficiently capture carbon dioxide and assuming they can be financed and the extracted carbon stored safely, there is a bigger moral issue:

Is this the best we can do?

It saddens me that a conversation is even being had about artificial trees. Perhaps we – as a global community – need to work much harder on preserving the real trees (and ecosystems) that we already have? And as I have said before, we need to work much harder on reducing carbon emissions in the first instance, rather than working out what to do with the gas once it’s released.

Climate change and carbon pollution are both complicated problems and there will be no single solution.

I acknowledge that there will be a suite of responses including emissions reduction, emissions trading, carbon sequestration, possibly expansion of nuclear energy and of course major economic changes. All of this will take planning, and time.

Sometimes, it appears that when it comes to climate change, the focus is more on treating the symptoms rather that addressing the cause.

There’s no other way to describe the conditions in Melbourne and across the state of Victoria, than bloody hot!

To give some perspective for those more fortunate, and confirm what we here in Melbourne already know, here are the first 6 news items from the ABC News broadcast on Radio 3LO 774 this evening:

1. Record Heatwave:

Today the temperature reached 45°C (113°F), making it the biggest heat wave since the mid-1880′s.

2. Substation Explosion:

Because of the heat, a substation at South Morang exploded at 3:15pm, causing small spot fires and blackouts in various Melbourne suburbs.

3. Major bushfires:

As many as 10 houses have been destroyed by a fire that started in plantation forests near the town of Boolarra, south of the La Trobe Valley in Victoria. Two bushfires burning in the Strzelecki Ranges in Gippsland have joined and burned through more than 2,260 hectares, meaning that Boolarra has fire on all sides and has run out of water because of the extra demand.

The worst aspect is that police believe that a string of fires in Gippsland were deliberately lit, despite fire bans.

4. Mass train cancellations:

Privately-owned rail operator Connex was forced to cancel more than 300 train services today as air-conditioners failed and railway lines buckled. This is on top of the 200 services cancelled yesterday. This has been a highly-controversial matter, with many people questioning the competence of Connex to run the railways and the ability of the State Government to oversee their performance.

The Age has since reported that there’s been a complete meltdown of Melbourne’s rail system. Connex have cancelled all services to Alamein, Williamstown, Epping, Upfield and Lilydale, as well as those in the City Loop.

5. Record electricity demand:

Yesterday, demand for electricity exceeded 10,494 megawatts as air-conditioners worked overtime across the state. This beat  the previous record of 9,818 megawatts demanded in March 2008.

As a result of the massive demand in Victoria and South Australia, electricity was imported from Tasmania until the BassLink electricity connection melted down due to excessive demand. Victoria then experienced blackouts until the connection was fixed, only to be hit later by even more severe blackouts.

Despite the assurances from Premier John Brumby that there was enough capacity to meet demand, NEMMCO ordered Victorian and South Australian electricity companies to commence load shedding today, cutting electricity supply to thousands of homes.

6. Water consumption up:

Melbourne’s water consumption was measured at 207 litres per person per day in these past few days when the State Government is desperately trying to reduce useage to 155 litres per person per day. The drought continues.

7. Life savers working overtime:

The Royal Life Saving Society in Victoria have asked volunteers to work between 5pm and 9pm as Victorians flock to the beach in order to beat the  heat. Thirty people have been rescued in the last few days.

What a day!

The Bureau of Meteorology is forecasting a temperature tomorrow for Melbounrne of a “cool” 37°C. And there has been some respite now as a cool change blows in.

I think it’s time to go and get an icy-pole!

Today Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced that Australia will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 5% of 2000 levels by 2020. If an international agreement were made, Australia could make a cut of up to 15%.

The announcement of such a low target has angered many in the community, who were expecting a much stronger response from Canberra . Like many Australians, I am also disappointed with the government’s weak emissions target.

Just last Saturday, the nations of the European Union announced that they would cut their greenhouse emissions by 20%, rising to 30% if an international agreement is reached. At the Climate Change conference in Bali in 2007, the Australian Government said it supported a 25-40% cut on 1990 emission levels by 2020. Now it seems that the government has changed its mind.

This announcement comes as a major disappointment, not just for Australia and for the environment but the new Labor government’s environmental credibility.

After 11 years of Liberal rule under climate change skeptic John Howard, there was an expectation that Labor would lead Australia to a dignified position on climate change. Indeed, Rudd’s first act as PM was to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which earned Australia a standing ovation at the United Nations Climate Change Conference.

With today’s announcement, Rudd has effectively squandered Australia’s chance to make a real difference. After Mr. Rudd had personally declared that he wanted Australia to be a “creative middle world power“, today’s announcement suggests otherwise. Timidity on climate change will not put Australia in a leadership power position in Asia, let alone globally.

Nothing Australia can practically do in relation to climate change will prevent irreversible climate change, because our overall emissions are so small (1.2% of world emissions). Therefore, Australia has to demonstrate moral leadership, so that the big polluters – particularly India (4.9%), Russia (5.6%), China (18.4%) and the United States (22.2%) – will act upon the example that our nation sets. We’ve led the pack on tariff reduction and free trade, so why not carbon emissions?

Australia stands to lose more than many countries from climate change. The Great Barrier Reef will be completely destroyed, as will many other iconic natural wonders. Many of our agricultural districts will be more prone to drought and bushfires will become far more commonplace.

Those opposed to higher emission targets raise concerns about job losses. In some cases this is quite a legitimate concern, and governments need to plan around this to minimise the effects on individuals. That said, segments of Australia’s economy were subjected to pain when our tariff barriers were torn down and yet we all collectively recovered and later enjoyed the benefits of a lean and efficient economy. The only difference this time is that the subject of concern is far more serious. Whilst free trade could ultimately wait until all nations are ready, the climate can’t.

Australia needs to show real leadership on climate change, and do it now. Our nation needs to make a real commitment to reform, in order to convince the ‘big polluters’ to do likewise.

A paltry 5% emissions reduction target is nothing but a national embarrasement and demonstrates the Commonwealth Government’s lack of committment to the environment. It also shows the government’s contempt for younger Australians who will have to live with the consequences of this generation’s lack of foresight and leadership.

Two years ago, I wrote about a trip I took to Nagambie in regional Victoria to inspect the worst drought in the state’s history.

Sheltered in part by a city existence, I felt a strong urge to see how difficult the conditions were for rural Victorians. When I visited, crops had failed and agricultural production in all sectors was falling. As the summer wore on, the aridity led to explosive bushfires that caused mass-destruction across much of Victoria.

Two years on, and the drought is continuing albeit with a loosened grip. Back in 2006, the whole state was suffering from drought, but now some districts (such as Gippsland) have had a reprieve.

As I write this and look out my window, it is raining in Melbourne. In fact, rain has been falling for almost a day. The Bureau says it’s been the wettest day of 2008 with 36 mm falling in the past 24 hours. More showers are forecast for the coming week.

Could this possibly signal the end of the drought?

It has certainly been cool and wet in Melbourne this December. As it was last month too.

Yet it’s difficult to take much comfort because the weather has been so very inconsistent this past 6 months, as if the drought is trying to end but can’t. To illustrate the point, I have collected rainfall data from the Commonwealth Bureau of Meteorology for the year 2008. The following table shows median rainfall in millimetres (for all years) and the rainfall recorded in Melbourne for each calendar month:

It can clearly be seen that there’s a pattern of exceptionally dry months (between 20-30% of mean rainfall) followed by much wetter months (upwards of 90%). Unfortunately, this pattern has been enough to destroy agricultural production in some areas, and cause locust plagues in others.

In Melbourne, more heavy falls are predicted for the coming week, and it could therefore be assumed that December’s rainfall might exceed the average of 51.4 mm. The Bureau reported in 2007 that the El Niño is over. That said (and as the table shows), January and February are always the driest months in Melbourne. If the recent rainfall pattern continues, then January and February could reasonably be expected to be unseasonally dry, as were September-October and April-May-June of 2008.

Of course such a prediction is nothing more than my very crude analysis of one year’s data.

More credible information comes from the Bureau which says that Melbourne has a 50% chance of exceeding the median rainfall this summer, meaning that above-average falls are about as equally likely as below-average falls. For the rest of the state, higher than average rainfalls are expected in the Western district (from Geelong to Warrnambool and north to Hamilton), Gippsland and the Alps. The following chart shows the likelihood of above-average rain across the country.

Whether the drought is likely to end is impossible to forecast. Certainly the Bureau is not making any statements in this regard because no-one really knows.

As much as I hope the drought does end, it is very pleasing to see heavy rainfalls across the state, particularly in agricultural districts. In Melbourne too, the rain is most welcome. Melbourne’s water storages are at 34.0% (compared to 39.4% last year) and have increased in the last day as a result of the rainfall. So that is good news indeed.

Whether this is the once-in-1000 year drought or climate change, we all have to do our bit to reduce water consumption and recycle as much water as possible. Perhaps then we will finally be rewarded with some relief from the drought.