Carbon trading is coming

phill Parsons

On the matter of climate policy I received an interesting letter form Premier Lennon, Minister for Climate Change recently thanking me for my import into a $3M review of possible actions the state government could take. Years behind, this classic public service stalling tactic I predict will be an opportunity passed by a government enthralled by a cargo cult approach to native forests when the paradigm is rapidly shifting under their feet of clay.

One of the ways of forcing change in an economy is to put a price on the product, supply and demand based on price thence driving changes.

Since coal use began the impact of the carbon embodied therein on the environment has not been included in the price of same, oil joining in the same socialized and environmentalized costs as it became a fuel later.

Thankfully, yesterdays man and his bullshit carbon emission trading scheme with capless free allocations has been sent to the never-never [and the refusal of the Liberals to say sorry will join it as the wheel moves us on inexorably].

Perhaps the liberals will return in another guise as the actions taken here bite into the costs of living and there is an inevitable reaction electorally suiting reactionaries.

Why bother constraining carbon?

I have talked about the increasing temperature and falling rainfall before. The weather bureau now tells you about it in their comments on the trends.

We can see the impacts of such a climate when we shop. Now, sea level change at South Arm is forcing the pied oyster catchers from their nesting grounds onto the road and thus are being driven to extinction by the passing motorist choking the planet.

According to Garnaut and others the changes and impacts of the increase in GHG’s are running ahead of the IPCC reports and models conclusions. You will see this represented in the immediacy of the demands put on the world by the scientific advice in Bali.

So what do the first totters of a carbon constrained world look like

Land use, land use changes and forestry [LULUCF] is the one very small positive in the carbon balance sheet with an 0.6% storage.

Maintaining this in an emissions trading environment requires measuring the carbon biosequestered and maintaining it in store.

Whilst one will be a new role for foresters the other is a potential nightmare with drying and warming affecting growth rates and fire an increased danger as the forest changes to adapt to the new situation.

Carbon capture and storage [geosequestration] will continue to be held up by the coal industry as the way of the future. If we expect to have one anywhere near normal the future is now and the plants will have to be built to show this technology works.

Solar, wind and wave power will seem like the norm as these sectors expand.

What’s in a name.

One test of a government’s seriousness is in the name it applies to the department it creates. In this case to implement the adaptation and mitigation strategies we need to stabilize the climate, if that is possible.

Here is a culture war that was fought when the US sought a bland name to defuse the issue, also wasting what will prove to be invaluable time by downplaying the issue. A change of name is needed to give the issue the seriousness it deserves.

That name should reflect the desired outcome and so Climate Stabilization and Water Supply should be the new ministry. It surely is no longer the governments desire to have further changes to the climate than the predicted range that includes dangerous changes.

However, measuring performance, the manager’s tool, will be sufficient to test a prospective government’s credibility on this key issue if they doggedly stick with the paradigms of old thinking.

As I have said before everything we have is dependent on a climate within certain parameters and the associated stable sea level.

Consider the opposite, a cooling world where sea level falls and the higher latitudes and altitudes freeze. A port without water is as useless as one that is under it.

The climate will change, moving to the danger zone, in at most 4 decades. The middle of the range of models used by the IPCC putting the temperatures close to or in the danger zone. Some of those models put it the possible range of outcomes well into catastrophic temperatures, where their could be unstoppable feedbacks leading inexorably to catastrophic events.

Sea level may take a little longer but we are actually unsure of the rate of change in the ice shelves under the 2dC to 3dC. warming already in the system. Melting is currently running ahead of the modelled rates and there is no known reason for that to change.

We can be certain that as the impacts become clearer that the institutions whose life exceeds that of humans will increase their rate of action to address the matter. Business is already showing indications of wanting action, only some of the energy giants remaining recalcitrant and thus restraining government including ours.

The developing countries, as their development is affected, will take action to change. Rightly they say we of the already developed world should bear the burden of the problems we created and make deep cuts in our GHG emissions.

But it cannot be our responsibility alone, whilst the developing countries go through the same errors in relation to GHG’s or indeed other practices that degrade the environment, as though it is their right to be dumb, stupid and destructive and ignore the technological developments that protect the climate and the environment.

Technology transfer and support for developing countries to save their forests, their air and water through incentives to develop cleanly will have to be an important part of any post Kyoto agreement.

Bali could be the first serious step. The outcome of ineffective short sighted action driven by narrow interests and greed now being extremely prejudicial to much, if not all life, making failure in the process through to agreement in 2009 unacceptable to informed voters.

The US, still an economic power, will not take a full part until and if the Democrats win the Presidency, hence much will be delayed until 2009. The US election will contain the climate as an issue and a change of vote there will bring movement in the Bali negotiations.

Australians have mandated their government to take action, [the conservatives have even belatedly heard the call to action], and so we can expect with the completion of the Garnaut Climate Change Policy Review that an Emissions Trading Scheme will be introduced.

It will be a surprise if it doesn’t include forests across the broad Brown land, as well as measures for agriculture generally around conserving soil carbon, managing manure and fermentation in the guts of animals to address CH4 [methane].

However the main game is in stationary energy, where 53.5% of Australian emission come from. So without that decarbonization of the energy industry Australia will not be seen as serious because it is not serious and that example will be taken on board by China and India.

Coal has to go from being the source of energy and a major contributor to export income to a resource for a different range of product that doesn’t involve carbon emissions or we have to rebuild all the coal fired power stations so they can sequester carbon. Either way it is a huge investment in research and implementation.

As the latter [carbon capture and storage] supposedly lies some 2 decades hence before it can be implemented and 30% reductions in GHG emissions are needed within 1 decade, the developed world will need to take some very serious measures to make the initial reductions needed to pass through climate chaos, avoiding a climate catastrophe if we take serious action in the near term.

Therefore we could expect biosequestering carbon in the remnants of forests in a relatively natural condition and restoration of degraded forests to be important here and abroad.

We may see action in Indonesia to stop the draining of peatland forests to supply the west with biofuels. These fuels should be grown in the countries of use, close to the point of use, to reduce the energy needed to supply them.

However, their will be difficulties in getting the forests of south eastern and south western Australia put to work as carbon stores.

One incentive will be the price but as their value as carbon stores goes up, if they are included in an emissions trading scheme, so will the cost of timber and paper made from native forest timber.

Here we will see the forestry division of the CFMEU looking fondly at the Latham proposal for the Tasmanian forests prior to 2004 election. More elaborate transformation of wood providing the same job levels from less area.

If they have any sense they will recognize, like their mining brothers and sisters, that the jig is up and call on government to support a transition strategy to move to plantation timber to meet Australia’s timber and paper needs, thus making the remnant forests available to store carbon now and to be better able to withstand the perturbations to come.

Without an increase in summer rainfall California’s prescient example of mega fires will scorch this land each season, acting as the agent of change to vegetation better suited to a drier and hotter climate.

Getting the LULUCF sector, the only GHG positive sector of the climate changing activities of our economy, to take such a course will be an interesting journey. Parts of it can be interacted with at the Garnaut Climate Change Policy Review website.

On the matter of climate policy I received an interesting letter form Premier Lennon, Minister for Climate Change recently thanking me for my import into a $3M review of possible actions the state government could take.

Years behind, this classic public service stalling tactic I predict will be an opportunity passed by a government enthralled by a cargo cult approach to native forests when the paradigm is rapidly shifting under their feet of clay.

For some time they refused the MP’s who wanted greener cars these energy saving devices. Now the costs relationship has changed as dramatically, as every liquid fossil fuel buyer experiences, perhaps the cash strapped Tasmanian government will be the first in the que for the government’s new green car.

They still fail to get it together with green buildings, failing to take into account the lifetime costs of a building including the operation when they commission designs.

WA showed that green houses can be cheaper to build and cheaper to run. Other buildings should be so designed.

There are still many disconnects between the words and the demonstrated intent, the major one being the value placed on the forests. It is likely that the Tasmania Labor Government, whilst it is led by Lennon, will go down kicking and screaming opposing an emission trading scheme that involves the carbon value engendered in Tasmania’s forests, even if it means more money from Forestry Tasmania than its pitiful return this year.

phill Parsons will be happy to see the Tasmanian government embarrass him by changing its actions to reduce the impacts of climate chaos and embark on a path to climate stability and thus eventually return to a precipitation [rain and snowfall] pattern where there is a substantial water supply for the hydro system more years than not.

That system continues to be 2/3 or more empty, costing Tasmanians at the power point as dirty coal fired power is cabled in.

From the Garnaut Climate Change review site is a summary of the NZ policy toward forests and emissions trading.

Forestry

_ Forestry will be covered early (2008) to limit incentives for foresters to bring forward clearing to avoid liability under the scheme.

_ Forestry coverage will relate to CO2 only. Different rules and methodologies will apply to pre-1990 and post- 1989 forests, based on the distinction made in the Kyoto Protocol.

_ Deforestation of pre-1990 exotic forest will be liable under the scheme, with exemptions (by application) for smaller holdings and clearance levels, and verified weed control. Forest owners will be liable for emissions from the conversion of pre-1990 forest land to a non-forestry use. This does not include forest harvesting, provided the harvested land is replanted or allowed to regenerate into forest.

_ Forest owners who established forests post-1989 on eligible land, or intend to establish new forests on

eligible land, can apply to be included in the ETS. However, once they are included they are then liable for any change in carbon stock, including loss through fire, storm or harvesting.

_ The point of obligation will be the land owner, or lessee given written approval from the landowner.

_ Free allocations will be made available to forest owners, provided pro-rata on the basis of land area.

_ The New Zealand Government is still in the process of developing methodologies for assessing the amount of carbon stored in a forest, and the changes in carbon stocks over time, for the purposes of allocating units and liabilities.

Further details on the New Zealand ETS can be found Here and Here