Climate Change ... And Tasmania

Helen Gee

BASSLINK, its economic failure, and a way forward to deal with the issue, must be factored in to this legislation; its cost to Tasmanians now and in the future is untenable. Coal technology, despite the $500m Government fund for sequestration research has no prospect of delivering any significant reductions by 2020. This is highly relevant as Tasmania is now using dirty brown coal fired power, courtesy of Basslink, a big high risk energy project that was derided by many forward thinking Tasmanians, but welcomed by other states after carbon credits for using our clean hydro power. What fools we were not to stick with renewable energy when we had it all here.

Tasmanian Climate Change Office
GPO Box 123 Hobart 7001

Dear Sir/Madam
Please accept my comment: Climate Change (State Action) Bill 2008
…………………
The blasphemy of commonsense – Aubrey Meyer
What does it take to educate the politicians? – Derek Osborn
There isn’t a them anymore – Helen Gee
Talking is not enough. What is lacking is commitment and implementation – John Manoochehri (UNEP)
None of us are solving the problem faster than we are creating it,
CO2 and Gross World Profit are in lockstep – Aubrey Meyer

INTRODUCTION

The seemingly ambitious target for Tasmania to reduce its emissions by at least 60 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050 is to be commended, as is the move to establish a truly independent Tasmanian Climate Action Council to provide expert advice to Government. However, the climate will not wait for governments which are unable to imagine the world as it will be if we don’t take even more drastic and immediate steps. So, I believe we need to halve emissions by 2020 and go further by 2050 because we simply have to cut emissions to net zero as soon as we can, so I would say we plan for up to 95% cut by 2050. This is the position taken by some of Australia’s leading Climate Change academics, for instance Prof Ian Lowe accepts this position.

Sobering thought that greenhouse pollution increases over the past two years are above Australian Government projections; and energy consumption emissions have increased as well. (Current federal policies are not having an effect.)

A. ISSUES
WE CANNOT AFFORD TO KEEP USING OIL. Clearly we are looking at a total transformation of our way of life and the economy that underpins it. If we fail to comprehend this we will lose competitive advantage as the world will evolve past its current state of crisis and leave us on the back foot, despite our best intentions. (Tasmania’s ‘groundbreaking’ legislation being my focus.) Do we have the nerve to go further, faster?? Tasmania, at the edge of the world, has always been seen as a place of innovative thinking despite the burden of its industrialization mantra. We can plan a wave of innovations and I applaud the initiatives for government to lead in energy efficiency and emissions reduction.

WHERE IS A CREDIBLE FOCUS ON FORESTRY?
Curbing deforestation (land clearing) is a highly cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and has the potential to offer significant reductions fairly quickly (Stern Review into Climate Change Oct 2006)

Tasmania must maintain the carbon stored in the island’s old forests and start healing the country. Continued logging of our remaining oldgrowth and clearing of native forests for plantations smacks of gross hypocrisy in the face of the Climate Change Strategy and all the green-speak from Government Ministers of late. We simply have to do something about this. We live in a dying world where 150 species a day are simply gone forever.

BRING BACK BIODIVERSITY to our farms, to our forests
SHED THE POISONS
If we are to meet such steep targets, EDUCATION must ensure every person understands the implications of living sustainably, and that will mean a fostering of local communities as the backbone to a sustainable society in which people live, work and eat locally.

OFFSETS
Offsetting flight/travel emissions – dangerously predicated on a blind faith in the various schemes underway, is a fools approach making little difference and just delaying the necessary limitation of flights etc We simply have to do everything to reduce emissions and this includes scaling down superfluous interstate and overseas travel. We have sophisticated communication systems and must learn/legislate to forgo old habits.

HOUSING – energy efficiency measures welcome. Any new/current Government housing should immediately implement efficiency measures and there should be a review of Council regulations eg to allow reduction of scale of buildings. Planning laws that disallow people to build and live in very small houses disincentives to live in a small house should be immediately updated.

The energy sector is responsible for some two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions, including upwards of 60% of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The lion’s share of energy sector global warming pollution is attributable to coal, the most carbon intensive of all fossil fuels. I am/was a vehement objector of the Basslink project, partially on the basis of Tasmania being taken advantage of, at a time when few Tasmanians seemed to understand the long term economic and cc ramifications. Victorians saw they could reap carbon credits from Tasmanian hydro and wind while sending their dirty brown coal fired power off-shore. My submission to the Basslink Inquiry is available on request.

Faced with climate change, is it possible for us to unite to value our precious island and its possibilities and truly become world leaders? We must address the mistakes of the past if we are to move forward.

B. REVOLUTION IN ECONOMICS
Tackle consumption, population and economic growth

I advocate educational and tax measures to limit consumption and population – the drivers of unsustainabilty. As a society, we seem unable to confront this reality. I advocate a Steady State Economy for Tasmania. This would develop Tasmania’s role as a global leader in sustainability. Limits to growth is a fight to revolutionise economics before our planet is destroyed. I propose a Genuine Progress Indicator to redefine progress and gross domestic product. Ecological economics pioneer, Robert Costanza likens conventional economics to a bucket full of water that is ready to tip. All it needs is one sharp jolt. Let’s kick it over! Sustainable economic growth is an oxymoron.

Government must tackle the myth of infinite resources supplying infinite needs to an infinite number of consumers,. Clearly this challenges our established system of growth economics and is nothing short of revolutionary. But desperate times demand desperate measures. We are required to allocate scarcer and scarcer resources (oil, water, food) with equity and justice. Government must legislate to curb excess, toxicity and pollution and to reward a range of initiatives: recycling, cycling, independent power sourcing and minimalist living. Currently this means big corporations/large businesses must pay the real price of the power and resources they consume. And dare I say it, a Gunns Pulp Mill as currently envisaged, is definitely out of step with the need for clean, lean, clever times.

REVOLUTION IN POPULATION POLICY

The issue of climate change cannot be properly addressed without taking population into consideration. Why fail to mention it? The prevailing pro-growth mentality is out of step with the need to build a sustainable society as quickly as possible. It will be difficult to reduce our overall gas emissions over a period in which our population increases by up to 20% (The Australian increase between now and 2020 based on current trends.) It is no longer acceptable for governments to pay a baby bonus, indeed I propose a Baby-levee or carbon tax in line with the polluter pays principle for families having over two children. I know this may seem irrelevant here as that is a federal issue; I mention it to draw attention to what is at best the silence in this state surrounding population issues.

EDUCATIONAL REVOLUTION
Climate change has to become a focus of the curriculum. To start with, children need to learn that “Getting and spending we lay waste our powers”. Slow food = low food miles.
Government could actively set up and assist community garden projects in a massive way.
Locally produced food is best on all counts and we should not over-estimate the reduction of emissions – on top of savings in health costs – involved here if we eat locally produced food in season.

C. FORESTRY IS PART OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE PROBLEM

The carbon value of those forests will far exceed their timber value
(Prof David Lindenmeyer)

Forest conservation has a great capacity to play an integral role in the mitigation of global warming. The forests handed over by the Lennon Government to Gunns as a supply contract for the next 20 years must be retracted by the new clever Bartlett Government. Gunns, whose shares are at the lowest they have been for over a year (2.67 on 11 June), will have to pay for the carbon embedded in those forests and guess what? They will never make enough pulp to outstrip that bill!

Tasmania cannot capitalise upon these benefits unless appropriate forest conservation policy settings are integrated into this initial groundbreaking climate change response strategy, including having forestry and land use change firmly included in Climate Change legislation and in any Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

The Australian Government has shown support for this opportunity in its international work. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD) has been incorporated in discussions leading up to a post-Kyoto emissions reduction agreement. In principle the concept of developing countries avoiding deforestation is a step forward, but Australia – and its forested States – must show leadership on this issue by ending the degradation of its own carbon-dense forests, especially the tall wet eucalypt forests here in Tasmania. With the establishment of an ETS in Australia, there is an historic opportunity to ensure that domestic climate change policy complements international commitments.

Recent studies suggest much higher carbon storage levels in temperate eucalypt forests than previously understood. Native forests in South Eastern Australia alone are estimated to store up to 10 billion tonnes of carbon (Brendan Mackey, ANU). Extremely carbon-rich mature and old-growth forests can store between 1200 and 2500 tonnes of carbon per hectare (Dean, C 2003, Mackey, Roxborough et al).

Protecting existing native forests, both old growth and regrowth, from deforestation, degradation and inappropriate development has been identified as a more effective means of mitigating climate change than growing new trees. (Harmon et al 1990, Schulze et al 2000, Pearce 2002)

A Europe-wide carbon study completed in October 2002 revealed that removing existing mature forests and replacing them with younger growing forests is counterproductive in mitigating climate change. The issue is the initial CO2 surge into the atmosphere from forest clearing. Professor Riccardo Valentini (Italy), who headed this study, said “They (the world’s forest industries) will be able to claim carbon credits for the new planting, while in reality releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the air. There is nothing in the (Kyoto) protocol to stop this.” What a farce! How clever are we in Tasmania? Will we hide behind Kyoto discrepancies or take up the cudgels? I trust the latter.

In Tasmania in particular, there is an urgent need to recognise and account for the impact of forest degradation attributable to commercial logging. Unfortunately, some sectors of the Australian forestry industry continue to engage in patently carbon-negative forest management practices (such as conversion of old growth forests to managed regrowth and reducing rotation lengths of such commercial regrowth forests) the negative impacts of which, under Kyoto Protocol rules, Australia declines to report to the international community.

Post-harvest burning of carbon-rich mature and old growth forests In this State results in average losses of an additional 196 t C per ha, leading to annual carbon losses of 1.54 million tonnes. (Peter Boyer). A 2007 report commissioned by Forestry Tasmania found that over the next 23 years to 2030, logging will release at least 28% of the carbon stored in the commercial native forests it manages. Studies have estimated that, nationally, logging (forest degradation as opposed to deforestation) produces emissions of 38 Mt CO2 per annum, equivalent to 7% of Australia’s total emissions. (Green Institute)

I request, as a matter of utmost priority, realistic and transparent accounting of native forest carbon dynamics and emissions from logging and land use change. The potential for native forest conservation to contribute to emissions reduction efforts is underestimated through deceptive accounting but also through massive under-estimation of standing volumes in old growth forests.

Obviously a climate change response strategy should seek to maximise the area of carbon rich ecosystems protected from activities that will degrade carbon stocks below natural CCC. There is great opportunity to further reduce emissions In Tasmania by phasing out wholesale clearing and degradation of other remaining native forests. Benefits to biodiversity conservation would give additional positive feedback.

An ETS that does not comprehensively and transparently include changed native forest management will be missing out on opportunities for low cost, immediately available emissions-reduction opportunities – as well as great biodiversity conservation co-benefits – and widespread community support.

It is operationally safe to immediately include REDD in an Australian ETS. The creation, destruction or removal of readily and directly measurable volumes of conventionally harvestable wood (which have precise and predictable carbon equivalence conversion ratios with respect to other carbon stores – branches, roots, etc) can be reliably estimated for emissions trading purposes and remotely audited.

Climate Change legislation that does not tackle the forestry Issues outlined above would frankly be farcical. The Garnaut Climate Change Review will hopefully specify forests as a key area for opportunity. I expect this and that the Government will then incorporate a whole new framework principle into the new Climate Acton Bill.

D. ACTION NOW: How??

The big problem is inertia, but I recommend a good look at what is happening both within Australia around the globe and avoid a degree of duplication:

Natural Advantage: A Blueprint for a sustainable Australia draws on international trends in trade, green consumerism and technical innovation to warn that those ill-prepared for revolution will be left behind. Per capita we are about the worst polluters in the world, with an outmoded quarry economy. I recommend Natural Advantage as a blueprint for restructuring the economy of Tasmania. There are of course numerous other examples worth following:

Michael Smith of the Natural Edge Team says most businesses have yet to really get going. Natural Edge offers a process which the Government may like to mimic or adopt. It is free – ‘free’, says Michael, ‘as we don’t have time to muck around with only 10 years to avoid dangerous tipping points’.

Very basically it consists of two steps for all businesses to take.

1. First module: Cost Effective Change; the energy efficiency and audits Savings can be as much as profit margins – step by step solutions
2. For the CEO: what you need for your sector, A-Z
Every country must rapidly skill up the work-force. The faster we can implement this the more rapidly we can stop new coal powered stations.

There are many examples around the world of projects we could emulate: Two hundred cities in Europe formed the European Climate Alliance with tribes in the Amazon – they teamed up to help the tribes require (ranch) land and reafforestate it in a bid to reduce their CO2 outputs by reabsorbtion.

Beddington Zero Development Village in south London is close to being fully carbon neutral, wit the use of double-glazing, solar energy, street trees, 50 solar powered cars and organic food plots. All natural systems are circular, not linear.

So, these ideas are spreading around the planet. Findhorn in Scotland have a water treatment plant that uses plants to enable full recycling of water for an entire community.
There are many many more exciting examples of action on climate change.

Yes, Energy efficiency – the central focus of the proposed legislation – is a natural starting point but we need to go much much further and much much faster. Eg according to national audit data. 21% of the population has energy efficient lighting. This will not change fast enough without the government leading by example (ASAP), without a massive education campaign & legislation. Part of leading by example is becoming credible with strong and consistent policies right across the board. People will not act in small ways if they do not perceive the Government to be sincere, or if the legislation tackles only the tip of the iceberg.

Yours Sincerely,

Helen Gee BA Dip Ed