Farm Emissions Don’t Count, But Credits Do

The Federal Government has agreed to exempt farmers from an emissions cap in its carbon trading scheme, in a backflip aimed at winning the support of the Opposition, but farmers will be allowed to generate carbon credits.

It has agreed to exclude agriculture from the costs of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) to try to get the legislation passed in the next fortnight.

A spokeswoman for Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says farmers will be allowed to generate carbon credits.

Negotiations are continuing between the Government and Coalition for amendments to the legislation as Parliament resumes on Monday and the Government pushes for a vote in late November.

Both sides say the talks are progressing but Senator Wong says an agreement will be “difficult”.

The Opposition are pushing for several changes but are likely to have some knocked back due to budget restraints.

“What I’ve made clear is we’re not able to accept the entirety of what they’ve put forward – it would be fiscally unsustainable,” Senator Wong said.

The Government had wanted to include farmers in the scheme from 2015.

But the National Farmers Federation lobbied for the amendments, putting it in conflict with the National Party and climate change sceptics within the Liberal Party.

The Opposition also wants more free permits for heavy polluters and more compensation for electricity generators.

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull and emissions trading spokesman Ian Macfarlane will also struggle to get any agreed changes through the party room, which has to approve them before the Coalition decides on its final position.

Mr Turnbull has said that if the majority of amendments are accepted he would recommend the scheme be passed, but others such as Senator Nick Minchin say an agreement does not guarantee support for the scheme.

Mr Turnbull has staked his leadership on the issue after declaring he could not lead a party that would not act on climate change.

Source: www.abc.net.au

Traveston About More Than Water

Peter Garrett must have felt confident the range of biodiversity protection measures built into the dam design would not achieve their objective of protecting the lungfish and the turtles. But ultimately, water – as much as climate change – will put a limit on the number of people the planet can support. Tor Hundloe provides the bigger picture.

Tor Hundloe in the Courier Mail (12 November 2009):

BEFORE we rush to condemn or congratulate Peter Garrett for his decision to reject the Traveston Dam, we should try to imagine ourselves in his place.

I wonder how many of us would relish being given the responsibility he had.

The first thing we have to do is fully understand his charter – which matters are in his court and which rest elsewhere?

As federal Environment Minister, his focus has to be the big picture. His job was not to make decisions on issues such as the amount of land that had to be inundated, the number of farmers and residents to be relocated, or alternatives to the dam such as water recycling.

Rather, he is charged with protecting and promoting the national interest when it comes to this country’s natural assets.

And that means maintaining the ecological integrity of World Heritage areas such as Fraser Island, the Great Barrier Reef and the Wet Tropics.

And it means protecting biodiversity.

One of the most obvious threats to biodiversity is the loss of threatened and endangered animals and plants, which is where the Mary River turtle and the lungfish came into play. Garrett had to satisfy himself the threatened animals would survive the building of the dam. His decision points to the fact that he and his large staff of public servants, assisted by the assessment of scientists, came to the conclusion the animals would not be safe.

Garrett and his advisers must have felt confident the range of biodiversity protection measures built into the dam design would not achieve their objective of protecting the lungfish and the turtles.

I understand that most of us, on whatever side we fall, have not had the same access to all the data and analysis as the Minister.

This means we will probably continue to argue among ourselves about the dam based on our emotions, on our ideals of fairness and our vision for the future of southeast Queensland.

On this basis, reasonable people will disagree unless they are able to put aside personal interests and immerse themselves in some science. This is a very difficult task.

I have seen the Mary Valley community conflict over the dam first-hand.

My great-grandparents were among the first settlers in the area. Great-grandmother Lucy Salmon wrote in the New Idea in the 1930s of the trials, tribulations and adventure of moving her large family from northern NSW into the Gympie area by horse-drawn wagon.

Those of my relatives who have felt uneasy with my work and advocacy as an environmental scientist, particularly in my assessment some years ago of the damage forestry was doing on Fraser Island, came to welcome me as an ally against the dam.

This was notwithstanding the fact it has not been an issue on which I have researched and hence offered an opinion. Presumably as a “green” person I simply had to be on their side.

My relatives have not been united on the dam. Some see it as a necessity if water is to be provided to the rapidly growing population from Gympie south to the border.

Both schools of thought, if I can call them such, canvass the relative merits of alternatives to the dam, such as desalination, recycling or piping water from northern New South Wales.

They, and I, find most other people interested in the issue seek to comprehend what is driving the current demand for more fresh water.

The rapid population growth is the near-universal answer.

You don’t have to be a hydrologist to know that whoever made the water on the earth stopped making it millions and millions of years ago.

The water allocation problem is having sufficient supplies where people live.

We can speed up the recycling of water by putting it through water-cleaning infrastructure. Not everyone is happy with this.

We can desalinate – the whole of the United Arab Emirates survives by using its considerable oil revenue to convert sea water to drinking water.

We can use much less per person, as we did during the drought.

But ultimately, water – as much as climate change – will put a limit on the number of people the planet can support.

And this certainly applies to our little corner of the planet.

Garrett’s decision did not resolve the real issue we face on a rapidly crowding planet.

Until we as a society are willing to seek common outcomes for the common good, we will continue to argue needlessly, and the next decision will become even harder to make.

Finally, policy paralysis sets in.

Tor Hundloe is a Foundation Professor of Environmental Science at Bond University. His book The Planet of the Thinking Animal: How to Survive the 21st Century was released in September.

Source: www.news.com.au

Climate Challenge for APEC Leaders

Dhaka, Manila and Jakarta are the most vulnerability of 11 major cities in Asia. As Heads of States gather in Singapore for the APEC summit, WWF says that all countries must cooperate to prepare for a brutal climate future, highlighting that yet another compelling reason for a fair, ambitious and binding deal at the Copenhagen Climate Summit in December.

WWF reports (13 November 2009):

Singapore – Leaders gathering in Singapore for the APEC summit this weekend must commit to strong and ambitious climate actions if they want to achieve sustainable growth for their region and help their countries to avoid disastrous consequences of global warming.

The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation – bringing together world leaders like US President Barack Obama, Chinese President Hu Jintao and Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama – must look beyond the group’s usual areas of interest and focus on the common challenges posed by climate change.

“Solving problems of protectionism, trade zones, banks and exchange rates is very important, but what is all of this worth if the world slips into chaos because of devastating climate change?” said Kim Carstensen, Leader of the WWF Global Climate Initiative.

“APEC leaders must open their eyes and look into the real threats and challenges of this world and their region. We cannot talk about sustainable growth without solving the most intractable problem the planet is facing.”

UN climate talks are floundering due to attempts by some governments to lower expectations for a new treaty and efforts to delay the deal.

The production of a legally binding framework at Copenhagen together with an amended Kyoto Protocol will help secure the survival of countries, cultures and ecosystems and clear the way towards a low carbon economy.

“If APEC countries would tackle the climate crisis with the same rigor they showed in protecting their economies from the financial meltdown, the world wouldn’t have to worry about a lack of political will or insufficient levels of ambition in the UN climate talks”, said Carstensen.

“We urge APEC leaders to bring economic recovery and climate recovery in sync, so that money spent on keeping growth levels high also helps bringing emission levels down.”

In WWF’s view, the Pacific region should become a model of technology cooperation, where developed APEC countries assist their developing country partners with adaptation and mitigation, through clean technologies, financial support and capacity building.

“Many want the APEC region to become a free trade zone, but they should also exploit its potential as a clean tech zone”, said Carstensen.

“There is probably no better regional network of countries in the world for piloting smart concepts for technology cooperation like those discussed in the UN climate talks. To boost the international negotiations, we urgently need pioneers who show what’s possible and how to make it happen.”

WWF Ranking (12 November 2009):

Dhaka, Manila and Jakarta are topping a WWF ranking of the climate vulnerability of 11 major cities in Asia.

As Heads of States gather in Singapore for the APEC summit, WWF says that developed and developing countries must cooperate to prepare these cities for a brutal climate future, highlighting that their vulnerability is yet another compelling reason for a fair, ambitious and binding deal at the Copenhagen Climate Summit in December.

According to Mega-Stress For Mega-Cities, many of the cities analyzed are extremely exposed to threats such as storms and flooding, while huge numbers of people and assets at stake result in worrying levels of socio-economic sensitivity. At the same time, the cities often lack capacity to protect themselves from devastating impacts.

“Climate change is already shattering cities across developing Asia and will be even more brutal in the future”, said Kim Carstensen, Leader of the WWF Global Climate Initiative. “These cities are vulnerable and need urgent help to adapt, in order to protect the lives of millions of citizens, a massive amount of assets, and their large contributions to the national GDP.”

“The APEC summit this week in Singapore provides an opportunity to exploit the true win-win potential offered by low carbon growth strategies for countries in the Asia Pacific region, with benefits for both the economy and the climate.”

The WWF report covers 11 urban centers across Asia, all located in coastal areas or river deltas. Following Dhaka (9 out of 10 possible vulnerability points), other cities at high risk are Manila and Jakarta (8 each), Calcutta and Phnom Penh (7 each), Ho Chi Minh City and Shanghai (6 each), Bangkok (5), and Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong and Singapore (4 each).

“Asia is urbanizing rapidly, and we can be certain that urban areas will be crucial battlegrounds in the fight against climate change”, said Carstensen.

“Cities are responsible for most of the world’s energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, but they are also pioneers when it comes to developing innovative solutions. We can’t afford to surrender them to climate change. Instead, we must empower them to become change agents and protect both rural and urban areas from devastating impacts.”

The report also includes rankings for sub-categories such as environmental exposure, socio- economic sensitivity and adaptive capacity. Poorer cities often lack sufficient adaptive capacity and generally rank higher in terms of their overall vulnerability.

“Leaders in hotspots of danger like Dhaka, Manila or Jakarta need urgent support from their counterparts in the industrialized world. Effective near-term and long-term adaptation will depend on financial support, technology cooperation, and capacity building”, said Carstensen.

According to WWF, this week’s APEC summit in Singapore provides leaders from developed and developing countries around the Pacific with a great opportunity to boost cooperation on adaptation to climate impacts as well as low carbon economic growth.

“Now we are only a couple of weeks away from the Copenhagen Climate Summit, but so far leaders have failed to clear the way for success next month in Denmark”, said Carstensen.

“APEC is the last chance before Copenhagen for leaders from a number of key countries to show that they really want to protect the planet from climate change.”

Source: www.panda.org/climate

Has The Big Ice Thaw Begun?

Greenland’s ice losses are accelerating and nudging up sea levels, according to a study showing that icebergs breaking away and melt-water runoff are equally to blame for the shrinking ice sheet. Greenland locks up enough ice to raise world sea levels by 7 metres (23 feet) if it ever all thawed.

Alister Doyle for World Environment News/Reuters (13 November 2009):

OSLO – Greenland’s ice losses are accelerating and nudging up sea levels, according to a study showing that icebergs breaking away and melt-water runoff are equally to blame for the shrinking ice sheet.

The report, using computer models to confirm satellite readings, indicated that ice losses quickened in 2006-08 to the equivalent of 0.75 mm (0.03 inch) of world sea level rise per year from an average 0.46 mm a year for 2000-08.

“Mass loss has accelerated,” said Michiel van den Broeke, of Utrecht University in the Netherlands, who led the study, in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.

“The years 2006-08, with their warm summers, have seen a huge melting,” he told Reuters of the study with colleagues in the United States, the Netherlands and Britain.

“The underlying causes suggest this trend is likely to continue in the near future,” Jonathan Bamber, a co-author at the University of Bristol, said in a statement.

The computer models matched satellite data for ice losses — raising confidence in the findings — and showed that losses were due equally to melt-water, caused by rising temperatures, and icebergs breaking off from glaciers.

“This helps us to understand the processes that affect Greenland. This will also help us predict what will happen,” van den Broeke said. Until now, the relative roles of snowfall, icebergs and thawing ice have been poorly understood.

Greenland locks up enough ice to raise world sea levels by 7 meters (23 ft) if it ever all thawed. At the other end of the globe, far-colder Antarctica contains ice equivalent to 58 meters of sea level rise, according to U.N. estimates.

About 190 governments will meet in Copenhagen from December 7-18 to try to agree a U.N. pact to slow global warming, fearing that rising temperatures will bring more powerful storms, heatwaves, mudslides and species extinctions as well as rising sea levels.

The study said losses of ice from Greenland would have been roughly double recent rates but were masked by more snowfall and a re-freezing of some melt-water before it reached the sea.

In total, Greenland lost about 1,500 billion tons of ice from 2000-08, split between icebergs cracking into the sea from glaciers and water runoff. “The mass loss would have been twice as great,” without offsetting effects, Van den Broeke said.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated in 2007 that world sea levels could rise by 18-59 cms by 2100. A natural expansion of water as it warms would account for most of the rise, rather than melting ice.

Greenland’s current rate, of 0.75 mm a year, would be 7.5 cms if continued for 100 years. “This is…much more that previous estimates of the Greenland contribution,” van den Broeke said.

Source: www.planetark.org

That Was The Week That Was

A week of high and lows: Listening to real people who know what they’re talking about. Speaking out on where Australia should be heading. Trouble on the ground and in the air. ABC Carbon’s Ken Hickson opens up his diary.

Without wanting to bore my readers, I do want to make sure I don’t miss mentioning some of the important things I was up to this past week (9 -13 November 2009). So here’s a rare and exclusive look into my diary:

Monday

Met up with Adam Twemlow from KPMG’s Gold Coast office, where he has a focus on climate change. We discussed, among other things, the Carbon Outlook report, a Queensland Government collaboration with KPMG that uncovered real information about the impacts of the CPRS on SMEs. It looks at profit and loss, on-the-ground carbon assessment of 50 firms from seven sectors (manufacturing, food processing, tourism, retail, building and construction, transport and aviation) across Queensland. KPMG is one professional services firm ready to help businesses of all shapes and sizes adapt to a low carbon economy, as well as meet Government regulatory requirements. Visit www.industry.qld.gov.au/climatechange or www.kpmg.com.au

Read a good article in Australian Financial Review by Brad Orgill headlined “Market won’t fix climate change”. Find it if you can at www.afr.com.au

Then Greg Bourne gave some real up to date insight on the “Road to Copenhagen” in a talk to the Institute of Sustainable Resources at Queensland University of Technology.

Tuesday

Started the day by meeting up with Bret Peterson, who runs The Unfair Advantage, a marketing management advisory business. He has ideas for business but he’s also keen to do – and help other businesses – the green thing. For more see www.unfair.com.au

Great Barrier Reef was the focus of most of the day. WWF joined forces with the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre to showcase the work done there and in conjunction with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (See article above).

It was a lunch hosted by JB Were, catered for very sustainably by celebrity chef Ben O’Donaghue (best known for “The Best” series) and attended by a few notables.

Met up with Graeme Wood again, the man who founded Wotif.com but now puts a lot of time into  Wild Mob. This is a not-for-profit, non-political organisation, providing volunteers the opportunity to work on important environmental projects in remote, iconic destinations. For more see www.wildmob.org

Also caught up with an old friend from the Sunshine Coast, James Turner, who is doing some great work promoting the right sort of “pinger” which will stop dolphins (and whales) getting caught up in nets. Learn more on www.fumunda.com

Wednesday

This was the day for Electric Vehicles. The first time anyone in Australia has focused on this so intensively. It was the brilliant initiative of Brisbane-based Philippe Reboul. He brought together people from the car industry, power suppliers, researchers, councils and state Governments. Pity someone from Canberra was not there to hear what they should be doing. (See article above).

It really become very obvious during the day that Australia is going to be left behind unless it starts very soon to get its electric vehicle act together. I sense that we put a lot of time into research and test runs. But it is beyond that stage. We need to follow the example of other countries – France, Israel and Denmark are three movers and shakers – and get our infrastructure set up.

Also got together with a small bunch of enthusiastic people at the Business Eco Forum. Attention seemed to focus on waste and recycling. And what Government is now saying that industry – and all of us – must do. The fact that at least two of the attendees in the group are in the waste and recycling business shows that finally Government is putting its stamp of approval and regulation on what it should have done long ago.

Thursday

It was time to get on my Virgin Blue flight for Sydney armed with a bag of books to deliver to eager book stores and others. Pity the baggage handlers didn’t read the very obvious fragile label, managing to badly damage the bag and some of the precious contents. Sir Richard Branson and Brett Godfrey will hear about this!

Managed to retrieve some books (in good condition) and deliver to Lee Stewart of Change2, who decided these make an ideal gift to give to clients at this time of the year. Also discussed how we might assist each other in the sustainability business – online and off.

Thanks to mine host (Philip Sharp) we managed to deal with the damaged goods (clothes and books) and create some semblance of order out of near total disaster.

Visited my friends at the Workplace Research Centre at University of Sydney and after discussing the recent successful Climate Change@Work conference in Brisbane last month, started exploring options for taking the show abroad. Singapore next stop!

Met up with Pax Leaders Labs’ Louise Metcalf – a fan of my book – and after “crying over spilt milk”,  got to discuss trends and developments in sustainability coaching and consulting.

In spite of Sydney getting lashed by a drenching storm, I managed to get to a workshop at WWF headquarters which focussed on climate change, involving fellow Governors and staff. Ably run by Dr Dedee Woodside, the workshop was a great opportunity to tap into the wider resources of WWF. Also met up with KPMG partner Peter Kingston, who heads WWF Australia’s Finance and Risk Management Committee.

Friday

Up early and off to Macquarie Park to the Foxtel Studies to record an interview for Sky News Eco Report. First part of it was used on their special edition focussing on Copenhagen. I had my say and it went to air on Friday night, which was repeated over the weekend. You can hear a podcast on http://www.skynews.com.au/eco/. The next instalment of my interview should see the light of day in a week or two when I sound off on plans for Green Earth Communicators.

I also made time to meet up with my old journalist friend Robin Bromley and share a few tales and ideas (newspapers, publishing, planes and trains.)

A quick trip to Canberra (my first) was primarily to catch up with some appropriate Government officials and visit a book store or two. Managed to get to Paper Chain in Manuka – on the recommendation of Carbon Planet’s Dave Sag – where the book is now on sale.

My visit was cut short by a Virgin Blue phone call. My scheduled 7pm flight to Sydney was suddenly cancelled, so would I get the airport to catch a 5pm flight!

My quickest ever city tour as severely shortened. I made it to Sydney and home to Brisbane earlier than expected to unload my tales of woe, my damaged goods and wounded pride.

Happy that I’d sold some more books, met a lot of great people, engaged in some fruitful discussion  (on and off air) and arrived home safe and sound.

Not one to carry a grudge – and I do chose to travel with Virgin Blue by choice – I have to say there is something exceedingly strange about a baggage policy that agrees to repair a damaged bag, but does nothing about damaged contents. When we say something is fragile, it means it needs some care and attention. We usually mean the contents, not the container!

To my friends at Virgin, you’ll be hearing more from me. To those at Canberra, who missed me this time, don’t worry, I’ll be back.

Ken Hickson

Source: www.abccarbon.com

Profile: Oliver Yates

Investment banker and Macquarie Capital’s avoided deforestation advisor says: “We’re creating national parks by storing carbon and giving it a proper value.” So forests in developing countries can act as offsets for developed countries, including Australia, to meet their emissions reduction targets.

Oliver Yates know this business better than most and he’s happy to share with all and sundry how it’s done and why we should be doing more of it.

He was up on stage at the Carbon Market Expo on the Gold Coast last month thanking Federal Government Minister Greg Combet for his speech. He was also in speaking in panel discussions and interviews providing insight into how he thinks avoided deforestation programs can best work.   

He was a key speaker and contributor last week to the Queensland climate summit (organised by the state government and The Climate Group). This everywhere-man is equally at home in the boardrooms and conference platforms, as he is in the jungles of Indonesia. 

Giles Parkinson had this article on Oliver Yates and his work in The Australian (7 November 2009):

IT may be a prototype of the modern investment banker: hiking shoes, fedora hat, a measuring stick and a readiness to trek through jungles. For much of the past year Oliver Yates, head of utilities and climate change at Macquarie Capital Advisers, has been scouring the rainforests and peat swamps of Cambodia, Indonesia and Mozambique with his partners from conservation group Fauna and Flora International.

But the booty he is hunting is not a pot of treasure marked by the letter X on a crumpled map. It’s the plot on a graph, the one that predicts the value of carbon credits that will be generated by agreements for the protection of the world’s rainforests in the coming decades. It’s a number measured by the tens of billions of dollars, possibly hundreds.

Due diligence in this game is not satisfied by the mere examination of a spreadsheet, it’s done by going deep into rainforests, hugging trees (to test their width and carbon storage) and the depth of the peat. “We can look at satellite images but you are not going to know until you go there,” says Yates. “It’s all about proof.”

Macquarie, part of the ubiquitous Australia-based financier and deal-maker Macquarie Group, and FFI have released few details about their work, but they are quietly accumulating a pipeline of projects in anticipation of a global agreement for verifiable forest protection and biodiversity to balance emissions, where credits will be generated by the nascent international framework of REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation). Under REDD, forests in developing countries can act as offsets for developed countries, including Australia, to meet their emissions reduction targets. Countries can sell credits for the carbon stored in their forests to other countries to help meet overall emissions reduction targets.

The Macquarie BioCarbon team led by Yates and FFI is expected to launch at least six projects in coming years, with more to come. The revenue will be shared between landowners, local communities and investors.

“I love it,” says Yates, former office-bound US country head for Macquarie. “We’re creating national parks by storing carbon and giving it a proper value. It’s amazing that people haven’t done it before.”

The reason for that is that carbon has yet to be priced. Europe has its own emissions trading scheme and other nations are in the process of defining theirs. The US and Australia are keen for an international agreement covering the protection of forests.

Macquarie is also heavily involved in the trading of carbon credits from its London-based office and is a big investor in renewable energy. It recently bought Climate Friendly, a carbon offset company, and has approached others to expand its expertise and footprint.

It’s not the only investment bank moving into the carbon market. JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs have bought companies directly involved in carbon markets and are involved in forest-based schemes.

Deforestation accounts for an estimated 18 per cent of annual human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, linked by many scientists to global warming, as carbon is released from vegetation through burning or decomposition. But the idea of ascribing a price to carbon, valuing forests for their environmental services and using a carbon price to halt deforestation, has created a polemic in the business and general community. Even some of those convinced by the science of human-caused climate change and the need to cut emissions have expressed concern about turning carbon into a market free-for-all, an environmental cause they say could be hijacked by the naked greed that has characterised so many booms and busts.

Critics of carbon trading say they find it ironic that what they see as a left-wing green movement should seek to solve an environmental problem through financial markets. Others find it just as ironic that business giants that made fortunes out of deregulated commodities markets should be calling so loudly for a highly regulated, tax-based system.

But Bridget McIntosh, an Australian who heads Carbon Bridge, a Singapore-based carbon company that acts as a negotiator between local project developers and investors, says the market approach is functioning well.

She specialises in projects such as small-scale wind farms, biogas, hydro and cement waste-heat products that generate credits under the UN-sponsored Clean Development Mechanism. She says virtually every cement kiln in Thailand and Cambodia has a waste-heat power generator.

McIntosh says she created her business to ensure that project developers and local communities get their fair share of the rewards from abatement. “Most bankers think I’m crazy,” she says. “I’m not a big business person, I’m a making-the-difference person.” But she cannot understand the fuss about the money-making properties of carbon abatement.

“You can’t get mitigation unless money is invested in projects, and if the project makes more money, why would anyone complain about that? We need to act now, talk is not getting us anywhere.”

Philippe Chauvancy, sales director of Paris-based BlueNext, which he says dominates the spot trade in carbon credits, says the carbon market and its financial rewards should be put into perspective. “The volume of carbon trading in one year is probably equivalent to what the oil markets do in one morning,” he says.

Chauvancy says most people involved in the carbon markets could earn higher salaries elsewhere and he estimates that most are true believers in what they are doing. “I think 80 per cent of the people trading in carbon are believers who think they will make a difference,” he says. “They know it’s just a little part of a much bigger picture. But we’re not the Salvation Army. We want to make money, of course.”

While the likes of Yates are lining up potential projects, most are holding off their announcements until the rules of the international forestry market are made clear. Though an agreement in principle is hoped for at Copenhagen next month, details of how the issues of certification and verification, ownership and governance could be some time in the making.

Wall Street banks can see an opportunity in environmental markets. So can a host of smaller and start-up investor and service providers, as their presence this week at the Carbon Market Expo on the Gold Coast testified. Many are involved in the voluntary market, also known as social carbon, which does not generate credits of high value but can prove lucrative to the developers.

As an example, last week Australian company Carbon Planet announced what it described as the largest rainforest carbon credit deal of its type, a contract for 10 million carbon credits – one credit is worth one tonne of carbon dioxide – valued at more than $US45 million ($50m).

Carbon Planet’s cut from this transaction is a fee of more than $US2.5m, plus other receipts for service fees and “reimbursement of advances”.

Still, the deal was shrouded in mystery. The company, in the process of listing on the Australian Securities Exchange through a reverse takeover of information technology company M2M, did not identify the source of the credits (believed to be in Papua New Guinea) or the buyer (described only as a large European carbon credit company).

In its original transaction documents, Carbon Planet said it had a pipeline of 25 REDD projects in PNG alone with carbon credits worth $1 billion. This is despite the fact REDD is yet to be agreed, let alone finalised. It estimated an average trading margin of 5 per cent on these projects, similar to the one announced last week.

Those pinning their faith in the ability of these markets to play their desired role in reducing emissions and meeting the ambitious abatement targets called for by the UN advisory panel recognise that the most important quality of these markets in their initial stages is their credibility, which requires a strong governance framework nationally and internationally. The European emissions trading scheme has been a crash test dummy for the sort of improprieties that can plague a nascent market, both from inflated emission estimates of EU nations and the recent rorting of value-added-tax credits from carbon trading.

It seems all sorts of people are attracted to these markets. One carbon fund executive was taken aback after getting into a taxi at Coolangatta airport on the way to the expo last week and explaining what he did. “Oh, I’ve got my own carbon fund,” the cabbie told him. “We’ve got a $500m line of credit and a fast-growing tree that reaches full maturity in five years.”

It seems that in carbon, until the rules are properly defined, anyone can play. Or joke about it.

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au

Global Agreement on Targets Unlikely

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said this week that world nations are unlikely to strike agreement on details of a new climate change pact at the Copenhagen summit next month. But a new research paper commissioned by the German Government has found that countries including China, India, Brazil and Mexico are on track to cut their emissions by 25% by 2020.

UN’s Ban Ki-moon says Copenhagen conference may not agree full details of new climate pact

By David Stringer for CP reported (4 November 2009):

LONDON — U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that world nations are unlikely to strike agreement on details of a new climate change pact at a key U.N. summit next month.

Ban said he no longer expects nations to commit to firm emissions limits at the December summit in Copenhagen, Denmark.

“I’m reasonably optimistic that Copenhagen will be a very important milestone. At the same time, realistically speaking, we may not be able to agree all the words,” Ban told reporters after holding talks in London with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

The new pact – which is being worked on at U.N. talks this week in Barcelona, Spain – is meant to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012. The Kyoto treaty committed 37 industrialized nations to cut greenhouse gases, while the new pact would apply to developing countries as well.

Years of negotiations over the new pact have been dogged by disputes between industrial and developing nations.

“We need at this time the political will – if there is a political will, there is a way we can come to a binding agreement in Copenhagen,” Ban said.

Ban said he would push leaders to conclude a pact in Copenhagen, but said it is more likely that only agreement on principles – rather than specific targets for cuts – would be reached.

He said industrialized countries must agree to make ambitious targets to reduce emissions, and to provide sufficient financial support to developing nations to allow them to limit their emissions. Ban also wants developed countries to offer technology to allow poorer nations to adapt to the impact of climate change, and an agreement on how the pact will be enforced.

“Every day we are fighting to get an agreement that will be binding,” Brown told reporters.

The European Union on Friday called for C5 billion to C7 billion ($7.5 billion to $10.3 billion) in climate change aid to poorer nations over the next three years, reaching C100 billion, or nearly $150 billion a year, by 2020.

But EU nations failed to agree on exactly how much the bloc itself would contribute to the aid fund.

Brown insisted the EU and other industrialized nations are making good progress on the fund, which he said was “absolutely crucial to persuading developing countries that we are serious about helping them tackle the problems that arise from climate change.”

He said that, if a legally binding pact cannot be reached immediately, the Copenhagen meeting should produce a detailed basis for such a treaty to be agreed on in 2010.

British officials believe a treaty won’t be agreed before U.S. commitments on emission reductions are settled. Legislation is making its way through Congress, but is unlikely to be completed before the Denmark summit.

Brown plans talks Wednesday with Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and on Friday with Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen.

Britain also plans to focus on climate funding at the Nov. 6-7 summit of finance ministers from the Group of 20 industrialized and developing nations.

Source: www.google.com

On ABC’s AM programme, Sarah Clarke reported (7 November 2009):

Hopes of delivering a new climate treaty in Copenhagen next month have all but faded after a week of spats and little progress at the final round of United Nations talks in Barcelona.

Developing countries remain suspicious of richer nations, accusing them of failing to commit to deep emissions targets and industrial countries want greater commitments from the poorer nations.

But a new research paper commissioned by the German Government has found that countries including China, India, Brazil and Mexico are on track to cut their emissions by 25 per cent by 2020.

It’s the first major assessment that quantifies the progress of the developing nations’ efforts to cut emissions and climate groups say pressure is now on countries like Australia to come to the negotiating table.

Our environment reporter Sarah Clarke is talking to Erwin Jackson from the Climate Institute.

ERWIN JACKSON: What it really shows is that these countries are joining the clean energy economy superhighway and if countries like Australia don’t strengthen and pass their own domestic policies they’re going to be left in dirty pollution cul-de-sacs.

SARA CLARKE: And hasn’t this been the whole debacle or the whole dilemma where the developed countries like Australia and the US are saying we don’t want to commit to anything until we know what you can do from the developing side of things?

ERWIN JACKSON: Well we know China have got aggressive plans to improve energy efficiency and promote renewable energy. India are putting in plans and legislation. We’re seeing emissions trading systems emerge in Mexico and South Korea.

If you add these policies up, they are starting to get to the levels which are more than sufficient to trigger the developed country action in the order of 25 to 40 per cent reductions by 2020.

SARA CLARKE: And this is the figure that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has suggested what the developing countries need to achieve. Therefore are they on track?

ERWIN JACKSON: Based on this report the major economies in the developing world are on track to meet the conditions or for 450 parts per million stabilisation scenario.

The other important thing about this report is that it shows that with support through international financing to unlock additional public and private sector investments in clean energy, then the developing world can be put on a path which is very consistent with avoiding catastrophic climate change.

SARA CLARKE: So how do the figures compare to say what Australia and the United States can do? They’re actually almost suggesting that the developing world is doing a little bit better.

ERWIN JACKSON: Well it suggests that the developed world as a group needs to do some catch-up. The developing world’s, the major economies in the developing world are moving ahead with aggressive policies and with international support through financing they can do a lot more.

What this report shows is the condition, the developing world’s condition for Australia’s 25 per cent target; it looks on track to being met. The key test however for the developing countries will be whether they’re prepared to put these commitments into an international treaty.

SARA CLARKE: The Barcelona talks this week saw a walk-out by African nations and little progress on a 200-page document. Where to from here? What’s realistically going to be achieved in Copenhagen?

ERWIN JACKSON: Well I think that we can’t judge Copenhagen on whether it delivers a legally binding treaty at that particular point in time. We’ve got to judge Copenhagen whether it lays the foundations for the agreement of a binding treaty within six months of Copenhagen.

And the key to unlocking that will not only be the internationalising of countries’ targets, whether they be developing country actions or the United States’ own actions. It’s also going to be international financing: How do we help developing countries and the private sector invest at scale in new low carbon technologies in the developing world?

Erwin Jackson from the Climate Institute talking to our environment reporter Sarah Clarke.

Source: www.abc.net.au

What to Expect from Copenhagen

It’s being billed as the meeting that will determine the future of humanity. We will be inundated with news in December from the Copenhagen summit. Can it really save us from climate catastrophe? Catherine Brahic and Fred Pearce for New Scientist sift through the mass of science and policy to pick out the key points to watch.

A LOW-CARBON FUTURE STARTS HERE

TWO-hundred-and-fifty billion tonnes. That’s the bottom line. If we are serious about avoiding dangerous climate change, 250,000 megatonnes is the maximum amount of carbon we can put into the atmosphere. Keep going at current rates and we will have used up that ration in 20 years.

The challenge for delegates at the week-long meeting in Denmark’s capital is to agree on ways of ensuring we do not exceed it – ever.

Why this year? Two years ago in Bali, member nations of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is convening the Copenhagen summit, agreed that they would accelerate their efforts and draft a long-term plan to avoid dangerous climate change. Their deadline for doing so is the close of this year’s summit, on 18 December.

Hasn’t the Kyoto protocol shown all this to be pointless? Not necessarily. The Kyoto protocol was always intended as a first step. There are a number of differences this time around, most notably that the US opted out of the Kyoto protocol but is very much engaged in the Copenhagen process.

Why 250,000 megatonnes? We have already emitted over 500,000 megatonnes of carbon – equivalent to about 1,800,000 megatonnes of carbon dioxide – mostly by burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests. This year, climate scientists calculated that if we emit no more than 750,000 megatonnes in total, we will have a 75 per cent chance of limiting global warming to 2 °C.

What is the significance of 2 °C? The objective of the UNFCCC is to prevent “dangerous” climate change. Although any amount of warming may have consequences – including biodiversity loss, changing weather patterns and disappearing coastlines – many climate scientists predict that some of those changes will be irreversible beyond 2 °C and others will pose a serious threat to millions of people. As a consequence, 2 °C has been adopted by politicians as the threshold for dangerous climate change.

Is 2 °C little enough? That all depends: little enough for what? No amount of warming is risk-free, and modelling studies indicate that at 2 °C an additional 1 billion people will suffer water shortages and most of the world’s corals will be bleached. The world’s poorest nations, which include a number of island states that are particularly vulnerable to sea-level rise, are campaigning to limit warming to 1.5 °C. Given the effort that is going to be required to reach the 2 °C target, this is unlikely to be achieved. Moreover, lags in climate systems, plus the removal from the atmosphere of the fine aerosol particles now cooling the world, mean past emissions are likely to result in a 1.9 °C warming.

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE

There are no two ways about it: to have any chance of avoiding the disastrous consequences of exceeding our carbon budget, we must usher in a new era of low-carbon societies.

How this is done will depend on what deal can be reached between rich and developing nations. Both must agree to cut emissions according to their means and historical responsibility.

Developing nations will also need money and technology to green their industrialisation. Where this will come from will be a key preoccupation for the Copenhagen negotiators.

THE HAVES

It could cost the poorest nations hundreds of billions of dollars a year to curb their emissions and adapt to inevitable climate change.

Rich nations are responsible for most of the gases that are already heating the planet, and have a duty to help foot this bill. Negotiators in Copenhagen will have to agree on how.

Funds could be raised through taxes on emissions permits, for instance, or on international airline tickets. Or there could be a levy on all carbon emissions above certain national thresholds – as proposed by Switzerland.

The European Union agreed last week to push for a fund worth €100 billion a year by 2020.

FORESTS

Around 15 per cent of emissions come from deforestation. WWF believes this could be cut by three-quarters by 2020, but that requires giving governments, landowners and forest communities incentives to stop destroying their forests.

Two years ago, climate negotiators promised to sign such a deal – dubbed Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) – in Copenhagen.

The cash could come from rich nations buying carbon offsets to meet their emissions targets.

Brazil and Indonesia – which account for 60 per cent of emissions from deforestation – are keen. But close monitoring is essential to ensure loggers claiming cash for a forest do not continue chopping down individual trees or move their operations elsewhere.

Also, countries such as Costa Rica that have protected their forests say it unfairly rewards those who got rich destroying theirs.

TECHNOLOGY

Two billion people worldwide do not have access to mains electricity.

To bridge that gap and power industry in developing countries, the International Energy Agency says $13 trillion must be invested in the developing world in the next 20 years.

In Copenhagen, negotiators must seal a deal to ensure this goes mostly into low-carbon technologies – but how?

Western engineering firms want an open door to developing markets, perhaps secured by a “green free trade” deal. Countries like India and China want deals with rich nations that would give their own companies free access to western know-how.

DEAL BREAKERS

Who might thwart a deal?

The US may not be able to make credible promises if Congress has not passed a climate change bill in time.

If China and India think the US is not serious, they will hold back on pledges to green their own economic development.

Others might wield a veto, too. Some newly industrialised countries – Malaysia and South Korea for instance – now have emissions higher than many European countries. They may protest if asked to sign up to firm targets.

Malaysia’s emissions are four times what they were in 1990 and, per head of population, equal to the UK’s.

Saudi Arabia’s emissions have doubled and, per head, now beat all European countries except Luxembourg.

Qatar’s per-capita emissions are four times those of the US.

Gulf states tried to torpedo Kyoto because they felt it threatened oil exports. Copenhagen could threaten their internal industrialisation plans.

Source: www.newscientist.com

 ”Queensland can be at the forefront of the green economic revolution” said Tony Blair in a video message to the state’s climate summit, as Queensland Premier Anna Bligh and The Climate Group CEO Steve Howard hosted more than 100 business, scientist, government and think tank leaders for a focused discussion on how the state can lead in the low carbon economy. 

Ken Hickson and ABC Carbon attended and participated in the Queensland Climate Summit, along with 100 representatives of business, Government agencies, Universities and think tanks.

AAP reports (4 November 2009):

FORMER British prime minister Tony Blair says economic growth can co-exist with climate change strategies.

A video message from Mr Blair was played at a climate change summit in Brisbane, at which about 100 delegates discussed issues in the lead-up to the December Copenhagen climate talks.

“Queensland can be at the forefront of the green economic revolution, so I believe climate change is and will remain a defining issue for our generation,” Mr Blair said in the message.

“But I also believe that we can ensure that progress towards a new low-carbon future means economic growth and prosperity as well as a safer climate.”

Mr Blair is heading an initiative called Breaking the Climate Deadlock, in league with international non-profit body The Climate Group.

Premier Anna Bligh told the summit it was vital that her state tackled climate change, as Queensland was responsible for 30 per cent of national carbon emissions, despite having only 20 per cent of Australia’s population.

“Queensland is the Australian state that is most vulnerable to climate change – which also means we have the most to gain from international action,” Ms Bligh said.

“For a state that has so much to lose, we’re also one of the big climate sinners.”

Ms Bligh said Queensland was one of the world’s highest per capita polluters.

The Climate Group chief executive Steve Howard said there was growth potential in Queensland for renewable energy.

“If we can solve the problem in Queensland, then I believe we can solve it anywhere,” Mr Howard said.

Mr Howard said the will and technology was available, but mobilising people to reduce emissions was slow.

“(To) make sure there is good control over energy use … you have to reach out to every home and that can’t be done overnight,” Mr Howard said.

“You need to engage every single business. This requires real investment, long-term Government programs to deliver on this, and the business community to step up to the plate.”

Queensland Environment Minister Kate Jones used the summit to announce a new scheme to encourage motorists to offset their carbon emissions.

Under the Reverse the Effect program, motorists will receive a flyer with their car registration renewal notice giving them the option to also pay a fee to offset their carbon emissions.

They can also register online at www.reversetheeffect.com.au.

Ms Jones said the State Government has allocated $4.5 million over the next five years to match motorists’ contributions dollar for dollar.

She said every vehicle was weighted differently in the amount of carbon they emitted each year.

Offsets included $8 a year for a moped, $59 for an average sedan and $120 for a light commercial vehicle.

Motorists’ contributions will be tax-deductible.

Ms Jones was the first to register her hybrid Government car this morning.

“Our ultimate goal is to help offset about 290,000 tonnes of CO2 by the time the program is complete,” she said.

The program’s funds will go towards reforestation projects.

Source: www.news.com.au

Here’s how The Cimate Group reported the Queensland summit:

BRISBANE – Queensland Premier Anna Bligh and The Climate Group CEO Steve Howard hosted more than 100 business, scientist, government and think tank leaders for a focused discussion on how the state can lead in the low carbon economy. 

The Queensland Climate Summit focused on how the policies that will ensure continued economic competitiveness and growth as it strives to make long-term cuts in its greenhouse emission.  Topics covered inlcuded: how the state can make investment in the low carbon economy more attractive; planning for new low carbon cities and infrastructure; maximising green jobs growth; and exploring opportunities for mitigation and adaption in rural Queensland. 

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, in a video message, urged attendees to look at the economic opportunities in tackling climate change. 

Mr Blair said, “By focusing on practical solutions, Queensland can be at the forefront of the green economic revolution.

“We can ensure that progress towards a new low carbon future means economic growth and prosperity as well as a safer climate.”

The Climate Group’s CEO Steve Howard pointed to the state’s natural advantages in the low carbon economy: “Queensland has huge potential in areas such as renewable and solar energy and as these sectors develop, they will stimulate the creation of new jobs and economic growth.”

Speakers also emphasied the crucial importance of business and government working together to develop low carbon opportunities. Tim Flannery, former Australian of the Year and Australian Deputy Chair of The Climate Group, spoke of the ‘critical importance’ of public-private dialogue and partnerships on climate change. 

Premier Anna Bligh, who opened the conference, said that Queensland would continue to lead on the low carbon economy and called for private-public sector partnerships and collaborations. 

Premier Bligh said “If we are to get the best result for this state, government cannot just act on its own.  We need the help and support of businesses.“

At the end of the Summit, Rupert Posner, Australia Director of The Climate Group said the Summit offered a strong foundation for future such collaborations.

“The enthusiasm and support from so many government ministers and business leaders means that there are some exciting opportunities for Queensland.  And we look forward to working with them to help make them a reality.”

The Business Guide to the Low Carbon Economy: Queensland

Earlier in the day, the Queensland Government and The Climate Group launched the The Business Guide to the Low Carbon Economy: Queensland.

Commissioned by the Queensland Government, and prepared by The Climate Group in partnership with Arup, the new guide provides practical steps for businesses to get on top of measuring and curbing their emissions. It also provides an overview of Queensland’s climate change policies and programs, with a view to helping companies develop strategies that suit their individual situations.

In doing so, it will help businesses reduce costs and unlock new opportunities for growth.

Source: www.theclimategroup.org

RECs Wreck Sweet Energy Scheme

Hundreds of jobs in the sugar industry are at risk because of a dramatic slump in the price of renewable energy credits, caused by a generous Rudd government scheme to encourage investment in solar energy.

Nicola Berkovic in The Australian (5 November 2009):

HUNDREDS of jobs in the sugar industry are at risk because of a dramatic slump in the price of renewable energy credits, caused by a generous Rudd government scheme to encourage investment in solar energy.

The sugar industry yesterday warned that a A$220 million project in northern NSW could close because of the drop in the price of renewable energy certificates from more than $50 at the start of the year to less than $30.

The NSW Sugar Milling Co-operative completed two energy generation plants at its Condong and Broadwater mills last year.

The project, which uses a by-product of sugar cane called ‘bagasse’ to generate energy, supports 120 direct jobs as well as 600 farmers and 300 transport and other workers.

The co-operative’s chief executive, Chris Connors, said the project was losing $10m a year as a result of the drop in REC prices. It invested in the project with the expectation that the price of RECs would rise to $75 in three to five years.

Under the Renewable Energy Target Scheme, electricity companies are required to buy enough RECs to meet the Rudd government’s target of 20 per cent energy from renewable sources by 2020.

But the price of RECs has almost halved in the past six months since the government raised the solar hot water rebate from $1000 to $1600.

Householders can claim 30 RECs when they install a solar hot water system, which represents the electricity saved from the grid over 10 years.

Green Energy Trading’s Ric Brazzale said the number of RECs from solar had increased from about 350,000 a month to more than 1 million since the start of the year.

The result had been a plunge in the price of the credits.

Urging the government to intervene to protect the sugar industry’s renewable energy investment and other projects, Mr Connors said: “It’s a ridiculous situation where our co-operative . . . has spent significant capital on a renewable energy project and it is being destroyed by ill-conceived and wrongly directed government funds.

“The government has got to fix this pretty quick.”

Mr Connors said solutions could include the government buying back RECs to support the price, putting a minimum floor under the price of RECs or bringing forward renewable energy targets.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said the government would continue to monitor the effectiveness of the program in driving investment in renewable energy.

Nationals senator Ron Boswell said the government could not stand by while farmers lost millions of dollars invested in renewable energy in good faith.

“If you think this is a stuff up, it’s nothing compared to what the ETS is going to be,” he said.

Greens deputy leader Christine Milne said Senator Wong had “blithely ignored” warnings that flaws in the RET scheme would kill jobs and investment in renewable energy.

“Now the chickens are coming home to roost,” she said. “It would be the simplest thing to fix this problem by making credits from solar hot water additional to the scheme, but when the Greens put that solution on the table last week, both Labor and Liberal voted it down,” she said.

Concerns about the RET scheme were raised as the Greens yesterday called for a national recycling scheme ahead of a meeting of environment ministers today in Perth.

Australian Council of Recyclers chief executive Rod Welford said such a scheme could create thousands of new green jobs and help the environment.

Source: www.theaustralian.com.au