Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Offset or Off Put? The carbon offset market report
Carbon Neutral Watch – Corporates, Consultants And Credibility
Total Environment Centre
Carbon Neutral Watch – Corporates, Consultants And Credibility points out the conflicting methodologies for offset approval, accreditation and monitoring processes amongst 17 companies.
“These all contribute to an alarming chasm of credibility and that can become a reputational risk to the organisations who buy them,” said Jeff Angel, Director at the Total Environment Centre. “In its worst light offsets that are not robustly reviewed and assured, can be viewed as greenwash.”
“Then there are trees,” said Jeff Angel. “Carbon sequestration offsets or tree-plantings are plagued with difficulties. Accounting for the carbon varies, then there is the lack of regulation, assurance and insurance to ensure that the offset will actually deliver what it says over the entire life of the tree, regardless of weather conditions or fire.” “To add confusion to the mix, there are currently, 4 offset accreditation schemes in operation in Australia and another 4 voluntary schemes under development overseas. It is becoming increasingly difficult to know which one is most reliable.”
Above from the Press Release, following from the report (pdf 0.25MB.
Voluntary Industry Standards, Page 14
..To date, there has been an absence of voluntary industry standards for offsets, reflecting the underdeveloped nature of the sector and the lack of a single industry voice.
The rapidly expanding range of companies and claims is creating an increasingly chaotic environment as offset providers use testimonies, self-accreditation and logos in the race for credibility and market share. It is likely however, that NGO or government oversight will emerge before ‘industry selfregulation’ given the rapid growth and public importance of the issue. ..
Carbon sequestration – the issue of trees, Page 17
In Australia, the majority of companies offering offset schemes promise to plant a certain number of trees that will ‘soak’ up the equivalent CO2 emitted from specific activities. They often promote their services by emphasising other environmental benefits such as improvements in soil salinity and increased biodiversity.
However, the science of forestry plantings is considerably uncertain. A recent study undertaken by the Planck Institute found that whilst trees do sequester carbon they may also contribute to climate change simply because ‘the earth’s vegetation is churning out vast quantities of methane’ which carries with it a global warming potential 23 times that of CO2.17 In addition, the extent to which the carbon released from the disturbance of soil, implicit in forestry plantings, negates the benefit offered by the sequestering of carbon by the trees, has been questioned. ..
Carbon offset companies that sell ‘x’ amount of trees to negate ‘y’ tonnes of emissions associated with an airflight give the impression that such emissions offsetting will occur immediately.
However, a recent study undertaken by scientists at the University of East Anglia and Sweden’s Lund University found that an offset bought through the British company, Climate Care, would take about 100 years to recapture the carbon emitted by a flight. ..
Total Environment Centre (TEC) is an independent, non-profit group run by a Management Committee of professionals from diverse fields and an executive of experienced environmentalists.
(May 2007)
The Bored Whore of Kyoto
Alexander Zaitchik, Freezerbox
Nothing drove home Russia’s place in the growing pollution-trading business better than what one carbon finance guy told me at a conference last month sponsored by Gazprom and the World Bank. We were on drink number three or four at the reception when he dropped the green pretense and came clean.
“I don’t know if climate change is caused by burning coal or sun flares or what,” said the Moscow-based carbon cowboy. “And I don’t really give a shit. Russia is the most energy inefficient country around, and carbon is the most volatile market ever. There’s a lot of opportunity to make money.” ..
The purpose of the Gazprom/World Bank event was to introduce Russia to these Kyoto-era carbon suitors, and to educate local industry about how best to profit from the growing trade in carbon credits. Because what’s climate change about if not profit? The global market for carbon reduction credits is worth more than $20 billion and booming. The business bustles at the heart of “market-friendly” Kyoto.
Carbon trading is basically a loophole — a “flexible mechanism” in Kyoto-speak — that allows developed nations continue with business as usual while claiming to address the climate crisis. Because most industrialized Kyoto signatories won’t sacrifice short-term economic growth to cut emissions at home — best accomplished by mandatory absolute cuts accompanied by a draconian carbon tax — Kyoto lets them instead make efficiency investments in places like Russia and China, where it’s cheaper to reduce CO2 and where there’s plenty of low-hanging fruit. How many tons of CO2 countries save abroad equals how many carbon credits they get toward meeting their own national targets. Targets that they are in reality missing, in some cases by a wide margin. ..
(1 Jun 2007)
Emissions plan hurts households, but not big polluters
Phillip Coorey and Marian Wilkinson, The Sydney Morning Herald
ELECTRICITY and fuel bills will rise and the only way to avoid the sting will be to use less, under the national emissions trading system to be adopted by the Howard Government.
But the biggest emitters will be compensated for their initial losses as they adapt to a scheme designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions over the long term without causing undue damage to industry or the economy.
The report, by a taskforce commissioned by the Prime Minister, warns that “much of the cost from imposing a constraint on emissions will ultimately be borne by Australian households”.
“They will face higher prices for electricity, petrol and other [carbon emitting]-intensive products.”
For example, if the carbon price was set at $30 a tonne, it would add $200 to an annual household power bill. ..
The report urges the scrapping of the mandatory state and federal schemes setting targets for renewable energy, because it would be wrong to “pick winners”. The market should be allowed to choose future technologies.
The report is likely to start a brawl with the states, which would have to drop their more ambitious schemes to support the national scheme.
The winners are exporters who are some of the biggest greenhouse gas polluters – the aluminium, steel and cement industries. They would get free permits to pollute to cover any jump in costs because they are exporters and face competition from countries which will not put a price on CO2 pollution.
(2 Jun 2007)
The full text of the report from the Australian Prime Ministerial Task Group on Emissions Trading can be downloaded here. For some informed (and vulnerable) observers trying to be nice about it see here, otherwise see Stalling on climate change, Greens slam ‘cautious’ emissions report, PM’s climate group plans polluter permits.
Just one of the problems with the report of the Prime Ministers hand-picked taskforce is the push to sabotage the State governments higher Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. Read Heavy polluters to be outed in states’ plan to see the Howard governments policy sabotage at work elsewhere.
