Great recipe doing the rounds in Copenhagen
Blog Post | Blog of Christine Milne
Tuesday 15th December 2009, 11:01am
by TimHollo in
This great recipe is doing the rounds on postcards in Copenhagen:
Recipe for climate catastrophe
A simple recipe that requires very little effort and almost no clean up
1. Start with a small amount of emissions reduction ambition from developed countries.
2. Dilute with tons of REDD offsets, mix thoroughly in carbon markets.
3. Add wildly generous amounts of REDD+ offsets.
4. Stir until ambition disappears.
5. Sprinkle with LULUCF credits and creative accounting as needed.
6. Bake Earth at well beyond 2C mean temperature rise for the foreseeable future.
Serves billions of vulnerable people.
PDF version
Bookmark, email and share
Comments
Recipe for climate propaganda
Tim - what's your problem with LULUCF? Another way to put the question is - what's your problem with natural carbon sinks? Carbon sequestration is just as important as emissions reductions. A CSIRO report suggests that increasing carbon in agricultural soils by 1% across Australia could absorb as much as a years worth of national emissions. Wood products store carbon too so this pool should be increased globally. When a tree is logged it is not a 100% emission. What about the wood products?
I think the Greens are misleading the Australian public and poorly representing whats best for the environment at Copenhagen. Sustainable land management must be part of the battle to address climate change. How land is used and managed is central.
shorthand...
James G, it's not LULUCF or carbon sinks that Greens have a problem with. If you look through our website you'll see that the Greens are very strong advocates for increased biosequestration! Sustainable land use is critical and must be part of the solution.
The problem is when LULUCF and REDD rules are gamed by countries like Australia to make it look like emissions are being reduced when in fact no such emissions reductions are taking place. That's not making sustainable land use part of the solution - it is perpetrating a fraud on the people who trust the accounts, but not fooling the atmosphere.
For example, Australian negotiators and others have ensured that, under Kyoto accounting, if you log a native forest and replace it with a plantation, that is deemed to be a zero emissions process and you do not have to account for it at all. That is despite the fact that there are massive emissions from the process since native forests hold vastly more carbon than plantations do. So this is accounting fraud which will come back to bite us.
At the current meetings, Australian negotiators are pushing for the long-standing 1990 baseline for forestry to be dropped and replaced with a "business as usual" baseline. That means that, under their accounting claims, if we reduce logging below an imaginary business as usual trajectory, we get to count benefits from that, but we don't have to count the emissions themselves from ongoing logging up to that imaginary line at all.
So get into the rules - not smoke screans
Tim I appreciate what your saying, but in reading over Bob Brown's press release yesterday, you could be easily mistaken in thinking that the Greens are all about emissions reductions and not carbon sinks. I think its just hype about 'carbon cheating' relating to LULUCF negotiations. Kyoto isnt perfect either. All these initiatives must surely be a product of adaptive management. We have to start somewhere.
The sensitive issue about forest dependent traditional communities and poverty must surely play a part in these rules. Stopping logging and development in the developing countries will lead to massive poverty and starvation. We just cant be radical and turn em into national parks over night. The issue of forest conversion is a tough one. Somehow forest conversion needs to be phased out globally, as is the case in Australia. But Tim, what's your position on sustainable forest management in developing countries? What about sustainable forest management in primary tropical forests?
Yes, fix the rules, don't just let them go through bad
James, check out the greater detail that the Greens talk about - for example in this blog post from earlier today:
http://greensmps.org.au/blog/monday-copenhagen-245pm
Accounting May Never Be Agreed
We all seem to be going round, and round in circles about the accounting for emission reductions.
Many of the G77 are determined to incorporate as much into the accounting process as possible, as they know most Western nations (just look at Canada) will never be able to meet targets, so the big dollars will flow into their corrupt Governments. You may solve the problem by advising them they will NOT get cash, but will be provided only with technology to help them. However I bet they would never accept this idea.
With logging, the Australian Government needs to be realistic. They know Australia needs x meters of hardwood lumber per year for our building industry, especially with the expected 30% increase in population over the next 20 years, the requirements will grow dramatically. Plantation hardwood takes decades to grow to usable building size, so, we either continue to log, and replant with same species, or import ever increasing hardwood from countries like, Malaysia, Indonesia, New Guinea, Sth America etc.
The other side of the accounting is the unrealistic incorporation of emissions from bush fires. Sure, record and document the bush fires emissions, but as they are unpredictable and uncontrollable, how can the Government be expected to be be accountable for their emissions. I believe that over 80% of Australian increase in emissions over the past 20 years was from bush fires (refer Tim Flannery). If people want to incorporate bush fire emissions into the accounting, and as we can expect probably increasing numbers of severe bush fires, then the Government may need to agree to 50% INCREASE in emissions over the next 20 years, because we sure as hell will not be reducing emissions.
Finally, what ever the Government agrees to, needs to be governed on what the electorate is prepared to accept. Forgetting the bush fire issue for the moment, the Governments know that with 30% increase in population expected, they cannot turn off the coal fired power stations that are required for peak loads (although they should look at converting to natural gas fired), and that electricity energy (and motor vehicle) requirements will dramatically increase over the next 20 years. The Government needs to be realistic, and plan for reductions that are feasible and agreed by industry and the general (Mr and Mrs Average in the out suburb electorates) community. Agreeing to unrealistic targets now that will never be met, will probably force some future Government to just tear up any agreement.
Bushfire is a major emissions problem
I definately think bushfires are a massive climate problem as you say Grant. This country needs a national shake up regarding bushfire - on a policy, practitioner and attitudinal level. Shirking our national bushfire emissions obligations wont help the cause either...
The one aspect of fire behaviour we can contol is fuel load. Forest fuel loads are dangerously too high almost nationally, with the exception of Kakadu and places where Indigenous management still reigns.
Bushfire is not only an issue of emissions, its one of biological conservation. The 4 major bushfires in the last 6 years have killed billions of native animals and destroyed freshwater aquatic environments.
Enough is enough. Humans must be re-empowered to manage forest fuel loads.
Bush fires are not a problem
Carbon dioxide emissions in a single event are of no consequence to climate change, it is the total emissions integrated over time that matters. So provided that the landscape is allowed to restore itself over time, the net emissions for a bush fire event is close to zero.
High intensity fires which are widespread are flora friendly (as most of the fauna is wiped out and takes a long time to recolonise). This is not such a bad thing.
I am more concerned about dodgy accounting that doesn't look at systems holistically. The sort of accounting that counts the farts of cattle used for beef production, but does not count the farts of humans caused by baked bean production.
Hot fire is bad for flora
Fire aint Fire Zoltar. Really hot fires are destructive to flora where cool burning is beneficial to most Aust native plant communities. The only flora species I am aware off that benefit from hot fire are the Ash eucalypts. The seed of trees like Mountain Ash is susceptible to pathogens from the forest floor and only germinates on an ash bed or bare soil.
And what about the Banksia group? Fire is needed so that the cone opens those little mouths that hold the seed. But if the fire is too hot, the Banksia cone burns right through and the seed gets cooked. I can take you to areas in national parks where the Banksia shrub layer has disappeared in patches where the last bushfire got too hot.
wooden thinking
Let's consider just a few points in the last two comments above.
First, the expectation of population increase tied to timber products is not being particularly creative. There are many parts of the world where timber is not available for building and yet people build homes. Think Greek islands, Turkey, Egypt, India. So we don't need to have new plantations and we can stop logging native forests. If we do this then we are protecting a significant carbon sink.
Second, the increased incidence of bush fires is directly related to global warming with less rainfall and increased dryness in our present forests. We must deal with the primary problem first and reduce our greenhouse emissions from carbon, otherwise it won't matter whether we reduce the fuel load or not, the forests will continue to dry out and burn. We are in a classic 'Catch 22' situation where we must protect our forests from further reduction in size and then deal with the consequences if we can't get the climate back under control. In fairness to other countries we should count the emissions from bushfires and cut back on emissions in other ways areas.
Third, I just don't understand the comment 'what the electorate is prepared to accept'. Most of the population of Australia is not prepared for anything. Apart from the Greens and a couple of independents there are no voices to present the realities of the present situation. As an example, very little has been done in practical terms to prepare us for global warming - no laws or regulations governing a change in transport systems, no opportunity for people to use electric cars, very little money invested by the government in establishing industries to produce renewable energy systems or associated infrastructure. We are given virtually no information about climate change which even approximates to the reality, no information about the likely risks, and then you make a comment which seems to indicate that 'the electorate' can make any kind of rational decision.
I agree that the government needs to look at options that are feasible, but these options must address the reality of the urgency of climate change, not address the status quo. Ten years ago we could have had a vibrant renewable energy sector and ordinary people could be well placed to deal with a changed world. That time has passed, now we must play catch up, and do it quickly.
What the Australian public will accept
Some good points made here and I would especially endorse this view that we know what the great Australian public will or wont tolerate. We are an extremely hedonistic society and no one has ever really spelt it out to us that the party is over. It is one thing responding to a survery that you regard climate change as the number one issue, fitting a water tank and some solar panels, and getting a feel good factor by re-cyclilng, but what about it all becoming really serious. No more jetting off to Bali or Phuket for the vacation, or flying up to the Gold Coast for that winter break, no more driving to the shopping mall in the Land Cruiser for a Saturday afternoon's recreational consumption; I doubt if we would find much in the way of enthusiastic support then. And don't let us forget that there are plenty of people, pollies and commentators, who are telling us all that it is all just some kind of an evil plot, we've had them posting on this site even, and there is nothing to stop the party going on.
There has been quite a bit in "The Age" recently refering to the numerous freeway and inter-link projects that VicRoads has planned, untold billions of dollars worth. The Victorian state government boasts about how rapidly the state and Melbourne's population is expanding. I would suggest that this alone would more than offset any likely outcome from Copenhagen.
If I dredge really deep I can just about believe that sufficient people would respond positively given real leadership but the emphasis is on real. Take a look around the leadership of our world today and what do we see? Nothing but glamour boys fronting for spin doctors pushing the interests of global, corporate capitalism. Doesn't leave one with much feeling of hope.
Bushfire is all got to do with fuel loads
Totally agree Helen - climate change is going to be realy bad for bushfires, if not already. Climate change is a global issue and we all have to do our bit. Bushfire management though is about getting into forests and keeping fuel loads to acceptible levels. High fuel loads equals hot destructive and largely unnatural fires. The science is solid on this issue Helen - fuel load has a direct relationship with fire intensity - bottom line.
If you dont believe me, look up what the Stretton Group of leading scientists and bushfire managers have to say.
Post new comment