Category Archives: Hot air

CFI – a XANADU

Posted on by co2land

If you follow that Shangdu as the summer capital of Kublai Khan’s empire, then you would be forgiven for thinking the CFI is our XANADU and an enigmatic bright feature on the surface. Thereby, we have a problem because it is being profiled as exactly that and actively marketed by government as a series of experiments to showcase. Practitioners are asking: What about us in the ‘real’ world, can we believe something that looks good on the surface is enough? Some say yes, many no.

This conversation started because projects are to be funded that address recognised program gaps of the Carbon Farming Futures activities. This round: The Extension and Outreach Phase two submissions were due Wednesday June 12 5pm. Information is be found on Extension and Outreach daff.gov.au.

Some disquiet continues and numerous amounts of feedback do focus on the issue of the bankable when needing to finance, and other is the number of reference groups that were set up to work through the matters and the concern some of the critical consultation groups are difficult to contact or not able to be mobilized. A prime example being: The Biochar Reference Group. After some searching key people advocating the approach found part of the problem was people moving on to further their personal interests. The difficulty is that the group has funding to develop the soil carbon methodology necessary to be approved by the DOIC to produce ACCU’s (carbon credit units), and although soil carbon methodologies now has an active ‘reference group’ to attempt to push it along, the two subgroups (Mixed farming, and Rangelands) do not, or have not formally communicated what each are up to in their work levels. Compounding this the CFI is looking less of a ‘farming’ initiative in terms of reward systems, and as of the time of writing the government has not produced an example of a good news story on a true ‘farming’ credit. It is difficult to sell virtues without success stories and Gant chart the project support from the farming community without it.

A closer look at the cost of participating is also most interesting, and it is easy to see another genuine hurdle is related to the methodologies development. There is considerable variation in calculating the cost of participating, and some use this as an excuse that farmers are simply not ready to seek approval of their methods, some say it is simply too expensive to get approval. Some even say there is a genuine disinterest for government to get on with ‘innovation’ attempts.

In terms of cost we need to consider that published 8 April 2013 by Co2Land.org: ” It costs up to $1M to develop a methodology acceptable under CFI. Once accepted the transaction cost to create the ACCU’s is said to be about $70,000. Although it is not a definite cost, it can be less but a reasonable guide and it requires you to look carefully at the potential yield of each project and whether you can smear the transaction cost across the entire project to determine the minimum size for it to be a worthwhile program”.  Then Country Carbon ( www.CountryCarbon.com.au ) said the numbers posted by CO2land of transaction cost of $70k for ACCUs are ridiculous. They made no attempt to say what is a typical transaction cost other than a comment, and the spokesperson (identified as NC) said “I have no idea where they sourced those”. Curiously NC goes on to say: “The Clean Energy Regulator register shows only a few projects from farmers and only 1 I believe has done a transaction. 
I doubt very much that every methodology needs $1 million for development as well. Too many variables to generalize”.

Co2Land org agrees that too many variables are involved, and then notes two other people advocating for the CFI saying: “None of the methodologies applicable to general farming, that we have examined so far, appear to have net positive financial benefits. Some can lead to substantial unknown liabilities in the future or limit land use in overly prescriptive ways. 

If I am wrong in this please correct me, and show me where it does work and I will be happy to spread the good news”. 

And, “I am a farmer (even if less active than I would like) and all the ones I know are not only not ready to adopt but are only following the program with peripheral interest until such times that they are satisfied something of genuine benefit to their own operation has become apparent. Many I have talked to see it as another under handed greenie grab for the land, some of the prescriptions on approved methodologies certainly seem lifted from this camp. 

Methodology development using all our substantial ‘in house’ skills and resources we estimate to still cost in excess of $100,000 with no guarantee of success “(source identified as PK). Then source LK – not related, said “Many unresolved issues remain, however moving ahead is better than waiting for the ‘perfect’ answer in my view. Just wish for political consistency at this end – the fact that State Coalitions have stripped climate change policies bare is of most concern to me.”

In all this there does seem to be agreement that for farmers, environmental planting does not pay a sufficient return to justify the investment on carbon alone. NC also said “It is also considered that the RMT tool (modeling tool) is deliberately using carbon sequestration estimates well below average because no direct sampling is required for audit”. Possibly this is an oversight, maybe not? In this approach they have taken an ultra conservative approach and the indications are these carbon estimates are so low it is not economical to do it – participate in the initiative that is!  So it remains only one of those methodologies remain with few takers. Even the CSIRO was showing how low these estimates are for the RMT. Reported is the government has taken a decision to use the lowest rates possible for landholders carbon sequestration from tree planting. A good source of this view is
https://twitter.com/CountryCarbon/status/332655918254792706/photo/1
 

They go on to say: ”In simple language the govt will only recognize extremely low carbon sequestration rates regardless of what happens on the land. It is not even the mid-point average. So that farmers would earn very few carbon offsets. Therefore they say, why bother? 

Most of the extension and outreach to date talks about tree planting or piggeries. (Piggeries are a different question). Most projects approved are all about landfill projects and they are town councils.” They also say: “It actually has less to do with government cut backs or Coalition vs Labor politics and more to do with implementation”. More than one providing input say it may be just a simple matter as readjusting the RMT tool.

CO2Land org intends to continue this thread of knowledge and asks: Unless you be fortunate enough to have a government program that is more generous behind you. 
Should we lobby government harder to be more encouraging for innovation in CFI?

Notwithstanding, CO2Land org wish everyone the best with their endeavours in the initiative. Applauded is the intention is well founded, the legislations well intended, and the potential well received – but something is missing! Maybe it is a case of it is too difficult to include farming in CFI and the outreach context for farmers is that the potential liabilities that could be incurred by landholders using some already approved methodologies are not properly explained and/or are dismissed as of a trivial nature. The great harm in this possibility is that the program reputation will be tainted – irrespective of its intention of fairness. Even recent Government decisions on department restructuring (especially the Department of the long name – too long to repeat) and budget constraints required by departments and the continued efficiency dividends to Treasury are not helpful to the pledge. What is hoped for by farming advocates and practitioners is a more direct show of continuous steps to perfection for the farming community and eliminating any direction that might be seen as a series of steps to dismantle or derail such a worthwhile cause from its name sake – the Carbon Farming Initiative.

Falling Short – F.I.T. in renewable power

Posted on by co2land

A desire to improve the competitiveness of Renewable Energy in Australia’s power mix is problematic and it is not necessarily technical limitations that hamper the project or is it financial limitations despite bank risk concerns. Especially if the later is supported by the Government bringing forward $160 million in Clean Technology Investment Program (CTIP) funding to 2014-15 to increase manufacturing investment and boost productivity and competitiveness – The budgets key message that CTIP program demand is strong and growing, and there is no change to the funding commitment.  It also is possible the coalition could maintain the $1 billion commitment to the investment programs, albeit it may be called something else for branding purposes.

Co2Land org argues it is not sufficient to be experience in, or have an understanding of the challenges in the design or deployment of renewable energy solutions. That is referring to only the infrastructure, energy output, utility area of responsibility, power capability, transmission and distribution capacity, or even storage technology as the solution set.

The more dangerous issue is the means that an uncooperative energy utility can muster a political wedge and creates sufficient doubt of the effectiveness of the program that will lead to a fall-out with the community. Recently in Australia Co2Land org has been given information that a bitter war is engaged between parties over such a Queensland power line duplication proposal and it all seems so unnecessary. As an observation there is room for both sides to move on this one. However, the agenda may be more complex and looking further afield Canada has some lessons we could learn from over the growth of renewables and why utilities might be so sensitive to the growth of such. It could be our problems in Australia are similar to the following as the Pike Research report that says energy is becoming increasingly democratized and the role of utilities is changing, from producing power and supply markets to purchasing it from distributed sources. We also know in Queensland the State Government has a large ownership stake in generation and supply – albeit they are not alone from the other states and it all gets down to variation of the model as opposed to opposition of the models of operation. Regardless each has ample opportunity to hamper success of ‘buy local’ feed-in into the grid system as the rules stand.

Looking further to the problems of Canada and the utopian belief that all would embrace the new world, it is reported by www.energymanagertoday.com, on 21 May 2013:

“Ontario has fallen short of its goal of creating 50,000 jobs and 5 gigawatts of renewable energy power with its ‘buy local’ feed-in tariff program, despite gathering early momentum by generating 31,000 jobs and turning one in 7 farmers into energy producers, says a report by the Institute of Local Self-Reliance.

Hydro One, the province’s largest utility, has been a major roadblock to progress says ILSR report author John Farrell, since it set a limit of sourcing just 7 percent of its energy from distributed renewable sources, compared with 15 percent for most US utilities. In US states where the cost of power is high, like Hawaii and California, utilities have upped the limits even further, at 25 and 50 percent respectively.

Farrell says Hydro One did not prepare to accommodate the boom in distributed power from the FIT program and missed deadlines to link up to new sources of power. As a result, despite overwhelming demand for FIT and contracts being signed for most of the 5 gigawatts, only 10 percent of the projects are producing electricity now.

Because of the demand for FIT, Ontario will actually be able to shut down all its coal-fired plants next year, and meet most of its 2030 renewable energy goals 12 years early – but its notable success has come at a price, since unprepared utilities were not able to bring the contracted energy on line.

The slow development led to political backlash that nearly toppled the ruling Liberal Party in the 2011 elections. It did lose its majority, which Farrell says jeopardized support for FIT. The Great Recession also stymied progress.

Since then, Ontario has reviewed the FIT program and revised its rules last year, doubling its focus on local ownership and participation. Farrell believes the move, which he says should have been adopted two years ago, will reduce political angst and local opposition and increase return on investments.

Farrell suggests that the Ontario Power Authority needs to streamline its process for developing renewable power with existing contracts and push utilities to get better at determining grid capacity. It should also review whether utility-scale mega projects make sense, given the difficulties in getting it to market. With these changes, “the FIT program may still live up to much of its early promise” he says.”

Sometimes you have ask – why do we ignore the obvious in Power Play? I answer is it is the nature of things to only see our side as a team play, and there is no I in team. ‘I’ referring to the society as a collective, and it has no advantage to be a collective outcome.

 

Movements – a Viable CFI methodology

Posted on by co2land

Under debate for some time has been whether reforestation, and afforestation should be part of the CFI. It was thought only conservation planting was viable as a measure under Natural Resource Management (NRM) rules. In more recent times part of discussion was a concern that political movements would be disruptive.

Two announcements made by the Australian Government on these matters by newsletter on 12 April 2013 may be helpful for the debate. Namely:

  1. First reforestation and afforestation project approved, and
  2. No changes to methodology development following changes to the Cabinet.

Posted on April 8, 2013 by co2land, Makers – a Viable CFI methodology the point was made it is not a simple process to develop CFI Methodology and program rules are a major factor in participating, and the recent Government announcements will address most of those points (but not the coalitions position).

On point 1: The Clean Energy Regulator under the Carbon Farming Initiative has announced the first project using the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) (Reforestation and Afforestation) Determination 2013. There are now 53 projects approved under the Carbon Farming Initiative. All projects declared eligible under the CFI Act are published on the Register of Offsets Projects.

On point 2: Work on the development and assessment of Carbon Farming Initiative methodologies undertaken by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) will continue apace under new Ministerial Responsibilities announced recently by the Prime Minister.

DCCEE’s energy efficiency functions will be have been transferred into the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (DRET) while the remaining policy functions currently performed by DCCEE, including the CFI, will be have been transferred to the newly-named Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIICCSRTE).

Former DCCEE staff working on the CFI and other land sector measures will move to DIICCSRTE and continue their work accordingly.

Whether participating in CFI or not is still very much a matter of it depends on the location and the carbon sequestration rates that would be possible for it to be viable.

If we start by avoiding the cost of participation discussion, one non-scientific way to help you decide is to ask: Did the area to be used have really large trees present in the past? If yes it could be very viable. It follows that nature will want to regenerate those areas into large carbon rich forests. In gathering your evidence you could include old local history photos of the areas showing the large density of trees on them. In choosing a more scientific way: Gather the Lot & DP numbers and/or GPS points, and the CFI environmental tools should be useful to tell the landholder the likely sequestration rates. However, as we said in the former Co2Land org post the uncontrollable factor in proving if it is viable is the price of carbon. Notice it was not said the ‘carbon price’ as that is an artificial price set for the transition period.

If we focus on the cost of developing a methodology for inclusion into the CFI program register the major factor is cost in terms of the capability to enter into initiative. You may find innovation is required for a “creative” way to recover the cost of developing a methodology. Or is it? It follows that once published on the climate change website it becomes public information. However, it will still take some effort and there will be a need to lobby Government to allow the methodology to be used by another entity. In equity you should anticipate any agreement might require a royalty payment to the original developer.

If you can overcome the matter of cost, it becomes a question of what CFI environmental tools you refer to for the CFI Mapping and Reforestation Modeling tools. Also the methodology costs will depend on the level of verification and any additional research required, in many cases there are sufficient prior studies (such as survival & growth rates in the targeted region) and accepted calculation methods to do this could be found from a literature search, or you could talk to others trying to develop the same thing. It is understood the web page:
http://www.greeningaustralia.org.au/our-projects/land/bio4
 will promote further research on this matter.

One suggested project to study as a background search is the NSW Blacktown Council and their Regenesis Project. That project has lessons that can be of benefit to be aware of in your deliberations. One example lesson is they had a significant grant to develop their concepts and actually generated the first carbon credits only to have a later policy decision rule projects within urban boundaries to be ineligible. Notwithstanding, the core of their work is valid. You can view the Regenesis projects on the website – www.australiancarbontraders.com and then click on the Regenesis link on the front page.

So frustration will continue and innovation continues to be encouraged – for those eligible – and that suggests you need friends to be recognized as able to be innovative. At cross purposes you might argue!  An anonymous friend, name provided but withheld, said “in an entirely different forum some years ago we flagged this as a problem for the then announced Innovation Strategy. The senior public servant delivering the local launch responded: We can’t have people solving problems in unique ways that we can’t predict, you wouldn’t know where would it all end up!

It would seem the core problem with the current grant model is that it is primarily a funding model for the usual suspects, as practiced the truly (open) competitive component is only a small % of the funding available.

We need a better approach that covers needs of Universities and commonwealth and state research agencies separately.”

Then we hear funding has no longer been provided for strategic innovation!

Makers – a Viable CFI methodology

Posted on by co2land

Recently a discussion group was asked for information on the area needed to make a Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) methodology viable. I follows the answer is not as simple as it should be and part of the problem is the rules can change and even the responsible entity itself might change. This statement is not an example of a remote possibility, it is very much what is likely to happen.

First issue: The market.

Currently a Australian Carbon Credit Unit is reported as holding steady at approximately the Carbon Price Mechanism expectation of $23 (actually ACCU spot price is $22.60 at 4 April 2013). Compared to the trading prices of others. For example the Carbon + Market Daily (www.cedaily.com.au) shows European Union Allowances (EUA eligible on Australian Scheme from mid 2015 – June 2016: AUD $7.48 – no change) 
* Certified Emission Reductions (CER eligible on Australian Scheme from mid 2015 – June 2016: AUD $0.67 – up 6.4%) 
* New Zealand Units (NZU spot can’t be used to meet liabilities under the Australian scheme: NZD $1.97 – down 2.5%) 
* Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCU spot Kyoto units issued under the CFI that can be used to help meet Australian scheme liabilities: AUD $22.60 – no change). They also report of conflicting market drivers, and this is in addition to the Coalition threats to dismantle the carbon price mechanism, that the European market is struggling to hold above EUR5 on moderate volumes. Problems include:

1) An increasing likelihood that backloading will be passed as more countries come out in support of the proposal; and

2) High auction volumes relative to emitter demand.

3) Increased selling in the New Zealand market as more participants’ look to switch out of their NZUs and into cheaper international units.

4) June 2016 prices for EUAs and CERs reflect the cost of these units to an entity liable under the Australian scheme’s floating price phase.

5) The EUA (December 2013 contract) is a focus as this drives price movements and is a key indicator of EU (European Union) market sentiment.

Conclusion – first issue: Transactions involving carbon give rise to substantial risk (including regulatory risk) and are not suitable for all investors. It is recommend that you seek your own independent legal or financial advice before proceeding with any investment decision

Second issue: Carbon Auction Rules.

The Clean Energy Regulator is likely to be required to offer 60 million carbon units in 2013-14 under draft carbon auction rules. The potential is the opening price is at 60% of the international market price. Follow the link of the

exposure draft of a carbon auction determination, and it will outlines arrangements for auctions that are set to begin next financial year.

If you are relying on an incoming Coalition Government to repeal the determination, you should note s113(9) of the Clean Energy Act allows the Regulator to hold auctions even without the determination. It might not be so simple as a statement to win votes – it is written in stone so to speak.

Conclusion – Second issue: Without control of the senate, or if the senate is hostile, a Coalition repeal instrument would be disallowable. This introduces additional risk, and additional to regulatory risk. As in the first issue it is recommended you seek your own independent and financial and legal advice.

Third Issue: ACCU methodology.

It costs up to $1M to develop a methodology acceptable under CFI. Once accepted the transaction cost to create the ACCU’s is said to be about $70,000. Although it is not a definite cost, it can be less but a reasonable guide and it requires you to look carefully at the potential yield of each project and whether you can smear the transaction cost across the entire project to determine the minimum size for it to be a worthwhile program.

One way to develop a methodology and reduce your cost base is to apply to the 

Methodology Development Program (MDP) for a grant to develop the methodology. The 

MDP is a 
$19.6 million for the development of methodologies for use in the Carbon Farming Initiative. The fund is administered by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE).

However, recently the Government has moved from 26 March 2013 that DCCEE be in transition to be part of a new super department called the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. 

It is reported as a move the Australian Government hopes will be seen as logical and a way to portray that climate change is taken seriously across all of government and across all portfolios. Details changes are yet to be fully announced, albeit it is known the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy has changed with 140 projects, 33 university programs and 100 researchers affected – source ABC.net.au.

Conclusion – Third issue: Before expending too much time on the methodology. The suggestion is you follow up on who would administer the program post transition to the super department, and the will to continue with the program. Any changes will have cost implications for your efforts.

If only we had certainty!

Confident with no confidence – QLD style CID

Posted on by co2land

Asking a cursory ‘Trust you are having a good and Happy Easter up in Queensland’. The reply was a shocker: “We are stuffed, I suppose the next thing we will get is a letter in the mail, stating we have to walk off our property so they can push every thing over for Ergon and the mines – Love Sharron”.  What was referred to is an alleged flawed process for the duplication of the 63 klm long 110kV power line from Warwick to Stanthorpe in Queensland, and the mounting speculation a public announcement has been held back from that process.

Ergon Energy is sponsoring the Community Infrastructure Designation (CID) process, under the Section 200 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA). The SPA details the process required for CID, providing an emphasis on ensuring that adequate environmental assessment and public consultation occurs prior to Queensland Government approval.

But it is suspected Ergon Energy has not been fully consultative with landowners and the community on the proposed corridor and cracks are appearing in the approval tactics under the Queensland Government’s CID process. According to the ‘grape vine’ what is held back is announcing mining is coming to Warwick, which is backing off Cherribar Resort owned by Chinese investors (a Resort set up to supply 400 homes for dignified living of people of Chinese origin), and the facilities includes the operating of their own airstrip. The timeframe is said to be in about 18 months, and soon after Cecil Plains coal seam gas and open cut mining has started.

CO2Land org then felt compelled to research this story further and then noted the Southern Free Times has been running stories on the progress of the proposal by Ergon Energy to build an additional power line to supply the Stanthorpe area. A quick check indicated this means 3 supply lines to cater for the area. (Stanthorpe – translated as old English meaning ‘tin town’ – is a town situated in south east Queensland, Australia. The town lies on the New England Highway near the New South Wales border 223 km from Brisbane via Warwick, 56 km north of Tenterfield and 811 m above sea level. The area surrounding the town is known as the Granite Belt. At the 2011 census, Stanthorpe had a population of 5,385.)

According to the local government council, the population of the Southern Downs Region has increased over the past 5 years at an annual average rate of 1.4%.  They say this rate is above the national average for inland regions not affected by the current resources boom. They also say the population increase has been brought about partly by the “tree change” phenomenon, and partly by the affordability of high quality housing – currently averaging 40% less than Brisbane prices. That said it would be hard for Ergon Energy to argue population growth numbers justifying such a large expenditure on an underutilized power line – at a community expense, certainly not justified for at least another 10 years without a resources boom planned!

However, the headline of Southern Free Times of 28 March 2013 read “Stanthorpe needs Power Reliability Says Springborg” – the opening paragraph included “The State Member said he remains confident in the decision making process of a Stanthorpe Power Line Community Reference Group, despite rifts in the group and a loss of community support”. Looking deeper into the story we find 6 of the 11 member CRG have resigned!    This sounds a bit odd – the State Member (also the Qld Gov Minister of Health) ‘remains confident’ and the CRG has no confidence in the CID process? So what is really going on here?

On reading the entire story it is noted a number of good points are raised in the Southern Free Times and the expected well scripted responses come from Ergon Energy.  But what was not covered were some big burning matters such as: Fair compensation for the loss of use or abandoning the use of your homes and property to make way for a duplication of the 110kV power line (it seem Qld in cutting the red tape for approvals also avoids the option of owners selling land affected at market price, or even accept a fair rent for the use of the land). Next, the line will be redundant unless significant growth for the need for power increases above the expected planned growth scenario. This is something the regulators must test for who benefits and whether the abandoning of the need in the lifetime of the line will result in undue costs to the community. Especially if the ‘grape vine’ is correct as to the actual need for such a large duplication.

The big issue in all this is not even remotely covered. That is the case for smearing the costs with the community when it may be a benefit for say a new mine or foreign investment interests, and that user might pull out of the area before the economic life of the line is reached.  We can think of numerous examples where this happens and one ripper is Cobar in NSW – the lines were put in and the mine shut down leaving the community to pay the costs. Costs that we now know could be avoided.

What evidence is there that financial and lifestyle costs could be avoided? The answer is actually in the responses from Ergon Energy to the Southern Free Times. A absolute major give away and indicator of the real agenda  – Ergon did not say that all alternatives had been evaluated, they said proposals to met expected demand for alternatives had not been included in time. They also said two lines currently serve the area including an 110kV and a 33kV line. They argued the 33kV line can only supply half of the current peak load. Extrapolate that to peak loads and the capacity of the current 110kv line is fine and allows for load growth of the predicted 18% over the next ten years. It also means demand response measures, if taken, will cater for peak load without new infrastructure. It also means a duplicate 110kV power line will at best be utilized 5% of the time – if you research the Power of Choice submissions with AEMO you will find similar analysis.

Also noted in Springborg’s response is he said new infrastructure was required and without detail other than a general statement the community is entitled to reliable power. Maybe the CRG should ask a few more questions, like:

  1. Why do you need more than what is stated as the need in growth scenarios (reference to published planning and forecasts from other than Ergon)?
  2. Why do you think technology will not provide solutions at a least cost other than conventional distribution of power? and,
  3. If a new industry development other than what is required by a community in growth were introduced would that industry pay a fair and reasonable rent for the infrastructure?
  4. Would a fair and reasonable rent be returned to the community?

Of course these questions are very likely to elicit more the well scripted replies to the questions, but then you could just ask them again only at a different level. For instance, if the state said the means is more important than the ends, it should be tested thoroughly.

Co2Land org now asks: If we consider the four primary schools of thought in general jurisprudence :

  •   Natural law is the idea that there are rational objective limits to the power of legislative rulers.
  •  Legal positivism, by contrast to natural law, holds that there is no necessary connection between law and morality and that the force of law comes from some basic social facts although positivists differ on what those facts are.
  •  Legal realism is a third theory of jurisprudence which argues that the real world practice of law is what determines what law is; the law has the force that it does because of what legislators, judges, and executives do with it. Similar approaches have been developed in many different ways in sociology of law.
  • Critical legal studies is a younger theory of jurisprudence that has developed since the 1970s which is primarily a negative thesis that the law is largely contradictory and can be best analyzed as an expression of the policy goals of the dominant social group.

Has the Queensland Government and Ergon (a government entity) set the theme of better practice or has the quest for the means of the market overtaken good policy for the ends to look after the community?  If the means is more important can we say the community consultation businesses that influence, is only in the interest of making a market other than setting up community representative groups with limited knowledge of the true agenda? Therefore are these groups only to give comfort to the Minister of state that all is well on a certain issue?

DoIICCSRTE – again one more time around

Posted on by co2land

If you wondered if the writing is on the wall for climate change adaptation strategies what better declaration other than to say we need a new super department and call it the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.

As of 26 March 2013 the transition has started in a move the Australian Government hopes will be seen as logical and a way to portray that climate change is taken seriously across all of government and across all portfolios. In asking the question will it work? Consider:

Logical – The movement of Energy Efficiency to Resources; energy and emission reduction policies best fit is with Climate Change.

Illogical – the same super minister overseeing mining companies will manage renewable energy.

Means – the urgent need to decarbonize the economy.

Ends – to cut funding to over 140 projects across 33 universities around Australia. To affect more than 100 researchers in the ability to carry out critical work on climate change adaptation.

The game is to be seen as promoting innovation. That word innovation is being used as a football – or should we say moneyball.

If you are not aware the opposition is committed to reducing expenditure by $23b and if you think of what the Government has done – it is making that very difficult to do as the expenditure trimming has started and it will be difficult to extract efficiency dividends on already lean departments without stopping practices all together.

Therefore it is a game of tactics as both the government and opposition are committed to strategy for climate change. The tactics appear at this stage to be:

Government – creating a Super department and reducing the Department of Climate Change staffing numbers from about 1000 to around 600, and reducing funding to research facilities.

Coalition – reunite Climate Change and the Environment in a relationship it believes makes more sense, and revisit six green star accommodation at the Nishi building at a cost of $10 million a year.

Co2Land org take s particular note of the coalition stance and where they say it makes more sense – it does for control purposes. However, it will fall into the same traps of the Howard era and quickly be unworkable as a policy instrument. But then again that will allow ‘yes minister’ to continue and compel a review at opportune times.  The term then was a ‘broad policy approach’ – history to repeat itself?

Because it is good reading we suggest you research this matter asking the questions:

And what happened to Climate Change Adaptation? Has that once commonly used title now gone altogether? Then follow up on the link -

The ABC did a story last month about the future of the body charged with preparing the nation to meet the challenge of global warming, the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility.

 

Its Real – again

Posted on by co2land

That word ‘real’ has popped up again – and we must prepare to again endure the use of a synonym and have it portrayed as the truth. Perfect for politicians is the use of the word or term ‘real’ as it can be seen as a initial or promised activity increase and not guarantee an increased activity (it could be real activity and still lead to a decrease of activity!!). So if I say it was real at the time I acted; I have been true to my intent to act in good faith, and equally a review of my intent can happen when convenient. The issue with the word ‘real’ in this context is it literally means the activity is a cause of change.

To put this in context in August 2012, Co2Land org wrote two stories that looked at the use of ‘real’ with implications for the Carbon Farming Initiative its legislation and regulations. In the Story

Time for a real review Posted on August 20, 2012 by co2land , the opening paragraphs said:

‘Smart forms of research has found that customer service and sales skills are considered the least important when building a brand, and it would seem big brand and government know this very well. This might explain why any meaningful programs are explained in a way of the language of spin. For what is done would we not prefer to hear or feel that our policy makers value some measure of the actions and actively seek feedback from those that influence our lives at least every 6 to 12 months from a startup campaign. This view suggests government is a business – a business that must please its total stakeholder basis.

Why should this happen? Take a look at quotes taken from the writings of Laurissa Smith and Anna Vidot (www.abc.net.au ), on Monday, 20/08/2012, the story ‘Carbon farmers challenged by rigorous process’: “The guidelines which set out how they can make money from schemes like the Federal Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative are still being developed…It’s still sitting under consideration with the Domestic Offset Integrity Committee which is the committee tasked under the clean energy regulator to review the methodologies…So we hope that it’s going to become available for public interest by early 2013.” This is extremely frustrating when you consider the Department responsible made announcements of a body as set up for Carbon Offsets in June 2010.”

While numerous new methodologies are now approved – what holds true is that branded entities and those that were transitioned from the Greenhouse Friendly Program benefited, and most farmers that hoped to earn credits have not.

Then in the story Real, Additionality, RECs Posted on August 14, 2012 by co2land , the opening paragraphs it was said:

“Observing CTi’s Carbon Offsets 2 day Masterclass offering, it occurred that a US based mob was on about getting real about ‘real’ carbon offsets. Curiosity led to checking out the reporting standard AS/NZS ISO 14064, finding it is silent on the word or term ‘real’ and completely avoids the topic of additionality, was fascinating given that you can’t even conceive of an offset without the concept of additionality!

CO2Land org now ponders: If ‘real’ cannot be a guarantee of a good project outcome. It follows that the use of the word or term ‘real’ can be seen as a initial or promised activity increase and not be seen as a guarantee of an increase in the carbon offset (it could be real activity and still lead to a decrease of carbon offsets). So if I say it was real at the time I acted; it was an act in good faith only. The issue with the word ‘real’ is it literally means the activity is a cause of change.

This lead to thinking of the impact this has on the Carbon Farming Initiative as legislated when the Gold Standard and Carbon Fix require that projects be “real”, but no international standard could explain what they mean by using the terms”.

Then if you consider where ‘real’ is covered with a contrived definition and includes the concepts of completeness and accuracy in accounting, and leakage. It does so as no more than use ‘real’ as a synonym!

It would also appear that additionality is the next condition that might be the excuse that you cannot be real and CO2Land org looked a little harder (we don’t want this post to be no more than ‘hot air’) and found:

Specifically ISO 14064-2 (project accounting) does not include ‘Real’ because during development of ISO 14064-2 ‘Real’ was regarded as a programmatic rule/criteria, which is outside the scope of ISO 14064-2.

ISO 14064-2 is a standard rather than a program

ISO 14064-2 (Clause 5.4) specifies the following requirement in regards to additionality: “The project proponent shall select or establish, justify and apply criteria and procedures for demonstrating that the project results in GHG emissions reductions or removal enhancements that are additional to what would occur in the baseline scenario.”

Additionality is incorporated into ISO 14064-2 is based on the core principles of ISO standards in general, i.e. that ISO standards not be a barrier to trade (WTO-TBT – anyone following development of ISO 14067 (product) will know this is a major issue). As such, ISO standards must be policy-neutral (extended to include program-neutrality). This is of course very important for market confidence.

ISO 14064 deals with the concept of additionality by requiring that the GHG project has resulted in GHG emission reductions or removal enhancements in addition to what would have happened in the absence of that project. It does not use the term “additionality”…Thus the project proponent may apply additionality criteria and procedures, or define and use boundaries consistent with relevant legislation, policy, GHG programmes and good practice.”

Although the concept/requirement of additionality is within the requirements of ISO 14064-2, the simple reason why the ‘term’ additionality is not present within the requirements of ISO 14064-2 is because of certain sensitivities/perceptions/politics of certain parties involved in the development of the standard -

And, the following references helpful in gaining a more complete understanding:

ISO 14064-2 addresses ‘additionality’ with a general requirement and reference-out to the program rules (link =
http://www.co2offsetresearch.org/policy/ISO14064.html#Additionality)
.

Also
http://ghginstitute.org/2012/01/25/how-do-you-explain-additionality/

 

Not selling – suburban transport EV dream.

Posted on by co2land

The evidence to date suggests the socio-economic structure of suburban life is partly to blame for car dependent suburbanites rejecting electric vehicles. It might also explain the lack of patronage for City of Sydney recharging facilities infrastructure. And, now we have a political bidding war for public infrastructure in Western Sydney it will be even more difficult, or more correctly a major barrier is being put up to suppress the EV market even more.

The reference to City of Sydney patronage can be read on a previous post – Posted on February 27, 2013 by co2land – ‘Not selling – no better place to charge your EV!’ In particular the quote  “the first two power point stations were installed in September 2012: ”We haven’t had a customer yet,” but there have ”been a few drop-ins”.

When CO2Land org was researching the uptake of EV’s in suburbia it started with the premise of electric vehicles being a favoured solution, the dream technology is another way of putting it, and the best fit to solve our a families transport challenges and mitigate them from the economic and environmental impacts from oil dependence and how our lifestyles pose significant environmental threats. No such evidence exists that it will happen this way. The sales of EV’s are not happening as hoped, and the technology use indicates the problem occurs in a social context, and seemingly the discussion of electric vehicles has not included suburban social patterns among which electric vehicles might be adopted.

That said, someone else said, on 14 Feb 2013, we have looked deeper for the reasons and provided evidence . This was taken up by The Conversation and we quote “what Neil Sipe, Terry Li and I have assembled suggests the socio-economic structure of Australian suburbia, in combination with the distribution of public transport infrastructure, constitutes a major barrier to the widespread adoption of electric vehicles, especially among the most car-dependent households.

Relying on electric vehicles as a solution to energy and environmental problems may perpetuate suburban social disadvantage in a period of economic and resource insecurity.

Australia’s five largest cities are the most car-dependent national set outside the United States. Our previous studies (Dodson and Sipe 2007; 2008 have shown that outer suburban residents, especially those with lower socio-economic capacity, are among those most exposed to the pressures of higher transport fuel prices.

Future transport fuel costs are likely to be even higher (currently oil is approximately US$100 per barrel). Unconventional oil sources such as shale or tar sands may be abundant, but they have much higher production costs than conventional light crude. Their current production boom is underpinned by expectations that global oil prices will remain high or increase further over the long term.

Higher oil prices and the need to constrain carbon emissions will likely lead to much higher transport fuel costs than have prevailed in the past decade.

Electric vehicles are often presented as the most likely way to resolve this transport conundrum. Australia’s 2012 Energy White Paper alludes to a transition to electric vehicles as the economy of conventional fuels wanes.

Much of the Energy White Paper and the rhetoric around electric vehicles assumes an unproblematic transition – consumers will change their behaviour in response to price pressures. There is little discussion of potential barriers and impediments to this comforting, convenient narrative.

It makes sense that households who are most car dependent and least able to afford higher fuel prices would be the most eager to switch to an electric car. But, it turns out, the social structure of Australian suburbia means these groups are poorly placed to lead such a transition.

In our study of Brisbane we created datasets linking vehicle fuel efficiency with household socio-economic status. In our analysis, high vehicle fuel efficiency, including hybrids, serves as a proxy for future electric vehicles. We linked motor vehicle registration data with the Green Vehicle dataset on fuel efficiency, plus travel and socio-economic data from the ABS Census.

Our analysis builds a rich picture of how the spatial distribution of vehicle efficiency intersects with suburban socio-spatial patterns, using Brisbane and Sydney as case studies.

We found that the average commuting distance increases with distance from the CBD while average fuel efficiency of vehicles declines. So outer suburban residents travel further, in less efficient vehicles, than more centrally situated households. Outer suburban residents are also likely to be on relatively lower incomes than those closer in.

The result is those living in the outer suburbs have relatively weaker socio-economic status but are paying more for transport. For example, one-third of the most disadvantaged suburbs in greater Brisbane also have the most energy-intensive motor vehicle use.

A socially equitable transition to highly fuel efficient or electric vehicles ought to favour those with the highest current exposure to high fuel prices. Yet our research finds it’s not likely to happen.

26 February 2013, Jogo Dodson, Associate Professor and Director, Urban Research Program at Griffith University “

CO2Land org still maintains it is the politics that drives community attitudes and where it may be immoral, it is not illegal. Thought of today – more politicians face charges with illegal activities each year than illegal immigrants! Source ABC.

Not selling – no better place to charge your EV!

Posted on by co2land

The promise of electric cars is getting down to the power point. The promise of the dream technology solving our transport challenges is now best described as uneven! The problem might just be the socio-economic structure around us, and where the most car dependent households are distributed.

It seems at odds, that for instance, the City of Sydney is staunchly promoting a sustainable future, that the leading edge they wish to protect and serve with examples of what is the correct thing to do is also being meet with stern and robust opposition. If we put aside the concerns over the city’s trigeneration project and the claims and counterclaims. A very interesting story develops from an article published on http://www.drive.com.au under the heading “Not Selling”.

The story centres on the City of Sydney council having held a press event last week. The announcement being it had bought 10 Nissan Leaf electric cars, and it planned to buy 50 similar vehicles over the next few years. The story said “the event was supposed to be a shot in the arm for electric vehicles, which have barely registered a blip on the sales charts. But instead, it provided an insight into the failure of the Better Place electric vehicle-charging network”. Co2Land org is now very interested in the history of the Better Place network as Canberra and others also touted the wonderful concepts and the advantages of such a network.

What happened to the wonderful network at Sydney: Again, Drive.com published “In 2011, the City of Sydney put out a project to tender for 12 new electric car-charging stations – a perfect opportunity for Better Place to gain a foothold in Sydney. Better Place was considered, but ultimately the tender was won not by a multinational technology provider but a local electrician, who simply installed power points”.  It got down to there is no need for propriety displays and charge points – all based on subscription arrangements. What was needed according to the manager for strategy and assets at the council was 15-amp, 240-volt power points with a timer and flow meter. CO2Land org then though they already have them in most council owned caravan park around the country – interesting thought to think the old technology is suitable for the new, yet we were going to pay more without the need!

Council is also quoted as saying there is a lack of customers to even support installing the power points. The story continues to say after the first two power point stations were installed in September 2012: ”We haven’t had a customer yet,” but there have ”been a few drop-ins”.  Oh dear, or is it still too dear?

finding Climate skeptics are a bore

Posted on by co2land

We need to go from hindsight to foresight, no matter what it is it is an issue that impacts us all. And, we find Climate skeptics are a bore. They focus on quantifying an antithesis, and the evidence keeps mounting that they are always being proven ill-informed.  Regardless of the disagreements the “how” of Stern’s argument is still valid, calculating today’s prevention costs against future damage costs.

It could as well be applied to the debate about the existence of man-made climate change – The IPCC is now 99 percent certain that it exists.

Even if it was a likely hypothesis that deniers be true: That, as they decry, the money spent on developing a response to climate change was in vain and achieved no real difference to climatic conditions. CO2Land org says would it not be that the money is well spent when the new products available to the world enhance capacity building, are the result of finding energy alternatives, increase energy efficiency, provide forest protection, reforestation, coastal protection, glacier melting water management, zero waste management, increasing disaster resilience and many other activities that are sensible for a bunch of other reasons? They would be a benefit even if climate change were not a reality.

So instead of boring us with criticism, be productive and calculate the real damage from erring on a macro-economic scale. And, consider the paradigm of wasted opportunity and how you would apply discount costs for finding and implementing alternative energy sources 50 years from now, when oil and gas are or will become scarce? That is when it is too late even to adapt to what is obvious now! As friends recently retorted: It is time to be a doer, we are sick of the gonna (slang for talk about and do nothing)