Pure Gold Standard

On 28 June 2012, it was reported by the Australian Government, it “introduced the National Carbon Offset Standard (NCOS) on 1 July 2010 to provide national consistency and consumer confidence in the voluntary carbon market. The Government called for submissions into the standard, and received 34 submissions for the draft review of the standard.”

It is worth noting that NCOS serves two primary functions:

  • Provides guidance on what is a genuine voluntary offset, and
  • Sets minimum requirements for calculating, auditing and offsetting the carbon footprint of an organisation, product or event to achieve ‘carbon neutrality’.

Then on 25 July 2012, Choice www.choice.com.au said several of its members were put off because of a perceived lack of accountability and oversight in the industry, and needed more assurance before they considered offsetting their carbon emissions.

CO2Land org is now interested in what makes this such an issue especially when NCOS is set up to provide a means of ensuring the environmental integrity of the carbon offsets and carbon neutral products available in the Australian voluntary market. It is meant for consumers and businesses alike to make informed choices and be able to interpret carbon neutral claims. Business should find comfort in being able to determine their carbon footprint in line with consumer expectations etc.

Maybe a little Carbon standards 101 at this point:

The Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) is an international standard that ensures carbon reductions meet quality standards and are independently verified, numbered and listed in a central database.

The Gold Standard (GS), established by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), certifies offset projects that demonstrate greenhouse gas reductions and positively impact the economy, health, welfare and/or environment of the community where the project is located.

The Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) is a voluntary Australian Government carbon offsets scheme that enables farmers and land managers to generate carbon credits by reducing agricultural emissions, such as nitrous oxide and methane, and sequestering carbon in vegetation and soils. These credits can then be sold to individuals and businesses wishing to offset their own greenhouse gas emissions.

The Government’s National Carbon Offset Standard (NCOS) verifies claims of carbon neutrality in Australia. To verify carbon neutral claims, the NCOS specifies that organisations must buy their offsets from projects verified under eligible schemes. These include credits issued under the CFI, VCS and GS, among others.

Now for a little more on the comfort factor:

CO2Land org on 16 August  2012 was told it still all feels good and Gold Standard (GS) is a rigorous standard with considerable credibility, there is a problem – nothing to do with creditability, but how and who is going to run the GS market in Australia. The issue today is NCOS clearly give GS the big tick and that is why we have watch this space and note that concerns over efficacy are being addressed through such a rigorous process for the regulation of the programs will ensure the money goes where it should. However, 2 years and counting is getting a little uncomfortable when you want to participate in the standards with confidence.

Real, Additionality, RECs

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 lead 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.

Now lets talk of the other mob: In their story –

Getting real about “real” carbon offsets,  by Michael Gillenwater –it was said:

“The qualities of a good emission offset project are one of the most common refrains you hear in the carbon offsets community. You can probably repeat most of them by memory: real, additional, permanent, verifiable, etc. Different programs or protocols might add other points about leakage or accuracy, or conservativeness or some other offset quality principle. But common to almost all programs and standards and protocols is the criterion that offset projects or credits must be ‘real’. Here is a question for you: What does it mean for an offset project to be real? What would an unreal offset project be? How could we tell if it was unreal, and is this something we should be concerned about?”

They go on to look even closer at the word or term ‘real’:

If you check out the Offset Quality Initiative and how they express the term ‘real’ and explain it the word should be done away with entirely as it is not meaningful, or at least ambiguous, and those that use the term are employing vacuous language. They claim the problem for ‘real’ is it most likely used to describe itself is real, and used this way one cannot ban imaginary projects, and one may ‘forward credit’. That is you can issue a credit before emissions have been achieved.

They continue that 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!

Now how do the markets act responsibly on handling this issue:

  • The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) rules states that offset projects must be “real” in various places, but the definition is absent.
  • The Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) does attempt to handle this and goes with the imaginary friend test: All the GHG emission reductions and removals and the projects that generate them must be proven to have genuinely taken place. Much better description than using ‘real’ – no room for weasels in this one.

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:

CO2LAND armed with this information focused more on Australia, and with raised eyebrows takes note ‘real’ is long-overdue for a critique of the ‘real world’ of concepts and terminology defining emissions offsetting and accounting policy and practice. In fairness what becomes obvious is domestically and internationally in Australia have had to deal with the vagaries of the debates and arguments over the development of both an international REDD mechanism and revision of accounting rules for land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) by Annex 1 countries.

Dealing with this is not as making the concept closer to simplicity and ‘naturalness’ in terms used as much of the confusion stems from failure to separate out responsibilities for project managers, national/sub-national regulators and for the international community. In short the levels of responsibility presume everyone else should be responsible for everything. Then everything ‘real’ becomes perverse. Source: Alistair Graham
Tasmania, Australia
7 August 2012

Previously CO2Land org has written of the perils of the REDD issues, and that things are going to avoidably get more complex, and Alistair Graham also believes we best get our house in order for the, relatively easier stuff in the non-LULUCF sectors.

Then rock my socks along comes Judith Hull (talking of work with Environment Canada) and commented, August 13th, 2012:

“Michael – In response to your August 9 note on my short comment, I would emphasize that isolating one criterion is always problematic. Clearly baseline setting with functional equivalence is key. We used the ‘real’ criterion to flag that just a cut in production would not be eligible. A project to make that production more efficient (even if total output were to decrease) may well be eligible. Judith”

Is it ‘real’?

Now look at confusion on RENEWALBLE ENERGY CERTIFICATES (RECs):

There are a few other terms bandied about incorrectly.

1) RECs are not offsets. Yet routinely you hear they “have offset their carbon emissions with RECs.” That is wrong on several levels. Yes, it is inconvenient that the word offset can be a verb or a noun. But get it right. RECs can be said to “compensate for” or perhaps “balance” the GHG emissions from electricity consumption, but leave offsets out of the conversation.

2) While we’re hammering RECs, if a facility/organization is buying RECs they are not “powered by wind.” There is no orange extension cord connected to a wind turbine. RECs connect load to renewable power by a contract, not a wire. To say “powered by wind” creates false images in lay peoples’ minds.

3) If a facility/organization is buying offsets or RECs sufficient to equalize all their GHG emissions, they have not attained “climate neutrality.” They have attained “GHG neutrality.” The definition is “no net GHG emissions.” That definition does not define a state of the climate, it defines a state of emissions.

It is wrong to connect climate with RECs – RECs like green power energy are project outcomes.

 

REC References:

 

 

Widening Circles of Influence

Previously a discussion was underway that highlighted the word carbon was restrictive when describing farming practices.  To recap: Policy tends to favour the use of Carbon as a market instrument, and farming practices are formed around production and the increase or decrease in methane gas in that practice. Therefore policy and operations do not have a linear relationship in effectiveness. Part of the reason for this is one measure is an imposed constraint, and the other affected by natural occurrences or balances.

Thinking further on the word carbon, is it time to come up with another term for improving practices in agriculture, and keep that separate from markets and livestock descriptors?

CO2Land org has noted that the Rodale Institute (www.rodalinstitute.org ) is also thinking along these lines and they are going further in advocating organic farming. They have used the term ‘ Regenerative Agriculture’ and say it is to remind us of the true importance of farmers in our society.  In a direct quote from the Institute:  “We remember that agriculture is the foundation of all civilization, that when you improve agriculture, you elevate the whole society. And we affirm that agriculture is an absolutely essential part of any world-wide effort to improve our environment and health”.

Therefore ‘Regenerative’ might be a more correct description for agriculture in general as the sustainable approach could be measures of regenerating the soil, regenerating the health of ourselves, reducing reliance on or eliminating chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.

With a focus on regenerative agriculture other benefits will come in the form better practices for the local environment, less organic waste, better recycling and improved economic performance. Also if we are nearing the tipping point of environmental change through anthropogenic activities these improving practice tools will better equip us for a better adaption strategy for our own survival.

CO2Land org can also see that changing in this way could make for higher profit, build on many sustainable practices already underway such as compost and cover crops, tillers and no-till. The main difference will be improved stewardship over the land.

Carbon Training International will be road testing their newest short course on the 16th & 17th August 2012

Carbon Training International will be road testing their newest short course on the 16th & 17th August  – “Source, Evaluate & Purchase Carbon Offsets” (national course code CTICM402A).

We are invited to be participants and chosen from across industry and from a cross section of the market to be involved to QA the program and the content. This includes industry professionals who work across the value chain, including finance professionals, suppliers and end users.

Co2Land org has been asked to extend the invitation for its readers to participate and we have a great deal of respect for the chief presenter – Bill Mcghee.

The program outline and the registration details are available on the webpage setup for the Carbon Offsets Pilot course

Carbon Trade Exchange is assisting with additional candidate recruitment & providing the trading platform for the course.

If you want to know more contact Rob Nicholls:

  Robert Nicholls

Managing Director

Carbon Training International

GPO Box 3414, Sydney, NSW 2001, Australia

m: +61 (0) 403 806 779

www.co2ti.com

build a carbon-responsive workforce

 

Qualification – gap filled for AHC10

There is a qualification that fills the gap in the current Rural Production Training package AHC10. In conjunction with NSW Dept. of Education and Training and George Gundry (g.gundry@bigpond.com), a course in Holistic Management has been developed to meet the needs of land managers for accredited training in holistic management. George supplied a background on the founder of holistic management (developed over a period of 40 years by Alan Savory) and the facts to support the importance of the principles that include:

  • Over 12 Million hectares worldwide are managed using holistic principles
  • Since 1994, 250 people in Australia have attended training in holistic management.
  • The principles are sound and are suitable for people who want to make decisions on ecological, financial and socially sound land use in the short and long term for what they manage.

The course starts at TAFE Goulburn Campus on 24 &25 August 2012. There will be 8 workshops in total. The delivery pattern is two consecutive days off-farm with a reasonable interval to focus and achieve the outcomes desired of the course. Cost $231 plus textbooks.

CO2Land org is happy to alert where worthwhile learning structures are put forward. While we do what we can to determine whether the material is factual, it cannot be verified as suitable for what you intend and cannot be seen as a recommendation to participate. However, unashamedly we give credit for effort when the material is for the purpose of building sound practices.

Carbon – the word confused in CFI

A consortium of CO2Land org friends met with a government department recently and the discussion centred on how best to reach the target audience of the Carbon Farm Initiatives. It was quickly determined that large brand influence gave comfort to the executive level but gave little comfort to the target level – the landholders. Part of the problem is the word ‘carbon’ and carbon is directly linked to abatement and an offsets market.  Whereas the focus issue for farmers is methane production and it is part of the production cycle and it does seem contradictory to imply the backside of a cow can be abated as a constant! Or, that a field in production will have a constant and linear carbon footprint over time because that production will be affected by climate change.  No room for climate change deniers here, but the thinking caps might be needed on how to be more effective on how to reach the rural production people.

CO2Land org will go Greenhouse Gas 101 to give more detail on the problem: The GHG protocol provided principles when undertaking a GHG inventory – relevance, completeness, consistency, transparency and accuracy are the tests. Take consistency as an example: To allow for meaningful comparison of emissions performance over time. A market will make an accounting assumption and be consistent with that assumption, but in practice a cow or field will have two forces at work – The quality of feed available, and the natural microbe activity that nature balances to inputs. The other 4 requirements of the protocol are then compromised if they only measure a snapshot of the activity and assume a standard deviation of the mean is sufficient for productive outcomes. Only a full life cycle of the production is the proof for sustainable production and the market can only give an element of comfort – when dealing with rural livelihoods that operate on small margins in return for the activities. Therefore this point illustrates that the measures are very important considerations for participation.

Can you now see the connection of why CFI methodologies are so exhaustively vetted? Why it is so difficult to get a simple answer to your query? Is the word Carbon itself causing confusion?

 

Control of the Land

To avoid any confusion in the original story reference on 31 July 2012: Please note Fiona Lake is the correct name to use in this story; Fiona Mckindlay is Fiona’s maiden name and the original credits may have confused some readers. Thank you Fiona for pointing to that error.

When researching rural land holding in Australia it is easy to find historic and recent development information on holdings. It is less easy to determine the drivers behind motivation for the land. CO2Land org offers that Fiona Lake has got to the point. Using her words:

“Despite what many believe most extensive grazing properties are very well managed and there are few if any detrimental effects on the environment. Extensive grazing often has little or no impact on native wildlife, in fact sometimes birds and animals benefit (e.g. from a reliable water supply) and increase in numbers. By comparison, there is enormous, ongoing environmental damage in our cities and native wildlife is virtually extinct in urban areas (apart from a handful of bird species, some small lizard species and possums)”, and “Agricultural communities all over the world have a lot in common but unfortunately they also share the problems. Rural communities everywhere are rapidly undergoing fundamental, irreversible changes or they are under huge pressure trying to control or resist these changes”, and “It is an important responsibility to provide useful and accurate information to increase understanding and encourage respect and maintenance of a healthy, evolving rural culture, worldwide”.

CO2Land org then noticed some trends, again the reference is Fiona:

Religious ownership: “There are also religious organisations that own rural property. Top of the list is Ag Reserves Australia Ltd – a company fully owned by the Utah (U.S.A.) based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints – commonly known as Mormons. In addition to rural properties in the U.S., they also own farms in Canada, Mexico and Argentina. In Australia they primarily own Riverina irrigation farms – the massive Kooba Station and Benerembah at Darlington Point (south of Griffith), Bringaree at Carathool and Booberoi at Euabalong. The properties run purebred Wagyu cattle and sheep; and grow a vast range of crops – rice, corn, horticultural crops, stonefruit, olives, nuts and others”.

“There are other smaller, but nonetheless significant overseas investors who own large tracts of land but who also keep a fairly low profile. Such as GP Cattle Pty Ltd, a Dutch company that purchased Cotswald near Condamine (southern Qld) then in 2007 purchased sheep stud Portland Downs, at Isisford (central western Qld). The two Australians on the board of GP Cattle Pty Ltd are Warwick Yates of Ferrier Hodgson (Brisbane) and John Cox, Managing Director of Stanbroke Pastoral Company when it was sold by AMP. Though Portland Downs was a highly regarded merino sheep stud, it now only runs cattle”.

Where do most corporate investors buy? “Those up the top of the tree know the old adage about land being the one thing that you can’t make more of; and quality being the single most important factor when choosing what to buy. While private corporate buyers such as the Myer and Packer families choose top drawer working farms/rural retreats within relatively easy reach of southern capital cities, usually not much more than an hour’s travel time away, the largest investment in big acres occurs in northern Australia. Companies buy or setup feedlots in close proximity to graingrowers and abbatoirs, such as Queensland’s Darling Downs and in central Queensland. They buy a geographically diverse spread of good quality properties to guard against all the stations being hit by severe drought at the same time. Large properties are chosen as economies of scale are possible. This means buying in Queensland’s Channel Country, the larger Gulf places, some of the larger properties in the softer country in the central west; the best quality properties in the top half of the Northern Territory; and the southern half of the Kimberley region of Western Australia, with handy access to the main highway. Plus larger sheep and cropping properties in the Riverina and central western New South Wales, and cropping country in top-drawer cropping regions, from Quirindi (NSW) north through Moree to the St George region of southern Queensland”.

There are some advantages in properties being owned by large companies. “There is often money to spend on major infrastructure repairs and maintenance and major capital works, very large amounts of money that private owners struggle to find. Larger companies can take risks that smaller operators would have difficulty justifying; most have survived for generations by being conservative. There are also community and production advantages in cashed-up buyers who were raised in the bush but had to move to the city to earn a crust, like Andrew Forrest, buying back into the bush (usually, buying back the family farm they grew up on, as he did). Such buyers are usually determined to keep the property efficiently producing food (or fibre, as the case may be), and they usually have the capital and interest in making essential repairs to everything from fencing, waters, pastures and stock breeding to houses and sheds. These owners can bring a sense of optimism to the surrounding community, helping to stabilise the value of land owned by surrounding farmers, and some are generous philanthropists.

Larger pastoral companies have traditionally been training grounds for large numbers of young people trying out a career in agriculture. This has been a win-win situation – pastoral companies need large numbers of employees with varying skill levels, and pastoral company employment has given many school leavers a start in agriculture which they’d have struggled to get otherwise. Many boys raised in the city dreaming of escaping to a life in the bush have gone on to climb the pastoral employment ladder while others have returned to family farms with much broader experience than they otherwise would have had. Unfortunately this very positive training-ground aspect of corporate ownership has greatly reduced over the last decade. This is because many companies have become very frustrated with the increasing difficulty of retaining skilled employees (exacerbated by the drain to the mining industry), and/or they have become more greatly controlled by short-term thinking upper-management bean-counters who haven’t fully thought out where the good quality station managers will come from in years to come. This change has resulted in a reduction of permanent employees to a bare minimum skeleton staff on increasing numbers of cattle stations, with the employment of contractors for several frenetic weeks or months of the year to do the mustering. Mustering contractors are under great pressure to get the job done with maximum speed and efficiency and most do not have the time for entry-level apprentices/trainees – so they greatly favour employees that are already experienced and/or who grew up in the bush. Thus outlets for young people who grew up in cities but who want to start a rural career, have a lot more trouble finding employers willing to take them on now. The reduction in a permanent workforce on cattle stations also has a hugely detrimental affect on the social life in the surrounding region, which discourages other young employees from remaining, and it quickly accelarates a downward spiral of reducing population and reduced local services”.

Family farms aren’t large employers but when it comes to efficient production of good quality food they’re nearly impossible to beat. “Because it’s not just unadulterated dollar-chasing, family farmers take more personal pride in what is produced – which means there’s an inbuilt safety mechanism with regard to the health safety aspects of the food being produced. Unfortunately buyers with a straight finance background usually buy rural land purely as a capital investment. This ‘real estate’ valuation rather than business valuation pushes the purchase price beyond the reach of family buyers who are increasingly scratching their heads and realising that there’s no way a place bought for $10 million, for example, can actually make a decent return on investment – apart from realising a capital gain when it is sold. They’d make more money sticking the cash in the bank and raking in interest, risk-free. Most family buyers buy without the intention of selling, because they’re thinking about the next generation, so capital profit rarely interests them because they have no plans to realise it. The last thing they want to do is sell their land, and there’s not point in realising the capital gain if you have to fork out even more money to buy a replacement property, anyway. You can’t eat capital gain; you need cash flow in the meantime, so the current values put on rural land are increasingly squeezing out family businesses. This would not be the case if food and fibre producers received more in their pockets in return for their primary produce; this would make the high land prices reasonable. But low wholesale prices for primary produce is an age-old problem – primary producers are ‘price takers not price makers’, and that doesn’t look like changing; middlemen will remain the ones to take minimum risk and receive maximum profit.

One other group of cattle station owners is worth a mention. These are the private buyers who are rapid-empire building. If one property after the other is added to the portfolio in relatively quick succession (over several years); almost invariably (unless they’ve won the European lottery), it is because their places border on to under supervised National Parks or half asleep neighbours with a lot of ‘wandering’ cleanskins; they’ve bought well developed, quality assets for good prices and asset stripped or at the very least neglected essential annual maintenance (forget about capital improvements completely). Or there’s been other dodginess involved. More often than not, it’s a combination of all of the above. Unfortunately, these owners can usually be spotted a mile away and people in the pastoral industry know exactly who they are, although the general community are often impressed because they think the properties are all owned outright rather than being mortgaged up to the eyeballs. There always seems to be several around on the horizon, but they tend to come and go – a lot of this rapid empire building is done on borrowed money, and the inevitable combination of high interest rates, low commodity prices and bad seasons usually brings the whole pack of cards down within 6 years or so. These rapid-empire builders are very detrimental to the industry because their spending can inflate property values while they run down good quality properties that others have spent decades building up. And without exception, they are appalling employers. While they do usually crash and burn, no mud ever seems to stick – almost none have ever received criminal convictions. I am constantly puzzled by this group of people. Very often they grew up in the bush, but they seem to have no genuine, deep love of the land, and the empire-building often seems to stem from some sort of inferiority complex – a desire to own more than anyone else simply for the sake of it. But at the same time they are usually very secretive, although some of their financial deals are so spectacular they are reported in the mainstream media”.

Employment in the pastoral industry: “When it comes to employment in the bush, all pastoral companies, whether publicly or privately owned, and whether large or small, have their own advantages and disadvantages. What appeals to one person won’t suit another. For example some people simply like to be able to tell others they worked on a very fashionable or famous property, while others couldn’t give a toss because they’re after a quality employer, an unusually friendly working environment or an extra good place to learn as much as possible. Anyone starting a career in the beef or wool industry is well advised to obtain as varied experience as possible – working for a range of different owners and in locations across northern Australia, both large and small operators, spending at least a year at each place, before figuring out who to settle in with for a longer stretch. This varied experience and widespread networking provides a solid foundation for a long term career. It’s the sort of experience that may be taken for granted at the time but could prove invaluable later in life. At the very least, it will provide a far more interesting bunch of memories than someone who just sat on the one place or who worked for just the one employer. Or someone who put in a brief appearance on a show pony place”.

Please go to the source “If you have any additions or amendments to suggest, we understand it would be much appreciated if you could let them know”.

Source www.fionalake.com.au

Issue – Food Security rolling the climate dice

The term  “Dust-Bowlification” is referenced, and the argument is that making banal observation of climate change may doom us to catastrophe, by:  1. Missing, ignoring or obscuring the longer-term upward trend. 2. Discounting that even a fairly modest rise in average temperatures translates into a much higher frequency of extreme events. The New York Times recently gave such an example where a devastating drought is now gripping America’s heartland and doing vast damage. Reasons for banal observation is given example: “Even with the best will in the world, it would be hard for most people to stay focused on the big picture in the face of short-run fluctuations. When the mercury is high and the crops are withering, everyone talks about it, and some make the connection to global warming. But let the days grow a bit cooler and the rains fall, and inevitably people’s attention turns to other matters”, then “the role of players who don’t have the best will in the world. Climate change denial is a major industry”.

The analogy of why climate change should remain on the agenda is well captured in the story Loading the Climate Dice. A story of how we should think about the relationship between climate change and day-to-day experience. It goes on the say a NASA scientist and his associates suggested, “representing the probabilities of a hot, average or cold summer by historical standards as a die with two faces painted red, two white and two blue. By the early 21st century, they predicted, it would be as if four of the faces were red, one white and one blue. Hot summers would become much more frequent, but there would still be cold summers now and then”. That was 25 years ago, and it has been proved as since 2000, “cold summers by historical standards still happen, but rarely, while hot summers have in fact become roughly twice as prevalent. And 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000”.

CO2Land org thinks it is even more worrying when we look around globally and note that extreme high temperatures are now fairly common. The rising incidence of extreme events means that the costs of climate change are not a prospect into the future. Albeit it is a smaller fraction of what will happen as in context this change has occurred “even though so far global temperatures are only about 1 degree Fahrenheit above their historical norms” Is it too late to act.?  The issue we will have the most difficulty with in adapting to climate change is food security.

The New York Times uses “The great Midwestern drought is a case in point. This drought has already sent corn prices to their highest level ever. If it continues, it could cause a global food crisis, because the U.S. heartland is still the world’s breadbasket. And yes, the drought is linked to climate change: such events have happened before, but they’re much more likely now than they used to be”.

In Australia, and here it comes: Our history on climate action is not encouraging. The politics divides and the deniers keep on denying, despite the matter will make them culpable for the looming disaster. Science is proving to be correct in the predictions of climate change despite enduring creditability arguments. The banal observations make it difficult to follow with enthusiasm and the public will lose interest again until the next for the looming disaster.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on July 23, 2012, on page A21 of the New York edition with the headline: Loading The Climate Dice. By PAUL KRUGMAN

 

 

Trends – Food Report

National Food Plan Green Paper 17/07/2012 (Australia)

Land:

Australia’s soils are ancient and weathered with limited nutrient content – fertilisers such as nitrogen and phosphorous are essential inputs into Australian agriculture – Australia imports around 77% nitrogen and 56% of its phosphorus requirements.

The cost of fertilisers has been steadily increasing in line with energy prices – the cost of phosphorus has doubled over the last 10 years.

At the end of 2010, 89% of agricultural land was entirely Australian owned – a further

5.5% at least 50% Australian owned – 99% of agricultural businesses, by number, were entirely Australian owned – 91% of water entitlements for agricultural purposes were entirely Australian owned – there had been minimal change in foreign ownership of land between 1984 and 2010.

In Australia in 2010–11, only 0.8% (or $1.38 billion) of approvals for foreign direct investment was in agriculture, forestry and fishing – a further 1.4% ($2.39 billion) was invested in food, beverage and tobacco manufacturing.

Foreign investment in agriculture globally is less than 1% of total world foreign direct investment inflows.

Australia produces enough food today to feed approximately 60 million people – it does so in the driest inhabited continent, on low-quality soils and in the face of continual climate variability.

While urban areas are expanding, agricultural production may also intensify, with a shift to higher-yielding or higher-value production, such as from broadacre grazing to intensive horticulture – in the Melbourne region between 2007–08 and 2009–10 the area under agriculture and the number of agricultural businesses actually increased by 4.6% and 5% respectively with a population increase of 6.8%.

Water:

In 2009–10, Australia consumed 13,476 GL of water – 52% was used for agriculture – manufacturing used 5% – and mining 1%.

Agriculture/Mining/Industry Co-existence:

The Australian Government has committed $200 million to support the management of the potential impacts of coal seam gas and large coal mining developments on water resources – the government is also working with the state and territory governments to develop a national, harmonised framework for coal seam gas which will focus on specific concerns around water management and monitoring, including hydraulic fracturing, chemical use, well integrity and aquifer protection.

The Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance (a partnership between the CSIRO and Australia Pacific LNG) has estimated an average of 25,800 ha of agricultural land per year would be shared with coal seam gas – less than 1% of the nation’s farm land.

Food Market dominance:

Australia’s two major supermarket chains, Coles and Woolworths, represent about 50% of fresh produce sales in Australia, and about 70% of packaged food sales.

While private label brands are becoming more prevalent in the Australian grocery retail market, and the major supermarket chains have indicated that they plan to expand their private label ranges significantly, they currently have significantly less market share in Australia (around 14%) compared to some other international retail markets such as the United Kingdom (around 43%) and Switzerland (46%).

There is a perception that employment in food and beverage manufacturing is declining – in fact, full-time employment in the sector has remained steady for over 25 years and part-time employment has increased in recent years.

Food and Health:

Even though Australia has one of the safest food supplies in the world, there are an estimated 5.4 million cases of food-borne illness each year, at an estimated cost of $1.2 billion.

In 2008 the total annual cost of obesity to the Australian community was $58.2 billion – including $8.3 billion in lost productivity and $2 billion in health system costs.

There is evidence that the costs of healthy (low energy density, high nutrient-density) foods are increasing disproportionately when compared with the costs of higher energy density, relatively nutrient-poor foods.

68% of adult men and 55% of adult women are overweight or obese – 25% of children aged 5 to 17 years are overweight or obese – the proportion of children who are obese has risen by 60% in less than 10 years – 65% of young Australians are predicted to be overweight or obese by 2020.

Based on these trends and no effective interventions, 83% of men and 75% of women aged 20 years and over in Australia could be overweight or obese by 2025 – the predicted increase is expected to significantly affect Australia’s disease burden and healthcare costs, mostly due to an increased incidence of type 2 diabetes, which is expected to become the leading disease burden by 2023.

————————————————————–

CO2Land org feels compelled to look deeper at the opportunities for technology and policy changes that go beyond wanting handouts to encourage the necessary changes, increasingly that compelling need is the realisation efficiency of the practices is more important than effectiveness of the policy.

Thanks again the Garry Reynolds of NRM DAFF for these insights.

Unfinished business, The EU ETS continues

The European Investment Bank auctioned emissions permits to raise funds for low-carbon energy technologies, with an emphasis on the benefits of carbon capture and storage(CCS). This was a particular benefit opportunity for Europe’s larger source of CO2 emissions.

The EU quota of emissions permits is called EU permits (EUAs). The Climate Speculator is quoted as saying: “The European Commission on Thursday said it expected to raise between €1.3 billion and €1.5 billion by October to support two to three CCS plants, plus some renewable energy projects from auctioning 200 million EUAs, the first tranche of sales to raise a total of €300 million.

It is widely seen as a disappointment that the original expectations of the EU’s original pre-crisis objective in 2007 to build 10-12 CCS projects will not happen in the timeframes. To blame , the EU financial crisis has taken us to a different place.

The EU’s emissions trading scheme caps the emissions of factories and power plants, and, since 2005 they have got most EUAs for free in a gradual transition to the market to assist the bigger polluters ranging from coal plants to steel mills. Opposition to the scheme is that bigger polluters captured windfall profits.

In the transitional process to the market, from 2013, most power plants will have to source their EUAs under State or EU-run auctions. Sales run by the European Investment Bank in 2012 were a forerunner of that, and are to raise funds for innovative low-carbon technologies and to benefit CCS technologies.

The problem that is now apparent is that the market is too readily participated in and this puts pressure on the attempts to stabilize the carbon price. To counter this the European Commission proposes to withhold permits and boost prices by “backloading” auctioning. That is delaying sales due next year until later in the 2013-2020 trading phase. This strategy is designed to maintain the EU carbon prices at no lower than €8.

CO2land org sees some parallels with the situation in Australia where political opposition oppose carbon prices, which is claimed to raise electricity prices. Do not be surprised if a new advocate springs up named something like ‘real carrot to dangle in front of ministers’ noses”.

Credit for the original story on EU ETS goes to Gerard Wynn Published 16 Jul 2012. ”The Climate Speculator source is ‘This article was originally published by Reuters. Republished with permission.’