Category: Hot air

You can’t sit on a fence, a barbed wire fence at that, and have one ear to the ground

Posted on Posted in Hot airTagged , , , , 1 Comment

While reflecting on the days of Joh Bjelke-Peterson, those who had a life in Queensland then would be familiar with 3 particular characteristics that the Premier himself attributed: Running along a barbed wire fence with a foot on either side: ‘it doesn’t work and it’s not very comfortable’; you need to celebrate Queensland difference and treat outsiders with contempt; talking to the media he would ‘feed the chooks’ and watch them fight over the crumbs.

Then while lamenting another of his quotes ‘You can’t sit on a fence, a barbed wire fence at that, and have one ear to the ground’, a friend passed on a piece reported through Queensland Country Life (Story by Lenore Taylor 07 Aug, 2012) called Soil Carbon Sweetener:  The story is how the Coalition is planning to pay farmers to store carbon in their fields for, not 100 years under current plans, but 25 years. This is a measure still claimed to be capable of solving 60 per cent of Australia’s total efforts towards long-term greenhouse gas reduction.

Offered is a critic of the coalitions plan:

For:

  1. Reducing the time you lock-up your land if you choose 25 Years (optional).
  2. If a better solution were found for greenhouse reduction the problem would have gone away (but carbon process might be rebadged as some other national imperative).
  3. Farmers can still take relatively easy steps to increase the quantity of carbon stored in soils by different agricultural practices, tilling methods and by deliberately introducing a charcoal-like substance called biochar.

Against:

  1. Very low carbon prices proposed in the ”Direct Action” plan.
  2. Reduced long-term liability would transfer to federal government the needs and rights to find replacement programs after each 25-year contract expires (Government could simply impose more stringent liabilities more regularly) so less certainty of the liability.
  3. Scientists are still working on how to measure the amount of carbon stored and understanding how it might be reversed by drought or fire.
  4. Uncertainty would continue and an example is that some forestry projects have been allowed to offer temporary 10-year credits as part of the international clean development mechanism, and these credits have a low demand and not allowed to be traded in the European Union trading scheme. Australia is heavily reliant on offshore credits for its schemes to work.

The promises:

1. The Coalition has budgeted in its $10.5 billion ”Direct Action” policy, the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, has said not a dollar more would be spent over the 10 years of the scheme. He is silent on the need for review periods, as was the practice of when he was a cabinet minister in a previous coalition government.

Claims of the views of farmers:

  1. Michael Kiely (Carbon Farmers of Australia), said “farmers were very pleased to be offered a ‘more realistic’ 25-year timeframe, but would still need to be paid a lot more than $10 a tonne to take the offer up…I’d rather get $100 a tonne because I understand what it means”.
  2. Norman Marshall (Australian Soil Management), said his company was ”finding it very difficult at the moment to convince farmers that changing their soil management was worth their while….If the Coalition introduced 25-year credits ”at around the $10 mark … that should do it”.

Other influences that could destabilize any scheme:

  1. Andrew Macintosh (ANU) said “the Coalition was ignoring more promising sources of land use greenhouse abatement from reforestation or reductions in land clearing for agricultural purposes”.
  2. Farmers need to be very careful of the ramifications of any future government using the review to impose at the stroke of a pen greater imposts or take all rights away from farmers in earlier timeframes. This will effect succession planning in particular.

CO2Land org first looks at all the approaches and notes that each political approach is a form of modified feudalism – you just take the number as 25 or 100 years. By this is meant, you are in effect indentured and your children and possibly their children are bonded to the will of the lord and taxes. The second look is a considered intrepid analysis of where we could say nature will make all things right. With this in mind you could be resolute in saying while carbon-reducing land use changes are to remain in place for 100 years under greenhouse gas reduction schemes, I will do nothing and the guiding hand will fix all. If it was that simple! No, it is not because regardless of what your view on anthropogenic climate change, the reality of the necessity of economics will drive the need to change. Not participating in a scheme will not be an option in either side of politics.

Do you wait for government approval or go it alone?

Posted on Posted in Hot airTagged , , Leave a comment

Scenario: You have an idea to save the earth; it ticks all the right boxes – manageable, positive environmental impacts, economics drivers.  Then your problem becomes, it takes a government department to act in its pedant fashion a solid 12 months to determine you have a sound proposal; that the Minister will be interested and then forward through the Ministerial process for the policy announcement. So what is the cost? Personally, two major risks: Your funds dry up waiting and waiting has a cost; someone might leak out your proposal and a pro-active body will develop and package your idea.  Why would they do that – package your idea?

The next step of government once Ministerial approval is given is call for Expression of Interest (EOI) or a tender (RFT or RFQ), or if fortunate called as a select process (select meaning limited responses canvased).  Once called your package is most at risk – it is most likely the call will be a contestable program.  Yes, you may have guessed the problem; your idea is used as the basis of the call and offered as a framework for the development proposal. This means those that, during the 12 months hiatus, proactively developed your idea can now offer it to tender with many more questions fully answered or they may be better able to offer additional value of the proposal.

Why does this happen? Because in this country government cannot be seen to proactively encourage any industry to be innovative at the early adopter stage.  But, I hear you say taxpayers money is involved and at risk. But, we say that is not true, it is the innovator that is taking the risk, all that is required of government is encouragement and ensuring a sufficient procedure is in place for ethical behaviours.  If you look hard at current policy and find pleasure in the ‘bell curve’ it becomes very easy to see that current policy follows the pareto rule but it is skewed to mature or big brand programs only.  This inclination does make an absolute mockery of term ‘strategic direction’; it follows that known acceptable programs tend to be tactical in the response pattern and is likely to be reactionary and not proactive.

Targeted – The most environmentally hostile House of Representatives

Posted on Posted in Hot airTagged , , Leave a comment

According to leading environmental groups the current US House of Representatives is one of the most environmentally hostile in history. Part of the problem, is that many members simply refuse to admit, for personal or political reasons, that humans are causing climate change.

To try and shake things up this after the elections, the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) a nonprofit environmental advocacy group is pouring $1.5US million (on top of $2US million they already put into this election cycle) into a campaign to defeat five of the most outspoken climate deniers currently in the House.

The campaign, called “Defeat the Flat Earth Five” will focus on members that are ignoring science and out of touch with what most Americans believe.

“The Flat Earth Five is our first program ever to go after members of Congress specifically because they are climate deniers,” said Jeff Gohringer, LCV’s National Press Secretary. He goes on to say: “At a time when Americans are seeing the effects of climate change right outside their window — whether it’s drought, extreme temperatures or wildfires — these members of Congress are stubbornly ignoring science,” and “We can’t expect them to fix a problem they can’t or won’t admit exists.”

CO2Land org notes the targeting of the Flat Earth Five is because it is said they are at odds with their constituents, scientists and even the Pentagon – which has called climate change a national security threat.

CO2Land org also ponders, why is our politics so similar and even to the point you could close your eyes and forget where you are at and it all sounds so familiar, and you feel it is getting hotter by degrees!

Story credit to Joanna Foster – a freelance science journalist based in New York City. Known for work that has appeared in OnEarth Magazine and at the American Museum of Natural History. Story in full published in http://www.Takepart.com – Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

 

 

I like my comms – premium, with a little help from my friends $800m

Posted on Posted in Hot airTagged Leave a comment

The ACCC has given its final approval for Optus decommissioning its HFC (cable) network and not compete with the NBN’s monopoly service in a $800m cash deal. Opposition criticism is levelled at the ACCC with them saying it was “a dark day” to reverse a position it had taken persistently to be against quasi-monopoly status in telecommunications because of the need for more competition.

However, put aside the politics, the telecommunications market on its own shows no history of giving us a competitive network without regulatory intervention. Expand the argument to the regular market facts and findings of the Reserve Bank, and you will see they acknowledge that sophisticated and quasi-regulated markets need intervention at some point.

CO2Land org feels that facts point to the issue for the telecommunications case is whether a government sponsored monopoly can deliver an improving practice model, and that needs to be tested.

Thinking a little more on the subject: Why might the ACCC feel the need to move to create a monopoly: Removing the middleman makes it easier to manage rising costs – and all we know is evidence of cost rising continues. Changes in the delivery structure will not cause relinquishment of the current players net profit margins. Customers want to pay less for a premium service – not more! But what if we prefer vanilla flavoured – not an option?

Assume it will be a success for the NBN Co. would the indicators be:

The cost of the goods sold would have less cost recovery pressures. Churn of the customer base will not occur and the price effects removed from the equation. The monopoly player will have the sole access to the consumer with the volumes.

The cost of production could be tuned and reflect a price of take or leave it, and the consumer and component producers would become ‘price takers’ and having very little say in what they pay or receive and influence in terms of efficiency.

On the later point It may well be the only fair way to access a fair price to pay is the necessary read any NBN Co. report put forward and pay particular attention to what might be listed as “other” costs –they tend to be less transparent.

While being critical of some of the material taken from the initial reference for this story. The need to write was the result of a communication sent out by the office of Malcolm Turnbull and Published on: July 20, 2012. CO2Land org picked up the story from viewing his tweet.

the most important three and a half minutes

Posted on Posted in Hot airTagged , Leave a comment

On 15 July 2012, Malcom Turnbull’s twitter site, about 4 hours after CO2Land org posted the blog ‘weasel words’, an illustration on the importance of honesty was posted as a youtube “the most honest three and a half minuted of television, EVER”. Play it through the link below – it is about morality and media power, and what happens when you lose sight of the big picture – an American story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16K6m3Ua2nw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Weasel words

Posted on Posted in Hot airTagged , , Leave a comment

The use of weasel words was a tactic used to engineer that broad based ‘policy’ could be backed out of at any time and a ‘review’ was always the justification for doing so – Flip flop, weasel words, distortion of the truth, devotion to any story will do, maybe Malcolm Turnbull should take over, when he was the voice for the environment he could see ‘as it was, a true understanding of the real world’. As a leader Turnbull had a problem to overcome as he was of honesty, of being courageous and had a conscience.

What does the current leader of the opposition mean when he says “believe me” as opposed to what seems apparent to him saying ‘do as I say’? Check out the following interview taken during the term of this opposition – http://youtu.be/12PN66IBoPs – where there was support for the CARBON TAX by Tony Abbort – Will Turnbull returned as leader be able to stop the weasel?

Put all that aside, are the ‘real’ questions: What is the real price of carbon? What is the real price to business for uncertainty? What is the real cost of the tipping point to no return for the future?

Opinions published by The Land

Posted on Posted in Hot airLeave a comment

CO2Land org finds it puzzling to see so few of the readers participate in the polls! Would more readers participate and could it be better representative if the sample of opinion was changed to: Did you like the article/story? Would readers be more empowered to influence through their opinion? Is it just too boring?

Polls June to July 2012 with a Greens Poll from April thrown in:

Q: Do you believe the Coalition will repeal the Carbon Tax as promised?

Yes (60.3%)

No (39.7%)

Total Votes: 511
Poll Date: 09 July, 2012

 Q: Do you think we need a new national agricultural lobby?

Yes (44.5%)

No (55.5%)

Total Votes: 629
Poll Date: 02 July, 2012

Q: Are you ready for the Carbon Tax?

Yes (21.6%)

No (78.4%)

Total Votes: 874
Poll Date: 25 June, 2012

Q: Now more than one year on from the live export ban, do you think the government made the right decision?

Yes (15.4%)

No (82.3%)

Undecided (2.3%)

Total Votes: 751
Poll Date: 18 June, 2012

Q: Do you support the construction of wind farms in your area?

Yes (50.8%)

No (40.9%)

Undecided (8.2%)

Total Votes: 716
Poll Date: 11 June, 2012

Q: Are you more likely to vote for The Greens following the resignation of Bob Brown?

More likely (3.8%)

Less likely (4.9%)

About the same (10.6%)

I will never vote Green (80.7%)

Total Votes: 715
Poll Date: 23 April, 2012

The community consultation process – next gen

Posted on Posted in Hot airTagged , Leave a comment

In our Woodlawn ducks blog, CO2Land org talked of planning regulations and coping means in handling Sydney’s waste. An equally compelling need is the community consultation process.  Increasingly professional ‘people managers’ are given the job of forming ‘representative’ groups that give ministerial comfort to ‘opinion’. In short this means those in the community that speak out are then branded ‘radical’ and not ‘representative’ of the community.  The evidence to date suggests consultation attempts tend to be dysfunctional and unsatisfactory and ‘participation representatives’ are restricted to complaints, insufficient information for adequate follow-up and tend to focus on managing ‘outrage’.

What lessons are learn’t from this ‘representative’ model?  Importantly, anyone who wishes to benefit from a better understanding of the process should look at all the tools available. Media plays a big part, including social media networking. The tools are necessary and form part of mature industry approaches, and give a more legitimate social license to operate your process, and can give valuable evidence pieces to show conformance to legally compliant governance structure.

 

Carbon Management – despite the storm of words

Posted on Posted in Hot airTagged Leave a comment

The differences between the parties of politics in Australia are centered around the carbon price mechanism. However, the parties share their support for putting in place approaches to carbon management.

In the story “Tax furore hides much furious agreement”, Andrew Ure wrote “he makes an issue of how Australians would be forgiven for being a little lost in the carbon tax introduction and the storm of words”. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/tax-furore-hides-much-furious-agreement-20120702-21d4c.html#ixzz1zb5R3I5L

CO2Land org looks closely at where there is general agreement by our political parties that climate change is real, and notes:

  • Unconditional commitment to reduce Australia’s emissions by the same amount (5 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020).
  • Agree on a minimum undertaking of the scale of emissions reductions that Australia should endevour upon.
  • Agree that there is a degree of climate change action that Australia should take forward.
  • Furious agreement that Australia should encourage the development of the renewable energy sector through promoting a renewable energy target, and they even agree on the amount: 20 per cent of Australia’s energy supply should come from renewable sources by 2020.
  • Energy Efficiency programs will remain in focus regardless of who is in power
  • Land management is in agreement for support, however the estimates of the potential of reducing emissions from farming and forestry vary, but all agree the reductions potential is very significant.
  • Although they have the same objective and hence the same program type but called differently: The government’s contracts for closure program and the coalition’s emissions reductions fund is seeking to support the closure of inefficient power stations.

Being that the coalition are on record as saying estimates that soil carbon measures could represent 85 million tonnes of annual CO2 abatement potential we can take this as agreement the government’s carbon farming initiative is the safest part of the government’s Clean Energy Future package. Albeit we will hear more of the slant to be tested based on the direct action plan.

CO2Land org is of the view we should not let the arguments get dull or fade away, even the minor differences present significant opportunity to do better and more is best for climate change action. Viva la differences and the nuance to maneuver to our special place – sustainable living.

Big End wants Carbon Price – But not Alan Jones and Co.

Posted on Posted in Hot airTagged Leave a comment

Has Alan Jones made one mistake too many? Is it a matter of the illusionary superior proving they are inferior?

Quote from smh “while a much smaller group in Melbourne heard the broadcaster Alan Jones refer to climate change science as ”propaganda”.

‘The notion of global warming is a hoax,” Jones told a group of about 150 people on the steps of the Victorian Parliament. ”This is witchcraft. Commonsense will tell you it’s rubbish;…” Then it is reported the Australian Communications and Media Authority reprimanded Jones’s station, 2GB, last month, after he made multiplication errors in his calculations about atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/climate-change-a-hoax-jones-tells-tax-protesters-20120701-21b3z.html#ixzz1zRPVvZOs

All this is at odds of the real picture as it emerges near to 300 companies and organisations have signed a statement backing the carbon price in a bid to balance the often-louder voices of opposition. Quoting smh “Companies including AGL, Westpac, Alstom, GE, Fujitsu, IKEA, Unilever, Grocon, Pacific Hydro and Infigen Energy have signed the statement that will feature in print and online media from today.

So if some peak organizations might say the price is too high, most including Business Council of Australia do not think it is ‘propaganda’, and as of 1 July 2012, 299 companies calling themselves ”Businesses for a Clean Economy” are endorsing the carbon price and pleading for stable, long-term policies to give clear signals to investors.Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/lets-give-it-a-chance-says-business-grouping-20120701-21b2v.html#ixzz1zROrOJLZ

CO2Land org is of the view that presenting facts is important, but distorting or selective skewing is not acceptable by anyone. The facts clearly are in favour of presenting a sustainable way to tackle climate change and carbon management, these companies is not in the business of politics they are in business full stop.  Leave emotive clichés out of it and you can see businesses that tackle climate change also move to more energy efficient practices. Is that not a good thing anyway?