Power of Choice – review by AEMC of DR

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

All community is affected by the rising cost of energy. Something can be done, and the “Power of Choice” review being run by the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) and a Senate Select Committee on Electricity Prices Inquiry is underway. Both these essential bodies need to be influenced and informed about how essential the implementation of and effective Demand Response (DR) is in the National Electricity Market (NEM) in saving $billions, and continuous saving thereafter.

Over the last 11 years there have been a number of Reviews that have made clear recommendations[1] that Demand Response (DR) should be implemented in our electricity markets.  Unfortunately, all these recommendations for implementation of DR have been ignored, with the exception of DR for Reserve Capacity in Western Australia’s Wholesale Electricity Market (WEM) which works very well.  In hindsight, the lack of an effective DR mechanism in the NEM in particular has cost electricity users an estimated Present Value (PV) of $15.8 Billion[2] (this is in the order of a 9% impost on their annual electricity bills).  Worse still this loss to the community is continuing to grow.

The “Power of Choice” Review is an unfinished work, and CO2Land org has experience in the material of Demand Response (DR). DR is most effective as a formal aggregation of small amounts of demand reduction from a larger electricity users who are contracted to reduce this pre-agreed amount of their demand at times when their are extreme wholesale prices, extreme peaks in demand or in emergencies.  It is much cheaper way to address these short term events than our current outdated approach of spending billions of dollars on more generators and networks which are only needed for a total of about 40 hours per year.

In the push for acceptance of DR becoming a part of the National Electricity Market (NEM) an article was written in the Daily Telegraph, 5 Sept 2012,  (link: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/power-shift-to-cut-household-bills/story-e6freuy9-1226465075377) after it was relayed some of the source contributions were gleaned from an EnerNOC sponsored report recently completed by CME.

CO2Land org and those mentioned in this post accept we look forward and hope the AEMC is now convinced that DR is essential to minimize further price rises.

If you are confused with the terminology, hopefully the following will help you better understand: The energy market has three components that affect the price we pay: Price response (PR), Demand Response (DR) and the Emergency response (ER).  Price is largely inelastic, and as we are experiencing alternative energy sources we notice the costs have similar or more Price effects to introduce them. Demand Response (DR) is the most volatile price driver in the market where smaller splices of time require a greater build and increase capital required for infrastructure projects (pole and wires builds and maintenance needs to cater for the demand growth). Emergency Response (ER) is an energy security problem and is reactionary to large events with little warning.

References to support this view are:

[1]

  • Alan Fels, Chair of ACCC, speaking at the Inaugural EUAA Conference on 19 November 2001
  • The Parer Review 2002 “Towards A Truly National And Efficient Energy Market”
  • The EUAA April 2004 “Trial of a Demand Side Response Facility for the National Electricity Market”
  • The ERIG Review November 2006 “Review of Energy Related Financial Markets”
  • Stages 1 & 2 of the Demand Side Participation Review (Stage 3 still in progress)

[2]

Energy Performance Contracting promoted – ESI

Posted on Posted in Carbon RiskTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

Energy Savings Insurance is being promoted overseas. Yet, Australians were attempting to get a similar scheme going termed ‘Energy Performance Contracting’ back the 2003. The only significant support for the scheme was the Australian Capital Territory Government funding support and a handful of Federal Agencies piloting the scheme. At that time the champion was Stephen Oster and we found a reference he made back in June 2011: “I did a lot of work in 2003/04 trying to get business to take up “Energy Savings Insurance”, or as we call it in Australia, Energy Performance Contracting. We managed to secure funding from the Australian Capital Territory Government to pay for all the initial consulting and set-up work for business (http://www.energetics.com.au/newsroom/media_releases/energy_performance_…). Despite the removal of one of the big barriers, we still couldn’t get any significant traction. Ultimately I think people believe if something seems to be too good to be true, it probably is. In the case of Energy Performance Contracts, the idea of an investment with significant economic returns being low risk, just didn’t make sense to most business people. A couple of old but still useful resources can be found at http://www.eec.org.au/Best%20Practice%20Guides “.

CO2Land org knows all to well that innovation is a very difficult space and as Steve said in this country getting significant traction for good ideas can fail without good reason. We have to ponder why? Is the Carbon Farming Initiative heading to the scrap heap for the same reason – another discussion for later?

More recently: Scott DeGaro, LEED AP BD+C, O+M, Barge Waggoner Sumner & Cannon posted on LinkedIn the following discussing called ‘Have You Heard of Energy Savings Insurance’ and he referred to his article regarding the proposed LEED 2012 version. He also acknowledged contributions of Rob Freeman for regular, monthly article on Green Buildings and what’s happening. “Rob is also the impetus behind this first article regarding Energy Savings Insurance (ESI). This is a new form of insurance that may have an impact on Sustainability and LEED projects in the coming years….The concept focus of ESI is bonds and other financing tools with the potential for great benefit in the energy savings market and should continue to grow in availability, use and understanding in the coming years as energy efficiency continues to be a growing aspect of building owner operations….ESI may find a market as projects that promise energy savings, but fail to deliver, become more well known… Perhaps the most visible case of this right now is the Destiny USA project in Syracuse, NY. In a nutshell, the developer proposed a large number of energy conservation measures and LEED certification in order to obtain low-interest government loans. Throughout the project, there were a number of financial difficulties and stoppages in work. At present it appears that many of features were not included in the project, which is cause for question and an investigation by the government regarding the loans. This project and related investigation will probably take many years before everything is settled”.

CO2Land org at this point asks if a hypothesis test might prove ‘where government support is required it becomes more difficult to overcome suspicion “it is too good to be true”’!

Ready Steady Farmer – and the Challenge of Climate Change.

Posted on Posted in Carbon RiskTagged , , , , Leave a comment

Access to finance is not significant in persuading farmers to adopt other than business as usual (BAU) agricultural practices. It is more likely some farmers’ actions and views are driven by near term happenings, such as extreme weather events. Possibly, the inability of outreach attempts by our Australian Government to have farmers change from BAU is the dogma of the belief we need initiatives to deal with long term problems. To test a farmers response to change might be as simple as determining which are the most are reactive, and who is proactive, in terms of how they manage and respond to impacts associated with climate change. Policies might then tailor the necessary competencies to suit the bands of farmers needing to change.

It does not matter whether we are in Australia, UK, US Russia or whatever, our changing climate and the effects of extreme weather events, such as the recent floods and droughts are having a significant impact on agriculture. Changed practices are required. However, if you don’t understand the problems of the farmers you only ‘feed the chooks’(referring to the media stories). We suggest a survey is necessary after taking note that in the UK the Environment Agency approach is commit to supporting the agricultural industry. Supporting to be more sustainable and resilient to climate change. They also go the extra to know how farmers are responding to the challenge of a changing climate and ask what are their needs?

A better way to promote the Carbon Farming Initiate or BioDiversity challenges could take the lead from the report on the analysis and key findings of the opinions, attitudes and behaviours of farmers across the UK, towards climate change. The report draws conclusions and recommendations that could inform future action, led by the Environment Agency (UK) and its key partners. The evidence came from surveys conducted by the Farming Futures project, the National Farmers Union (NFU) Water Survey 2011, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Irrigation Survey 2009/10 and the Defra Farm Practices Survey.

“The report‟s focus is predominantly on water use on the farm, as an indicator of attitudes and practice. It is recognised that wider agronomic issues such as pests, disease, soil management, plant genetics and nutrient management are important factors within the climate change context; these issues are outside the scope of this report.” The full report is at: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/GEMI0512BWKV-E-E.pdf

The key findings in this report highlight (source: Farming Futures 4 Sept 2012):

“Arable and horticulture businesses appear to be the most forward thinking farm types on climate change and are actively preparing for change.

Some management decisions on farms positively address climate change issues, however decisions are usually driven by the need to increase production and resource efficiency and thereby reduce overall costs.

Access to finance is not in itself a significant barrier to farmers changing existing practices.

Farmers need better support to understand climate change and what measures they could take in order that the UK food production becomes more sustainable in the future.

Many of the methods that farming could consider to help them adapt will already be familiar as good environmental practice. These include: maintaining good water quality, conserving water resources, conserving soils, following good nutrient management and improving wildlife habitats.

Many actions can lead to cost savings for example, reduced water and energy bills; and could create new income, for example, generating renewable energy.

Enabling farmers to take action now will result in a more ‘climate change proof’ agriculture industry.

Recommendations for enabling change:

Recommendation 1 – Production of targeted information for farmers on climate change impacts for agriculture.

Recommendation 2 – Establish or utilise existing good practice farm programmes.

Recommendation 3 – Farm advice programmes need to integrate and improve upon how climate change is represented, with information and best practice guidance produced for agriculture.

Recommendation 4 – To monitor and analyse the activities of farmers on climate change adaptation, and in the long term, understand the impact which is made by agriculture.

Recommendation 5 – For the Environment Agency and key partners who work with agriculture, to work in partnership to implement the recommendations identified in this report.”

CO2Land org strongly supports Farming Futures in how they flag practices. It is a signals approach and they allocate their assessment of blogs with ‘weak signals logo’ for yet unrecognized, by mainstream agriculture, ideas, trends, technologies or behaviour changes within the farming industry.  We are sure you will have stories of your own that know of practices that might have a big impact on future farm practices or have disappeared from the radar for no good reason other than they get forgotten or were poorly promoted.

CO2Land org will talk to some friends to see if this problem can be addressed in a better way for Australia.

Pitfalls – (Carbon) and (CO2)

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , Leave a comment

Thinking about 12.5% Carbon Credits currently possible under the EU – ETS, and the Government’s need to negotiate a better deal for it to work for Australia’s Carbon Offsets market and the component CFI programs. Remembering that that program has bi-partisan political support we might think it will be plain sailing.

CO2Land org on 2 Aug 2012 published for educational purposes “Carbon the word most confused” and that story is “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!”  Then again on other dates 9th, 14th, 17th and 30th Aug each story was directly related to programs that impact on markets and ‘carbon’.

If we feature the UK and how it is handling carbon and we are not alone – In June 2012, 1370 companies listed on the London Stock Exchange had mandatory carbon reporting requirements announced. From 6 April 2013, carbon footprint reports and information will be included in the Director’s Report and financial statements. Thank you ManageCO2 for the heads up. Go to http://www.manageco2.com for their summary.

Notwithstanding, it is the UK Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) that established the core requirements under the ISO standards and what is missing in those standards Co2Land org previously explained this was so not to offend world trade bodies. In that context we were talking of Real, Additionality and REC’s and primarily referenced to ISO 14064-2.  DEFRA use similar language to our Government and have started to finalise the exact details of there respective programs and legislation, and use words like ‘the core requirements have been made very clear and are largely consistent with other reporting standards such as the Greenhouse Gas Protocol and ISO 14064-1.” Other similarities are in the reporting of total operations, but it stops at CO2 and that is different to carbon in our context.

The UK requires organisations that operate outside that country have to report emissions for each facility outside the UK.  They also expect that each operational area outside UK will report according to that region. The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme is included – The London Stock Exchange companies listed to report will be required to report emissions that we will recognise as scope 1 – combustion of fossil fuels. However, we (Australians’) have a problem  – the UK is focused on energy related emissions – not all 6 Kyoto gases are covered – only CO2 is covered! They cover off other requirements in other programs and many of them support innovation!

So lets go over the reporting requirements of EU-ETS as it stands today:

Scope 1 – yes

Scope 2 – no

Scope 3 – no

All 6 Kyoto gasses reported – no CO2 only

Each country/region Specific Emissions Factors required in the report – yes

Enforced – yes.

Source: http://www.defra.gov.uk

The challenge for Australian farmers is the to be able to sell credits in Europe with some certainty as their land practice changes most probably and in full likelihood relate to methane production, and that issue is well posted and might help understand what the government meant by 12.5% could be currently generated as credits to meet the domestic demand through the EU ETS and we have a 50% limit on overseas credits. Exploring that 12.5% if you takes our 6 gases and the harm effects of each (CO2-e calculation) across industry you come up with a number very similar where 50% offshore credits are whittled to become 12.5% when only CO2 can be counted! Are you now confused about ‘Carbon’ Farming?

So can we expect the transition from carbon price to Au ETS to EU ETS to see more ‘policy adjustments’ between now and 2015? It could be worth a wager and it will not matter what political persuasion you are either. It will be a global trade adjustment that will bring that about, and if history prevails political decision based on intervention strategies will dictate price not the market forces.

Why not checkout http://www.CO2Ti.com and the Carbon Offset Masterclass – could be a good move.

 

 

Understanding how soil and plants cope with climate change

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Zero WasteTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

Managing carbon in the soil is complex, and chemical reactions are essential to trigger responses to help plants grow and develop. Understanding how soil and plants cope with climate change logically leads to questioning the necessary terrestrial ecosystem carbon balance that will be sustainable under future climate-change scenarios.

CO2Land org has previously discussed ‘soil bugs’ under ‘Bugs to cure our climate ills’, on 21 Aug 2012 and more recently further information as been sent on findings that have been on public release (30 Aug 2012 ): “Unexpected finding shows climate change complexities in soil.  While it is hard to describe the finding as surprising it is more evidence of underground organisms ability to play complex roles with greenhouse sequesting.

Presented by mick_kulikowski@ncsu.edu of North Carolina State University  in a paper published in the Aug. 31 edition of Science, “North Carolina State University researchers show that important and common soil microscopic organisms, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), play a role in sequestering carbon below ground, trapping it from escaping into the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas…. Yet at the same time, the study shows, elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide also increase a number of underground decomposing interactions that cause carbon to be released back into the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas. This greenhouse gas release essentially offsets any carbon sink benefits, the researchers found…AMF have a win-win relationship with plants. The fungi take carbon from plants and provide nitrogen and other useful soil nutrients that plants need in order to grow and develop. Present in the roots of about 80 percent of plants that grow on land, AMF help hold this carbon in the ground by putting the brakes on the decomposition of soil organic matter, which prevents the carbon in the decomposing material from escaping into the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas”.

What was so complex in that action you might ask?  The paper says different experiments yielded different results. However all concluded AMF spur other soil micro-organisms to help fill the plant’s need for ammonia. To do so, soil micro-organisms decompose soil organic matter, which allows the carbon to escape into the atmosphere.

Quoting the paper: “We showed that the fungi previously thought to control carbon in the soil can increase carbon decomposition when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are elevated. ” The study lead Dr. Shuijin Hu, associate professor of plant pathology at NC State and the corresponding author of the paper to say: “But if we effectively manage x, we have a chance to manage carbon sequestration in the soil.”

What CO2Land org reads of this is that regardless, we humans can manage the need for change and anthropogenic change can affect the extent to which terrestrial ecosystems will interact and need the sequester carbon to mitigate climate change is a matter of debate. And to quote the study again “The stimulation of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) by elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has been assumed to be a major mechanism facilitating soil carbon sequestration by increasing carbon inputs to soil and by protecting organic carbon from decomposition via aggregation. We present evidence from four independent microcosm and field experiments demonstrating that CO2 enhancement of AMF results in significant soil carbon losses. Our findings challenge the assumption that AMF protect against degradation of organic carbon in soil and raise questions about the current prediction of terrestrial ecosystem carbon balance under future climate-change scenarios”.

 

lower project risks for issuance of carbon credits – Farmers benefit

Posted on Posted in Carbon OpportunityTagged , , , , Leave a comment

Carbon Pricing was expected to increase farm costs by $3.2b in Australia at the fixed price of $23 per tonne CO2-e (increasing at 2.5% per annum for three years). Then after 28 August 2012: You may have been confused when the announcement from the government said we will synchronize with European Emissions Trading scheme by 2015 and effects will be felt immediately and most definitely from 2014 where we can expect our ceiling cap to be set by a European communities. This can be taken to be a positive step and as we (serious about economics) know economies of scale give more certainty to the market. One thing has not changed is the point where the market will fully transition to a flexible price determined by the market.

Being that Industry intelligence is vital for a successful business, it is right to ask questions and have data provided to be analyzed and have the facts assembled and crafted into a response. So without political spin we should give a bit of the background on Agriculture in Australia:

Agriculture accounts for about 15% of Australia’s total emissions, but it is notoriously difficult to narrow a number of the sector individual parts for what they contribute. It varies a lot and is in part why the Australian Government’s Clean Energy Plan for the carbon price does not apply to Australia’s agriculture sector, which means that farmers are not liable to pay a direct tax on carbon emissions. Farmers are also exempt from paying tax on their fuel consumption until 2014, when the government will begin to tax carbon emissions from heavy on-road transport.

Lets examine what CO2Land org also thinks is part of the reason agriculture is not applied to the carbon pricing, and it stems from the wording ‘carbon’. In Australia we legislated there are six greenhouse gases and each has different lasting affects on the global warming and climate actions. For instance:

  • Livestock farming is carbon which of which largely depends on how you count it and it can be greater than 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide and is attributed with at least 75% of agriculture carbon.
  • Pasture and grain growers’ account for at least 15% of the sector’s emissions. This is also very difficult to measure as much depends on the amount of fertilizer use, crop residue burning and harvesting activities.
  • Other factors that affect the sector are drought conditions, changes in livestock numbers, pasture quality and commodity prices affect on demand.

Therefore the issue for the industry with the carbon price is the indirect costs under the carbon price conditions, primarily in the form of higher prices for farming inputs and production. The rise in freight and fuel-based costs beyond 2014 will detract from the bottom line, as it will become more expensive to transport livestock and get fresh produce to market.  Now if the carbon price after 2014 is more likely to be stabilized by a more efficient global market scheme it should be reasonable to assume those price rises will be lower than predicted. Lets take a punt and say annual growth of agriculture production will increase or remain steady in 2014-15 and not decline by around 1%. This should indicate revenue impact of the introduction of Carbon pricing is now not as severe (it is worth noting that transport cost are around 16% of co2 emission in the farming product) and a more stable pricing mechanism will have direct downstream pricing benefits for farms. Therefore farmers should have a more relaxed view of the situation than previously.

CO2Land org was sent a notice that ( www.ibisworld.com.au ) IBISWorld published a special report on Carbon Pricing in June 2012 on the state of play as was seen at that time, and this in part formed this comparison to conclude the latest move to European Trading Scheme should be a good move. Reason: Likelihood of indirect costs not rising to the levels predicted and a near complete counter to the increase in on-road fuel costs from 2014. And, less discount on our buyers and sellers actions in forward sellers markets – lower project risks for issuance of carbon credits for developers.

Carbon price -positive posts today

Posted on Posted in Carbon OpportunityTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

Carbon price featured in two positive posts today. Both would give some certainty to farmers under carbon offsets schemes. The first was reported by AAP, 28 August 2012, on what CO2Land org has tipped and that is that the European Emission Trading scheme was in a state of change and ultimately, all markets will benefit from these changes: The Australian Government announced plans to link Australia’s scheme to Europe’s emissions trading scheme from 2015. Also announced was an equally important event, The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Carbon Farming Initiative team, announced the opening of Expressions of Interest for grants funding to develop carbon farming methods.

Why are the two linked? Aspects of both effect Australian companies that will be able to sell credits in Europe and farmers wanting some certainty to the ability to generate credits through changes to their land practices, and that had an issue in that it was well posted Australia might not have generated sufficient credits to meet the domestic demand.

The link is also important for project developers that are used to assigning risk to issuance of carbon credits and they can now be more certain that the projects will conform to pricing expectation without the need to vary or discount. Without it the only other option was to assign a risk to earlier transactions and take a greater discount.

What else is good? Currently Europe permits are trading for about 8 euro (high $9) and traders can offer that to you now to meet future liabilities. Sorry Tony, this means the carbon price will most likely be cheaper for Australian businesses by the effective date and possibly before, and the beauty of it is the European Union will be the one that will put the brakes on if things get too aggressive. Yes, someone else to watch over the price.

What else would farmers like? Current restrictions of the liability that can be met by overseas carbon schemes will be more price friendly through the European Scheme and that scheme will become a floating-price emissions trading scheme and the Australian linkage to Europe will be a free market with price advantages that can be traded without affecting the level of carbon cuts needed.

We will leave the clean energy advantages for another post.

 

ever heard of Climate Change Authority, Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Hot airTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

What? You never heard of Climate Change Authority, what about Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

The Energy Users Association of Australia (EUAA) would like to make sure you are up to speed, and encourage you to consider attending their important briefing in Sydney this Thursday, 30 August 2012.

Why would you know more for attending? Because Roman Domanski (Executive Director, EUAA) has engaged the CEO of the new Climate Change Authority, and the Chair of the new Clean Energy Finance Corporation to present the outline and effects of their charge. These two are responsible for advising the Government on the carbon price and the renewable energy target, amongst other things, and responsible for providing funding for clean energy, low carbon and energy efficiency projects.  Of course there is more to the program but you should check that out for yourself.

Because CO2Land org likes to know a little more, a short research brings up:

1. The Climate Change Authority was created as an independent body to provide advice on the Australian Government’s policies for reducing carbon pollution (reviewing the Renewable Energy Target, Pollution caps, carbon pricing and Carbon Farming Initiative):

  • Has a Board of nine members with skills in science, economics, climate change mitigation, emissions trading, investment and business.
  • The Board is supported by a CEO and support staff.
  • Importance is to make recommendations on the steps Australia should take towards the 2020 target and on the longer-term path towards the 2050 target.
  • The Authority will conduct regular, public reviews and its reports will be made public.

2. Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) is made up of a panel of experts appointed by the Government to advise on the design of the $10billion Clean energy package. The package is announced to:

  • encourage private investment and help overcome capital market barriers to commercialising clean energy technologies.
  • The expert review panel consults with key stakeholders and report with recommendations to assist with the drafting of legislation, allowing the CEFC to start operating from 2013-14.

CO2Land org notes that the EUAA and the agencies recognize that it is an act of being together that will be a success factor with putting a price on carbon pollution, and the establishment of responsible bodies that will help Australia meet the environmental and economic challenges of competing in a low-pollution world.

If you have any interest direct your queries direct to:

 

Energy Users Association of Australia

Suite 1, Level 2, 19-23 Prospect St

Box Hill  Vic  3218 Australia

T +61 3 9898 3900

F +61 3 9898 7499

W www.euaa.com.au

 

The operative of ‘Consistently’, ‘Resilience’

Posted on Posted in Carbon OpportunityTagged , , , , , 1 Comment

We were discussing some difficulties with methodologies and land use change. The operative of ‘consistently’ became problematic as climate change is about uncertainty in weather patterns!!!

My friend said I have a meteorology business for exactly that reason. So where are you at I asked: Answer, we are in the middle of contract negotiations with XXXX Airport and have 2 different capital raisings underway (one for an existing project and one for an exciting startup). However, I think you know I have an interest in seeing if this carbon space can work. CO2Land org should add this friend’s track record in other spaces is pretty good. So why only express and interest in the carbon space, why is there a hesitation to get fully into it when it is so important?

Assuming CO2Land org decided on a capital raising venture, my friend said adopt this approach if it is based on Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) and determine: How many farmers do you believe you have willing to participate, and how many hectares do you believe could be allocated? In truth without an approved methodology – none! But we have lots of potential!

Assuming we have potential (and pending approval of our methodology – allow 12 months or more for approval) we have to determine: What proportions of these (farmers and hectares) consistently fall into the rainfall categories:

a)      800 -899mm per annum or greater

b)      700-799mm pa

c)       600-699mm pa

d)      500-599mm pa

e)      Below 500mm pa

Now we enter into a circular argument (The operative of ‘consistently’ became problematic as climate change is about uncertainty in weather patterns!!!). To add another dimension we can talk of timeframes for participation: Is it 7 years, 25years or 100years – back to you later – but assume 100years remains. Notice how many time the word assume is used – remember the old adage – to assume is to make an ass of you!

Many landholders can be looking at what best suits their contribution to participate in abatement activities, Some will decide on the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI), some Biodiversity Funds (BF) and some might just choose business as usual (BAU). CO2Land org has previously stated BAU is a means of denial and a work to go broke slowly tactic.

So what causes some to think BAU? Possibly, some might have been very keen on biodiversity a few years back and question the efficiency and effectiveness. In recent times those that have effective strategies in place and locked up their properties had had this turned around by coal seam gas well and minerals exploration. Additionally, as reported by The Conversation, 11 July 2012, was that 168 countries including Australia signed the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992-93 to achieve  “a significant reduction in the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level” by 2010 – by 2010 not one of the 168 countries could demonstrate significant progress toward meeting this target.

Then consider: Australia has plenty of food and exports about 50% of production, we only create about 1% of the global food supply – Australian farmers are efficient in terms of the food and fibre produced per unit of labour input – but most of our farming systems are based on high inputs of expensive fuel, fertilizer, chemicals, and machinery – with very high wage costs and a high Australian dollar, it is increasingly difficult for Australia to hold existing markets. Then comes the question from CO2Land org, and our biggest retailers import food, yet we are the most efficient country in the world per unit of labour input – and if we can recycle most fertilizer use, why is not that encouraged?

How is your methodology, well maybe it takes a long time to get a approval for good reason, if you want a biodiversity outcome the following could worry you as “There is an emerging view that although forests remove a substantial amount of CO2 from the atmosphere, much of the carbon is being stored in living woody biomass rather than as dead organic matter in soils – carbon stored in soils is desirable from a management perspective in that soils are more stable over time, so carbon can be locked away for hundreds to thousands of years and not be re-released to contribute to atmospheric CO2. Source: The Conversation 12July 2012. Maybe CFI based on carbon stored in soil is the way to go!

Now a little more on why your methodology may be too narrow in its focus and it revolves around the word ‘Resilience’. According to the Decision Point, August 2012, Resilience is not about not changing as far as natural habitats are concerned – it is concerned with holding a system in exactly the same condition erodes resilience because the capacity to absorb disturbance is based on the system’s history of dealing with disturbances.

Once again CO2Land org does thank Garry Reynolds of Caring for our Country, DAFF for the reference sources.

Human Creativity – ideas and innovation

Posted on Posted in Carbon RiskTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

I long for where Human creativity meant ideas and opportunity will be captured and questioned and then crafted into a business. While lamenting, along came a story that human creativity has not changed, and the problem is we might be running out of big NEW companies. This leads to looking deeper into why this could happen.

A story from Alyson Shontell, 23 August 2012, (http://www.businessinsider.com/startups-have-gotten-very-boring-2012-8#ixzz24PkQEhSJ ) in essence says the space is too crowded and starting a company used to be more difficult.

CO2Land org does agree starting a company is more easy, however funding is getting more difficult, banks have tighter lending rules, old (family) money has all but dried up or is invested in the minerals boom (particularly since 2007-08) and we are back to the time when only people with boatloads of money could afford to launch one (a start-up company) and see it to maturity. However, the difference to how it was before is marketing, this is more important and in particular we need to know how to use the changed practices in marketing to your advantage and this is more critical than being a engineering genius. That said we have to point out the improved technology, and social media can create something for a condition to start-up a company that is neither being novel or necessary. The condition for this is because – “Founders can scale consumer products relatively quickly too. Angel investor Chris Dixon called 10 million users the new one million.”

CO2Land org then ponders: Is innovation of this type going to reach a ‘peak oil’ type of scenario and when, and what drives us to start-up a new company that is different especially where we might have products that are familiar, can use and understand, and have been around for the years. A good example might be how a director of an affiliate company said my PC was fine until Microsoft made it more complicated, so I changed to Apple and had to learn all over again! This is a very good example of how we did not want to change until it was forced on us, and the moral of the story is do it before it is done unto you! By that is meant things will change through human creativity and that creativity can at least be influenced by our ideas if we participate (is this not the correct way of a human touch?).

Back to the Alyson Shontell story: “The interesting innovation now is happening in [business-to-business] and infrastructure, which doesn’t seem as intellectually interesting but can have a large impact,” an investor told us. “[Business-to-consumer] might just be tapped out for the moment after a good 5+ year run.” It would seem the Alyson Shontell claim is an indicator of the shift in how we do business, and CO2Land org recently published a story on how branding perceptions has changed (Time for a real review). Both support the view the intellectual is less interesting and more important is systems based on hardware, enterprise software, infrastructure and bio-whatever.

CO2Land org does fully agrees those in this B2B space are different and have their thoughts arranged in a way different to B2C and may have an easier time in start-up as they can be better, more predictable bets for investors.

Watch this space for more affiliate action – soon! And, Twitter, is becoming more and more important in watching this space.