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

Targeted – The most environmentally hostile House of Representatives

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.

 

 

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

 

 

Look in your garbage

Gaze into the future, look in your garbage bin and think about the waste!

Think Zero Waste and chances are you will be embroiled in spirited debate over whether it is a concept, a physical, or a cultural idiom. CO2Land org suggests it is carbon management program and distinctly an approach to risk and opportunity, with products that evolve with the strategy. It is with consternation that Mother Jones published that “in the United States, we hear “zero waste” and think sanctimonious yuppies. But lets look at the rubbish facts and think:

  • The US has a big trash problem, but China’s will soon be even worse.
  • Projected World Trash Generation, increases per person by 2025 lbs./year
  •  Richer countries generate more paper waste, one third of it because of packaging

Poor countries have a very high proportion of organic waste such as food scraps or grass clippings. Paper, on the other hand, is the single largest component of waste in high-income countries; in the United States, one person generates 705 pounds of paper waste each year. According to an EPA report on trash in the US, one-third of that paper waste comes from the corrugated cardboard boxes in which nearly everything they buy gets packaged and shipped.

In the EPA report you will find composition data for China is missing from this analysis and India’s reporting it highly suggestive that the category of “other” is applying a different standard for sorting trash.

  • Even if we recycled all of our trash, it wouldn’t be enough.

Theoretically developed nations can achieve 86 percent recycling. The quoted report concludes all organic waste is compostable and all plastic, metal, paper, and glass are recyclable and the only trash meant for the landfill is the “other” category, which includes ash, electronic waste, and old appliances. What is frightening about the report is the “other” category in America means the per person ratio the other trash of each american is greater than the total trash of an average person in India.

The story, therefore says: Recycling alone won’t solve our trash problem.  CO2Land org has no reason to think Australia is any different – we need more to be done.

Credit for the story: Sarah Zhang (editorial intern at Mother Jones).

 

 

 

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.’

 

 

China’s technology plan to tackle climate change

China announced its ‘Specially Designated National Plan on Science and Technology Development in Tackling Climate Change’. The plan includes the Ten Most Critical Mitigation Technologies and Ten Most Critical Adaption Technologies that have been identified by the Chinese Government to address climate change challenges in that country.

Reported by thecleanrevolution.org on 16 July 2012, China announced its technology plan last week, and the dot points of the plan follow:

“The Ten Mitigation Technologies are:

  • High efficiency super-critical power generation technology
  • Holistic coal gasification-based integrated combustion-cycle technology
  • Non-conventional natural gas exploration and development technology
  • Large-scale renewable energy power generation, storage and grid connection technology
  • New energy automobile technology and low carbon fuel substitute technology
  • City energy supply and end-use energy efficiency and emission reduction technology
  • Building energy saving technology
  • Energy saving and scale-up technology of waste energy and waste heat in the production process of iron and steel, metallurgical, chemical and building material industries
  • Carbon sink technology in agriculture, forestry, husbandry and wetland
  • Carbon capture and storage technology.

The Ten Adaptation Technologies include:

  • Forecast and pre-warning technology of extreme weather events
  • Drought-ridden region water resource exploration and high-efficiency water utilization, and optimized allocation technology
  • Drought-resistant and high-temperature-resistant plant species selection and cultivation, and pest-prevention and control technology
  • Typical climate-sensitive ecosystem protection and remediation technology
  • Climate change impact and risk assessment technology
  • Human health integrated adaptation technology
  • Typical coastal land adaptation technology
  • City lifeline engineering safety guarantee technology in response to extreme weather events
  • Standards and regulation amendment of some key sectors in adaptation to climate change
  • Man-controlled weather manipulation technology.”

CO2Land org notes that while clear guideline are given; success towards tackling climate change relies on close partnerships between government and business, as well as among countries in the global community. They go on to say, “Tackling climate change is a game of we-are-all-in-it-together. A global-level cooperation will provide the right platform for shared innovation and know-how to accelerate the technology R&D, the application of those technologies, as well as the scale up of the applicable and feasible solutions to address the common challenge we all face today.”

Are they serious? You will be in awe that the site said “The Chinese Government invested $16.8 BILLION (RMB 107 BILLION) in Clean Energy and Efficiency in 2011”.

Report: Read more on how global consensus and collaboration can drive a clean revolution in China

Background: China’s 12th Five Year Plan

Aircraft CO2 Metrics Standard – International measures

On 11 July 2012, at Saint Petersburg, in the Russian Federation, an important step towards establishing a worldwide CO2 Standard for aircraft was made. The International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO’s) Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) unanimously agreed on a CO2 metric system that characterizes the CO2 emissions for aircraft types with varying technologies. ICAO is a United Nations specialist agency, and the announcement is covered in COM15/12.

The ICAO Council President is quoted as saying: “The new CO2 metric system agreed today by States, as well as intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, addresses emissions from a wide variety of aircraft on a fair and transparent basis….. It includes factors which account for fuselage geometry, maximum takeoff weight and fuel burn performance at three different cruise conditions and is a major move forward.”

The new aircraft CO2 metric system will now move onto the next stages in the development of an ICAO CO2 aircraft Standard, and includes the definition of certification procedures to support the agreed metric system and the Standard’s scope of applicability. The criteria for appropriate regulatory intervention will be analyzed, looking at technical feasibility, environmental benefit, cost effectiveness and the impacts of interdependencies.

The ICAO’s Environment Branch Chief, said “highlights that there is a great deal of motivation in every quarter of our sector to achieve real progress on aviation environmental performance.” CO2Land org applauds the courageous for tackling carbon risk in this way.

Off the tracks

Is the dream of renewable energy already over? To judge from what was said recently one might be forgiven for thinking so.

Almost every speech at the high-level talks of the importance of fossil fuels for energy supply is underlined. And not just by industry representatives, but also by the responsible ministers. The Environment Minister even said: was “against discrimination of fossil fuels”.

Those are just words, but the actions speak even louder. Fact is the use of coal increased substantially last year. Ironically, the additional coal used in the power stations could have been exported, while the export could be counted bringing down our energy-related CO2 emissions to a level not seen before. No wonder some people say our economy is where the real climate change is taking place.

However, it would be premature to write off the governments ambitious energy plan at this stage. We did manage over the past few years to increase renewable energy production to an unprecedented level. This is not an unimportant achievement.

The real question is whether we can build on this success by turning the renewable energy revolution from a subsidy-drain into an engine of technological and economic development. As energy observers note it is a gamble: “No other country can tap such technical expertise from industry or such bottom-up activism from municipalities, companies and citizens’ cooperatives in support of the low-carbon industry.

To prevent the renewable energy industry from becoming permanently sidetracked will require a massive effort and a much greater degree of faith (and coordination) than the current government is displaying. The industry has entered into a precarious, if not chaotic, phase. You can read her assessment of the current energy mood in Berlin by clicking here.

CO2Land apologize for the excitement, but we are not alone!