Tag: environment

Synfuel – to a ‘waste-free’ world

Posted on Posted in Carbon Opportunity, Carbon Risk, Hot air, Zero WasteTagged , , , , , , , Leave a comment

The prediction is Synfuel is the best alternative to meet world energy demand, and it will help address the other big issue of a waste-free environment.  The differences are an improvement over Biofuel as it will not compete with food production or involve land clearing, and the processes of the waste will put it to good use.

We already know the prediction of peak oil, what has changed is the dates when we will reach that tipping point, and it will be driven by demand. The current prediction is that fuel demand will triple by 2025, that gas energy and petroleum price will rise within 2 years and be subject to more competitive tendering processes as governments seek more revenues and vested interests seek to retain margins. Ironically, government (take Queensland for instance is solely assessing energy as a financial cost benefit, and this encourages consumption as a take or pay exercise). There is no demand constraint or carbon consideration other than price.

It is therefore reasonable to assume the oil industry will not be able to sustain supply.

A curious part of the matter is that the technology to address the demand and supply equation exists, the source of the feedstock is abundant, and government has the power in the form of existing legislation and approval processes to make the need for power ‘responsible’ and be encouraged. As CO2Land org is told, all that is needed is the assistance of the stakeholders to the innovative and the refinement of the design to meet accreditation requirements as a mass project rollout. We understand, currently the environmental protection license requirement policy is assessment on a project by project basis. The other impediment is the economics that proponents of most alternative and or renewable energy have issues with and that relates to costs, and cost can be in the form of cash investment or embodied problems in the ‘producability’. Therefore what must be overcome is the difficulty of the sustainability of the programs, not the technology.

What can be assured of is the technology to convert all organic waste to proper Synfuel or Kerosene according to the EU regulations, and in Australia (we understand the NSW EPA could accredit the technology in Australia within months) it is likely “as surely as day, the best, most cost effective and environmentally friendly way one can choose to convert waste to fuel. And it is one investment and not two – first in incineration or similar and then later into Synfuel. We can do it both with one technology” – If you would like to hear from the source of the quote, contact – helga@imvemvane.com .

CO2Land org also notes the ability to use gawk.it to see what is the opinion around the world and especially agrees with the opinions of JAMES FERGUSON. Directly quoting:” However, this was not where this blog post goes. I wanted to make a simpler point. If you want to fix ‘Planned Waste’ then you had best address ‘Thoughtless Waste’ first. Why – because the first can be bought but not bought well in the context of the other, and the other must be learned – and cannot be bought at any price.

If thoughtless waste is addressed, it comes at the princely price of a penny – as in ‘a penny for your thoughts’. So payback is immediate and it clears noise away so that investment in reducing ‘Planned Waste’ can be made in the context of a reasonable operation. Please remember that thoughtless waste includes, not turning down thermostats, not adjusting time-clocks and making unfounded assumptions about needs.

Regarding the last ‘Obligatory Waste’ – can only say that the obligations are rules made to be broken. Waste is always wanton. So preventing waste always allows the actor access to the higher ground.”

CO2Land org then ponders recent discussion with Real Power Systems and Congent over feedstock for cogneration projects and those conversations was typical in that whenever and wherever ones reads about converting waste, or zero waste aspirations, around 90% of these discussions go around creating electricity from waste. In fact, it soon becomes discussion on a multiplicity of products and that the industry has a place to exist in a sustainable way, and it can be done, and it’s not difficult at all and each of the products make use of the resources we already have consumed.

So what about the other numerous natural sources from which to harvest as much electricity as we need – for instance wind, sun, hydro, ocean currents, vents in the ocean, photovoltaic, etc. Simply the answer is there is a place for all if we consider we will consume and economics says we need to grow to prosper. Therefore we must consider the many possibilities we should use just to meet the demand and consider the ability to reduce the carbon footprint of doing so, and the science says our demands are growing faster and the impacts are accelerating. It follows that three times the amount being demanded is more than the oil industry can maintain, and whether it is 2030 or 2025 when that comes about does not remove the need to think now and encourage the technology that converts all organic waste to reuse products. Think about this waste as from agriculture, Metropolitan waste streams, sewage, medical, hazardous, old oil and/or tyres and more and it can all be converted to Synfuel – this is not biofuel from productive land or food production diversions or sources. It is a fuel that goes from the manufacture plant into the engine, motor, jet and needs no blending. A well designed and tested unit produces desulphurized, 100% environmentally friendly fuel and the numbers show it will comply fully to the EU EN590 regulations, even exceeding the Cetane up to 58 and sometimes even more and also exceeding ASTM requirements.  Some numbers we could quote suggest around 63% from green waste blends.

Quoting ‘helga’ again: “If you wish so the plant will also produce A1-type Kerosene. 
You want to create electricity – no problem, we just add a genset and you get your electricity. 
BUT you invest only one time because investing now in an incineration or combustion plant – how long do you think this will a viable business? In most areas maybe for 8 – 10 years”. The analogy follows that the Synfuel industry will have a significant lead on other technolgies that will inevitable be developed to meet the demand for electricity. For instance in Goulburn yesterday, it was suggest Thorium reactors will be viable in the near term and the issues of producability will constrain the introduction in similar timeframes.  In the mean time Synfuel will solve a number of problems in landfill, the need to consume and the need for energy. ‘Helga’ also suggest our transport needs will not be met by electrical cars, and they are wasteful of resources also, and we should consider environment impacts of the millions of trucks, heavy machinery, planes, train locomotives and similar that cannot drive with electrical batteries – they will run on waste when it is converted to fuel. A fuel that can be produced in minutes without electricity and a waste can produce beneficial bi-products for agriculture (for instance bio-char) in six minutes.

Don’t you all think that this is the better way to go?

COAG Powers – playing ball EPBC, Energy Market Reform

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

A business’s focus should not just be on project management, which is a reactive stance, but ’project mastery’ – this includes not allowing stakeholders to tug it in a multitude of directions, making it impossible to set clear goals and deliver the goods on time – finding the balance between sticking to the original plan and remaining flexible – avoiding ‘score creep’ (where the scope of a project is not properly defined, documented, or controlled) – and keeping to the path. Says The Harvard Business Review as sent out by Caring for our Country’s Garry Reynolds.

Linking how this could affect the effectiveness of the intention of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) intentions (Meeting – Communiqué Canberra, 7 December 2012) from its 34th meeting in Canberra [As a note COAG has for 20 years been meeting to discuss Business and politics]. You could wonder it COAG can deliver despite it continues to reiterate its commitment to focus its attention on policy reforms of national significance, and to keep its agenda as streamlined as possible.

If we focus on COAG Environment and Energy Reforms:

Posted on December 7, 2012 by co2land “EPBC Powers – COAG passing the ball?” where we raised an analogy over federalism and enterprise models and “If you translate that to Federal and State and Territory government workings, you might see the possibility of a run away train through select enterprise if the influence is replaced by vested interest other than the good of society, or our long term future”, and then recently COAG, on Environmental Regulation Reform, “re-affirmed its commitment to broad environmental regulation reform that enhances efficiency and increases certainty for business, while maintaining high environmental standards”. It follows that the Commonwealth will progress its legislative reforms in response to “the Hawke review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to further streamline and strengthen environmental regulation”.

As we previously said COAG wants to articulate ‘standards’ that the Commonwealth has proposed and that State and Territory processes would need to meet these standards as ‘accredited’ arrangements. COAG writes it “represent an important milestone in COAG’s reform agenda” and “Jurisdictions have made consistent efforts to improve regulatory arrangements, including increased use of strategic tools and commitment to early engagement with proponents.  COAG welcomed the release of the Commonwealth’s Statement of Environmental and Assurance Outcomes and draft Framework of Standards for Accreditation”.

The issue may be in the following: “As a further step to improving processes relating to environmental regulation, COAG agreed that all jurisdictions will direct their regulatory and referral agencies to eliminate duplication and to avoid sequential assessments and delayed approval processes and also to utilise common information requirements for both assessments and approvals”. The operative being co-operation and avoiding ‘score creep’ as states and territories are known to seek.

Energy Market Reform, in 1996 we saw the introduction of the National Energy Market (NEM) and its strong appeal was for urgent and concrete action to reduce the price of energy through ‘contestability’. In 2012, “ COAG noted the strong call by business for urgent and concrete action on energy market reform to help moderate the impact of high electricity prices on consumers and business, particularly the need for greater access to more flexible pricing”.   While the concepts differ in that contestability was the original answer to lower energy rices, in particular Electricity prices, what COAG has now endorsed is a more comprehensive package of energy market reforms for jurisdictions in the National Electricity Market than in 1996. In this instance ‘reliability standards’ are to be addressed additional to rules and price.

Set up for the job of the reforms are, “the Standing Council on Energy and Resources (SCER), with advice from the Business Advisory Forum (BAF) Taskforce.  In addition to agreeing to the recommendations from SCER and the BAF Taskforce, COAG agreed in principle to adopt the new best-practice framework for reliability standards (to be developed by the Australian Energy Market Commission and which give primacy to affordability for consumers at agreed levels of reliability and take account of regional considerations) and to transfer responsibility for applying the framework to the Australian Energy Regulator (AER), with a final decision by the end of 2013”.

It is additional funding from the Commonwealth that is being made available to enable the AER to review “its resources, independence and operational arrangements”.

COAG secretariat acknowledges the full implementation of the reform agenda (to be taken forward by Energy Ministers), “will take sustained commitment over time”, and the oversighting progress needs to be vigilant.  Further details on the reform package are available at www.coag.gov.au.

It should also be noted the domestic gas market is not forgotten and “COAG requested SCER to provide advice to its next meeting on challenges facing domestic gas markets”.

A bit more from Caring for Our Country co-ordinator, Garry Reynolds:

The International Energy Agency is projecting a glut of energy as the US becomes the largest producer of oil and an exporter of gas – CO2 emissions will continue to grow, but energy efficiency could help buy us time in addressing climate change and save money. Source: Climate Spectator 13 Nov 12.

Global demand for fossil fuels, especially coal, is forecast to grow strongly – yet carbon emissions will have to peak soon if the worst of climate change is to be avoided – coal met 45% of the growth in global energy demand between 2001-11 – roughly triple the contribution from renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. Source SMH 17 Nov 12.

Australia is betting big on the expansion of coal as the world’s 4th largest producer (6% of the world’s coal production) – committed projects to expand coal capacity total $9.8 billion for ports and $16.7 billion for mines – the Government is hoping that the long term development of carbon capture and storage will mitigate the greenhouse effects of the expansion.  Source SMH 17 Nov 12.

Because of the variability of wind and solar power, every 1,000 megawatts of renewable energy production capacity needs 600 megawatts of coal or gas power as a backup. Source SMH 17 Nov 12.

The US glut of cheap natural gas is leading major coalminers to look to the construction of new ports on the US West Coast to massively increase exports to Asia. Source New Scientist 13 Oct 12.

Hydro Tasmania is the largest generator of clean energy in Australia. Source Planet Ark 24 Oct 12.

Australia’s 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target has delivered $18.5 billion in investment, with the potential for $18.7 billion more if the policy is retained in its current form according to the Clean Energy Council – it is cutting emissions and paying for itself. Source  REneweconomy 25Oct 12.

And, the best for last : ‘Innovation is obvious in hindsight and radical in foresight’ Hargraves Institute 23 Oct 12.

EPBC Powers – COAG passing the ball?

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

A seemingly disjointed argument: Commonwealth devolving EPBC powers to States and Territories and the Founder-CEO of GIST Advisory, a specialist consulting firm which helps governments and corporations discover, measure, value and manage their impacts on natural and human capital held a seminar at the Australian National University (ANU), 5 December 2012. In essence, both argue over the move from federalism models of influence to enterprise models.

As an analogy, and as we in all likelihood, need the technology to research effectively, our IT systems giants can be brought into the highlights: Apple is a Federalism model and Microsoft an Enterprise model.  Co2Land org puts forward the difference is the application of standards and accreditation. One is a moderator and influencer, and he other is a executive lobbyist and controller. Another way of putting it – Apple makes devices that influence the development of things that make it work and manage the introductions of the applications that can be framed fro the devices. Microsoft makes thing work for the information flows that fit the enterprise and its vested interests, and strictly controls the infrastructure platforms they will work to within the select enterprise. If you translate that to Federal and State and Territory government workings, you might see the possibility of a run away train through select enterprise if the influence is replaced by vested interest other than the good of society, or our long term future.

If we go back to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999 (EPBC) concerns:

  • We notice that Andrew Campbell, Director, Research Institute for Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, headlines ‘Commonwealth handballs environmental protection to States and Territories’, and talks of the COAG proposal to devolve EPBC powers to States and Territories, “even for matters of national significance, may be OK in principle but seems sure to end in tears. States & Territories are dis-investing in environmental capacity and are often proponents or at least key stakeholders in big development projects. Existing S/T legal frameworks are patchy. Hard to imagine that the Commonwealth will invest sufficiently in monitoring or compliance to ensure that other jurisdictions adhere rigorously to the COAG agreement”. He then said “when inevitable controversy occurs, the Commonwealth Minister will be blamed anyway”.
  •  Preceding Campbell, 0n 5 December 2012, http://theconversation.edu.au ,the Conversation printed, ‘Commonwealth should keep final say on environment protection’. This creditable account even offered what interests the authors may have to declare including:  Lee Godden has received funding from the Australian Research Council for a project on environmental governance and climate change. Jacqueline Peel receives funding from the Australian Research Council under grants relating to climate change regulation and litigation. Lisa Caripis has volunteered with a number of climate change advocacy groups including the Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC).
  •  The ‘Conversation’ story is compelling and to quote “Almost 30 years ago, the  Australian High Court gave the Commonwealth Government constitutional authority to make laws protecting the national environment. Now, a Council of Australian Governments (CoAG) agreement will severely limit the practical scope of that Commonwealth power. CoAG has initiated a fast-tracked process to effectively devolve Commonwealth development approval powers under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC Act) to the states. This could see a return to a highly decentralised system of environmental management in Australia, which means nationally significant areas and problems could receive inadequate attention”.

At the ANU scheduled seminar for GIST – Pavan Sukhdev, he defines an economy as one that improves human well-being and social equity while also reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities. While focused on an economy: It is an urgent need to build a green economy as was the primary theme of the ‘Rio+20’ conference in June this year. Mr Sukhdev suggests that micro-level rather than macro-level changes are required to bring about a green economy, and that corporations have an important role to play in this regard.

Co2Land org asks what can be achieved by short term solutions being put to long term problems? An economy – is it an accounting function or a heritage action?  Why write about this? We must address this and other issues, and posts like this might help tackle, and influence us to avoid looming catastrophic damage to the environment, and at the very least mitigate trends in climate change. The word here is ‘responsible’ as in held accountable for bad actions, and praise for good ones. Ball passing, as described by Campbell, then becomes irresponsible!

The operative of ‘Sustainability’, ‘Resilience’

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

A scientific term describing the dynamic balance of ecological systems – the term “sustainability”. Over the last 40 years or so since defined, it is not understood, or the meaning is misused. To appearances it is a similar problem for many terms like Demand Management, Energy Efficiency, Global Warming, Consistently, Resilience etc.

Posted on August 27, 2012 by co2land – The operative of ‘Consistently’, ‘Resilience’. Quote “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.”

Then we see a comment on Linkedin.com that many in the UK are now using ‘resilience’ as a substitute for ‘sustainability’ especially when taking in business/operational terms, and gets over the still widely held link that sustainability is just about the environment. They claim “resilience links the need for an organisation to look to becoming enduring, being able to project itself into the future and be able to ride the vulnerabilities and challenges of scarce resources, energy security, adapting to climate change, and including social and economic aspects. 
Resilience – the capacity to recover quickly from difficulties; toughness.” Lovely, if it was perfect!

However, if you now look at why meanings change it could be enthusiasm at fault. Enthusiasm to be recognized and establish programs at the strategic level, and very little push actually comes from practitioners to bend the intended results. It follows that a strategic outcome is not always the path to a wanted result.

In a former role, some of us experienced that many government initiated ‘sustainability’ programs did not meet the ‘successful’ criteria, and that would be described as a ‘flawed’ program. The underlying issue would be determined that the program was not ‘robust’ enough. The move would then be to have a more robust means of measuring the success. You might have noticed we are no longer concerned with the problem of sustainability, but the measure. The means of ensuring it remains still long enough to guage success.

The effect is that policy continues and more and more metrics are being introduced, and becoming a place where subjectivity has no place and the need is to replace it with objectivity. You might see at this point it is ‘YES, MINISTER’, and when giving advice you would say ‘Challenging, but certainly quite feasible’. 
From this point on, there is now many ways that our terms that mean sustainability can be applied, and sit as a subset of the same term.

This is not saying all is wrong, many of the metrics are dealing with the social side of things and repositioning what might also be considered organisational boundaries into areas of influence that could do good. However, what is unfortunate, is the term “sustainability” (and many other well defined terms) becomes co-opted by business and politics and used to refer to all kinds of things that bear no relation to the triple bottom line or endurance over the long-term.

CO2Land org argues that diluting the meaning and confusing the general public this way could explain why people are easily led to believe the resources have been mis-used.

As further evidence of our position being shared. We quote: “This is because the term “sustainability” is not understood, and misused accordingly. A scientific term describing the dynamic balance of ecological systems in the 70s it was applied to economic systems by the WCED in 1987, and enhanced in later definitions to make clear its about leaving the world a better place for future generations (not the same place as it is now). As a green building advocate for nearly 30 years now, it has been important to me to distinguish between the process and the product. I doubt there are many “sustainable products” but we try, using a sustainability “lens” to do the best we can in designing products (from oatmeal to homes to manufacturing systems) that afford us environment, economic, and social benefit. This “systemic” lens is also known as integrated design, and the only way I know to achieve anything like the kind of future we crave for the greater good. This is so important to me that I am spending my “retirement” training and mentoring leaders in the sustainable building field in a systems approach to leadership — The Emerge Leadership Project. www.emergeleadership.net.

To balance the argument , as a good debate should, another view: http://alderspruce.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-we-love-greenwashing.html), “one of our most important jobs is to create healthy dialogues and allow people to discover their own meanings of sustainability. It is always my first step with clients, to help them define it for themselves and connect this definition to the definitions that might be different for other groups and societies.

I am sure the survey data backs up this response but exactly the same happened with Quality. Everyone followed the Toyota Model and we experienced BS5750, ISO 9000 etc. Over time the value of belonging to the club was eroded by spin and a watering down of the intensity of the standard. Sustainability isn’t easy – that is the point. Whatever you believe you can change the word for will, over time, suffer exactly the same apathy as the low hanging fruit is harvested. Surely these same highly experienced executives can find a way of innovating because one thing is clear – there is massive room for improvement.”

CO2Land org has the last word – we take particular note of “the club was eroded by spin and a watering down of the intensity of the standard” – that is our point.

Bioenergy policy – case for clarification

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

Two important statements: Coal is not a sustainable option for energy production. Energy production ‘product substitution’ could result in the use of higher carbon alternatives. Do we need to educate policy makers on what this means?

During 2011, a company called Carbon Innovation had high hopes that bioenergy projects would form part of its sustainability platform. The platform built on biomass for energy production and biochar products. It was a noble cause and the indicators were it could be a success. Like so many innovators, the fight became not about the quality of product, but of policy, and waiting for the strategy to be formed and implemented. All this takes time. Time is money and for a business case to be proven it needs to be bankable.  To be bankable requires metrics and measure of product approval.

In the debate of climate change verses global warming it should be clear-cut: The former is trends and the later is shorter-term rises. But somehow, deniers fixated on the later, media adopted the term as a de facto for sensationalism and controversy. The result what was a genuine cause becomes ‘issue’.

Let me put Carbon Innovation’s cause to you first: Forrest floor waste has many negative consequences and the bioenergy potential was a focus towards truly sustainable inputs.  Sufficiency reports advises any further investigation into waste products for energy use, such as wood waste from forestry was a sensible alternative to coal burning, and a very good global warming mitigation.

Representation to ABARE questioned if there was an accurate accounting system. Whether the systems were capable of raising awareness of carbon debt and material substitution, or whether it merely found a ‘lumping in ‘ approach easier. The argument being it is a lazy way and the approach fails to be robust and in all likelihood would lead to a challenge of the effectiveness of genuine environmental benefits. It should be clarified what was asked was for waste to be used as the fuel, not the deliberate destruction of a carbon sink.

Carbon Innovation Pty Ltd is now in the process of a ‘Strike-Off Action In Progress’ with ASIC – as a volunteer action by the management.

The CO2Land org notices a number of stories now circulating on Biomass for energy production and finds some interesting foes for the concept. Albeit it might be again the problem of ‘lumping in’ and things being taken as a ‘broad brush’ statement and failing to see the wood for the trees – not original but illustrated the problems very well.

While Carbon Innovation was trying for a favourable policy position in Australia, to offer a carbon neutral renewable resource, the UK government supports this shift through subsidies on biomass to combat climate change. However, some environmentalists label these subsidies ‘climate fraud’. Background stories:

Bioenergy policy

“The UK Bioenergy Strategy published earlier this year, aims to support sustainable bioenergy in order to reduce emissions. With this goal in mind, the UK plans to continue subsidising the use of wood for large-scale power generation. The strategy makes it clear that the use of wood, in comparison to coal, will result in emission reductions. As a result, several British power companies are actively following this directive”.

Dirtier than coal?

“A new report challenges the assumption that biomass is carbon neutral. ‘Dirtier than coal?‘, a combined effort between RSPB, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, goes so far as to say that replacing coal by burning whole trees would increase emissions by 49% over the next 40 years. The report identifies two key critiques of the assumption that wood is a carbon-neutral energy source.

1. Wood is inefficient

Stuart Housden, Director at RSPB Scotland, explains that the aim of government biomass subsidies is to shift towards lower carbon intensive inputs. Housden argues that replacing coal with wood will not have this outcome.

“When trees are burnt in power stations, CO2 comes out of the chimney, just like it does when you burn coal. The difference is that wood is less energy-dense and is wetter than coal, so it takes a lot more energy to harvest, transport, process and finally burn it…

Transport emissions are likely to rise as the UK will be forced to import wood in order to meet rising demand. On a local scale, as demand and price rises, industries using wood may be pushed into using cheaper options. This ‘product substitution’ could result in the use of higher carbon alternatives.

2. Carbon debt

Advocates of biomass argue that losses in carbon storage from harvesting of wood is compensated by regrowth. This leads to the second ‘accounting error’ of the bioenergy strategy. It fails to recognise the time lag between initialising regrowth and mature, carbon sequestering ecosystems. This issue of ‘carbon debt’ is one of the most serious criticisms of biomass for energy production. Housden goes on to point out that,

(It can take decades, if not centuries for the trees to recapture that carbon, leaving us with more emissions in the atmosphere now – when we least need it).”

 To put into a summary:

They are correct in these main areas:

  • There is the need for an accurate accounting system that avoids ‘lumping in’ one size fits all
  • Accounting systems should factor an awareness of carbon debt and material substitution
  • Bioenergy should refocus towards truly sustainable inputs
  • Further investigation into waste products for energy use, such as wood waste from forestry would be a very sensible strategy
  • There must be continued discussion over biomass as a renewable resource, and the classification of carbon neutral
  • Carbon neutral must be clarified in a policy context, as should other loose terms such as sustainable, real, even carbon (see footnote).

Many groups and governments agree coal is not a sustainable option for energy production. What is not clear is the question of the assumptions that surround policy regarding biomass as a product substitution. However, CO2Land org cannot support claims of ‘climate fraud’ by some environmentalists saying Governments practice it. We claim it is more akin to ignorance and under resourcing of responsible units, and that need to be addressed to get effective actions from government.

Footnote: Carbon – the word confused in CFIPosted on August 2, 2012 by co2land .

Transistion to LLS – NSW

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

Some confusion exists of the changes in NSW, and how safeguarding agriculture will continue. The November 2012 issue of the Tablelands Landholder Newsletter features John Seaman the Chairman from the Livestock Health and Pest Authorities (LHPA).  The central message is LHPA will continue to service agriculture stakeholders until LHPA, Catchment Management Authorities (CMA) and some of the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) responsible units are amalgamated into the new body in NSW called Local Land Services (LLS). The complete handover to LLS is expected to be January 2014.

CO2Land org is compelled to help clarify what is happening in the transition after we broke a story Major shake-up for DPI: Posted on October 10, 2012 by co2land. In that post as quoted “It is goodbye to Catchment Management and the Livestock Health and Pest Authorities. They are to be eliminated in a major shake-up in the provision of agricultural and catchment management services in NSW. This means a Major shake-up for the Department of Primary Industries. It is understood the new structure would be responsible for:  Agricultural advice, plant and animal pest control and biosecurity, natural resource management; and, emergency and disaster assessment and response.

The Primary Industries Minister Katrina Hodgkinson was quoted as saying “agricultural advisory services provided by Agriculture NSW (part of the Department of Primary Industries) would also be incorporated in a single new body, Local Land Services”.

The theme of the transition is ‘let’s work together’ and it is said that ‘business as usual’ will continue in terms of maintaining commitment to the landholders.

On the theme of lets work together highlighted is:

  • Reduce Rural Crime, and unfortunately opportunist crime is common and organized crime continues. Good neighbours is as important as is effective policing and it could be time for a sensible Christmas present suggestion – motion sensing cameras around and at the entrance of the property.  Maybe everything that goes moo though the night might be a real mover?
  • Fox control has resulted in a 10-15% lamb marking increase – serious effort required to continue with eliminating this introduced pest.
  • It is a legal requirement for all landholders in NSW to control declared pest animals. Wild Rabbits are part of that requirement.
  • From 1 September 2012, in NSW, anyone who keeps livestock will be required to have a Property Identification Code (PIC). This code is for the parcel of land in which the livestock are kept. You should be aware this requirement says the land parcel owns the Livestock and the carer (Landholder/Manager) needs permission to move the livestock to other areas or parcels of land. You should also be aware that the previous requirement for the PIC has been expanded to deer, bison, buffalo, alpacas, llama, donkeys, and horses, keeping more than 100 poultry, more than 10 emu or ostriches in addition to cattle, sheep, goats and pigs need to have a PIC number.

Looking at the model of Local Land Services you might notice the emphasis is on a better relationship for regional areas, and making it less prescriptive in dealing with the landholders. While it is welcome that the work of community-based natural resource management organisations like Landcare NSW and Greening Australia will be more closely attuned to the administration it remains to be seen if harmony will prevail over funding distributions and cooperation with other co-funded organisations including the Rural Research and Development Corporations. That said, both federal and state bodies are on record as being supportive of volunteers that work in the communities and in return they can receive stewardship payments to offset some of the program costs.

It follows that most landholders are part of a community group and would be happy if the benefits of the changes included biodiversity reintroduction, carbon sequestration and salinity and erosion control. And, little or no additional cost being levied on landholders to achieve the benefit.

Co2Land org  encourages any question to be directed to admin.tablelands@lhpa.org.au

Carbon Farming Initiative – approved two landfill gas projects in Canberra

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

Two landfill gas projects declared eligible in Canberra

The Clean Energy Regulator has approved two landfill gas projects in Canberra under the Carbon Farming Initiative.

The Belconnen Landfill Gas Project and the Mugga Lane Landfill Gas Project use the Capture and combustion of methane in landfill gas from legacy waste methodology, and are located in Belconnen and Hume respectively. There are now 11 landfill projects approved under the Carbon Farming Initiative. All projects that are declared eligible under the Act are published on Act are published on the Register of Offsets Projects.

For more information about applying for the Carbon Farming Initiative contact the Clean Energy Regulator:

Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Amendment Bill 2012 – passed

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

The seven bills passed the Senate, and the Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Amendment Bill 2012, without amendments, by 34 votes to 28 on Monday night, 26 Nov 2012. The Australian ETS will link to the EU ETS and all that is required for law is Royal Assent.

What is a bill? A bill is a proposal for a law or a change to an existing law. A bill becomes law (an Act) when agreed to in identical form by both houses of Parliament and assented to by the Governor-General.

Reference source: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4896

Progress of the amendment bill include:

  • House of Representative introduced and read first time 19 September 2012 to six other presentations and the third reading agreed on 11 October 2012;
  • SENATE introduced and read first time 11 October 2012 to eight other presentations where the text of bill as passed both Houses was announced on 26 November 2012.

Some advocates for the carbon price are disappointed that this passage means the end of the $15 floor price of the original premise for the local scheme, and that argument can be respected.

Albeit the bill has passed relatively quickly and by the numbers, there is little or no support to be found with the executive of the opposition leadership. On ‘the far side’, excuse the reference to cartoon characterization, it is still preferred to retort to name calling and demonization of anyone with fortitude to promote change. The question that will remain until tested is: Will we regret tying ourselves to the EU scheme, as that scheme has shown weakness in its auction system and has required intervention to stay afloat?  CO2Land org will speculate the answer is we would be far more exposed if we did not take the step. We are not alone.

Apart from the deniers the evidence is we have to go with the system. This is further emphasized when most of the industries and the economies evolve around the need for the certainty. The ETS systems bring with them a market to focus on and give them a need for the market to plan for their future in the carbon constrained world.

It is still very perplexing as to why climate change deniers can say “a bigger con than ours as it has achieved zero except make some feel good”, “they don’t call her Juliar for nothing”.  ‘They’ can easily traced to the opposition and the rallying against the carbon tax and vowing to repeal it if in government.

The opposition tack is shallow and continues to describe the carbon tax as a shambles, despite no evidence of any magnitude of negative affects being demonstrated because of the price. The greater threat to energy prices is all gaming activities on energy prices, a lackluster energy regulatory regime and the need for revenue gains for cash strapped States. Posted on September 14, 2012 by co2land The cold hard facts on state finances can be taken from this table:

  NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS
2011/12 -$940 -$811 na -$178 -$120 -$80
2012/13 -$1000 -$635 na -$284 -$400 -$120

Table: Estimated impact of GST reduction on State budgets, 2011/12 and 2012/13 ($m). Source: State budget papers

The greater danger is the A bot leadership is to do not a thing to genuinely address the need for certainty, other than promise to repeal the legislation and leave us isolated from the global benefits. The tragic comedy continues where one Nationals senator Ron Boswell said as quoted by the ABC on renewable energy targets and the carbon price driving up electricity prices. “Australia is in an expensive energy hole right now because … of the carbon tax, and it is time we stop digging”. No need to comment on that one, it answers itself as to what is the problem!

CO2Land org notes carbon pricing was one of the most significant changes to the Australian economy, it will be enduring but not endearing and it will be important for business to know the way to calculate the environmental cost of their activities. Otherwise they may be penalized by those places where emitters pay. We are not alone and not going to be alone. The EU ETS is followed by California’s first auction sellout – they have even found some businesses have experienced outstanding business performance in the carbon markets and plan awards ceremonies for same, and China’s planned expansion to position itself as number 2 ETS market ahead of California should give confidence to our businesses and innovators that understand the importance of carbon and to be a sustainable entity. Posted on November 14, 2012 by co2land “The official start for California’s Carbon Pollution Allowances purchase of permits at auction starts 14 November 2012.” In a previous story California’s ‘carbon market mandate’ posted on 9 October 2012 by co2land it was said “Looking at what the Californian’s have done: They have taken the approach that big business can be encouraged from polluting the environment”. The http://news.yahoo.com/california-sells-first-pollution-permits-222337650.html reports on 19 November 2012 that the sellout of 23.1M permits attracted $10.09 each.

If you need more, or need to know what all this really means to the two way linking of the EU ETC, the AU ETS and Carbon pricing following is the Federal Government’s link on the agreement

Download the PDF

Australia and European Commission agree on pathway towards fully linking emissions trading systems (88 kB)

 

 

Non-Kyoto Carbon Fund discussion paper

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

What is a position paper when it does not necessarily represent the views of the Government or any Government Minister – It could be a discussion paper and one very recent issue on the CFI related discussion is a position paper prepared by the Land Division of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency to promote discussion ahead of developing program guidelines for the Non-Kyoto Carbon Fund. The paper titled Non-Kyoto Carbon Fund Discussion paper for public comment – November 2012.

If you are wondering what does it mean, firstly you need to understand that the Non-Kyoto Carbon Fund is about abatement activities that do not count towards Australia’s emissions targets. It is about a market based incentive for CFI credits that do not have access to other markets. Equally important the Fund will not duplicate other grant-based or research and development funding provided under the Clean Energy Future Plan.

So why do it?  To encourage investment and promote innovation all related to reducing emissions or store carbon and would not have been contributing in other ways to Australia’s emissions targets. A big part of this objective is the ‘learning by doing’.

Looking closer at the Carbon Farming Initiative it is a legislated framework to ensure that abatement is real, permanent and additional. If you want to investigate what is thought of this statement you can read CO2Land orgs post  Real, Additionality, RECs

Posted on August 14, 2012 by co2land “Curiosity lead to checking out the reporting standard AS/NZS ISO 14064, finding it is silent on the word or term ‘real’ and completely avoids the topic of additionality, was fascinating given that you can’t even conceive of an offset without the concept of additionality!

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

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

CO2Land org looked a little harder (we don’t want this post to be no more than ‘hot air’) and found:

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

◦    ISO 14064-2 is a standard rather than a program

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

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

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

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

If we press on with the currect discussion paper: You should be aware the Non-Kyoto Carbon Fund will only purchase credits issued under the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) and the department states the rigorous CFI integrity standards apply to both Kyoto and non-Kyoto projects.

To quote the Department: “The CFI is based on internationally accepted principles for ensuring that abatement is real, permanent and additional; and incorporates safeguards against adverse impacts — for example on biodiversity, water availability and employment. It allows landholders to generate carbon credits for abatement actions, whether or not they contribute to Australia’s emissions targets. All abatement — including Kyoto and non-Kyoto abatement — is subject to rigorous integrity standards, which cover:

  • Measurement:  each CFI project must use an approved CFI methodology to ensure that abatement is measurable and verifiable. CFI methodologies are supported by peer reviewed science and assessed by an independent expert committee (the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee).
  • Additionality:  abatement must go beyond legal requirements and common practice within a comparable industry and/or region.
  • Leakage:  measurement methods must account for leakage and variability and use conservative assumptions.
  • Permanence:  sequestration from establishing trees or building soil carbon must be permanent.

The CFI is administered by the Clean Energy Regulator. It is supported by legislation and includes measures to minimise fraud and dishonest conduct. The CFI framework gives buyers confidence that offsets make a genuine contribution to climate change mitigation. “

Co2land org does not intent to verbatim the paper and you can easily get a download of  the discussion paper at:  http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/carbon-farming-initiative-non-kyoto.aspx .

But if you prefer we can explain what is Kyoto versus non-Kyoto activities. Kyoto protocol was ratified by Australia in 2007 and we agreed to to limit our national emissions in the period 2008-2012 (the first commitment period) and the Government has recently announced its intention to join a second commitment period, consistent with our domestic commitment to reduce emissions by 5 per cent from 2000 levels by 2020.

The Non-Kyoto Carbon Fund promotes land sector abatement that does not contribute to Australia’s internationally committed emissions targets, but represents genuine abatement nonetheless. Some non-Kyoto activities are likely to transition into the Kyoto framework (or its successor) over time.

The Kyoto Protocol establishes an internationally-agreed framework for measuring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions. Australia ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2007, agreeing Land sector activities that contribute to Australia’s Kyoto Protocol emissions target (Kyoto activities) include:

  • activities that reduce agricultural emissions;
  • reforestation (land that was clear of forest before 1990); and
  • avoided deforestation (those present in 1990).

Under a second Kyoto Protocol commitment period (from 2013), it will be mandatory to account for forest management.

Rules:

* The carbon pricing mechanism allows CFI credits from Kyoto activities can be used as offsets.

* You can use the CFI to credit abatement from activities that do not currently contribute to Australia’s Kyoto Protocol emissions target (non-Kyoto activities).

* Credits generated from non-Kyoto activities will be eligible under the Non-Kyoto Carbon Fund, but cannot be used as offsets under the carbon pricing mechanism.

Transitioning activities into the Kyoto framework

  • International climate change negotiations are ongoing. What we have the moment is an intention to join a second commitment period.
  • Forest management and other voluntary land sector activities were not followed in the first commitment period because of risk. Risks that the gains from carbon sequestration could become losses from natural events, such as bushfire and drought. New provisions allow countries to exclude emissions from major natural disturbances when accounting for forest management and reforestation.
  • Accounting for forest management will become mandatory for parties under a second Kyoto Protocol commitment period.
  • Other land sector activities — including the storage of carbon in agricultural soils, grazing land management and the restoration of wetlands — will remain voluntary. Or at least until the Government assesses the impacts in Australia’s national accounts.
    • If activities enter the national accounts, credits from those activities would become allowable offsets under the carbon pricing mechanism and would no longer be eligible under the Non‑Kyoto Carbon Fund.
    • Fence sitters will be delighted. There will be arrangements to help stakeholders to manage uncertainty around the timing of any transition.

What happens if non-kyoto activities are brought into the Kyoto framework? The proposal is :  A voluntary opt-out clause would allow Non-Kyoto Carbon Fund participants to choose to sell to other buyers, if activities become eligible offsets under the carbon pricing mechanism.

What happens from here?  “The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency will continue to consult with stakeholders on the design of the Non-Kyoto Carbon Fund. Interested parties are encouraged to make submissions on the proposals outlined in this discussion paper.

Draft program guidelines will be published in the first half of 2013, for further stakeholder comment. This will be followed by the release of final program guidelines prior to program commencement.”

In the mean time, if you are an interested stakeholder – Submissions are accepted until 14 Dec 2012 from stakeholders. Follow the full discussion and make your comments as described and email to cfi@climatechange.gov.au .

issue of waste disposal – e-waste

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

An outer Sydney council kerb-side collection truck did pick-up and crush the e-waste with all else. The thought was then: In this digital era we’re all linked to e-waste and need to understand it, the problems and do more than puff about what to do to implement solutions. Why is it so difficult to get anyone to care?

World wide policy makers acknowledge the issue of waste disposal is complex and poses challenges that relate directly to cost ($), and the measures of cost are viewed as a high political point despite sustainability and environmental issues having longer-term effects that affect viability. It is notoriously complex, and we listen to the excuses and catch cries of our thought leaders along the lines it is the system that is the problem, and major corporations need to take more responsibility for their products. You might also hear that consumers are to blame and it is their needs that generate the e-waste.

CO2Land org was pondering the conundrum of responsibility and took note of a post from 6 Heads (http://6-heads.com/2012/11/10/beyond-responsibility-2-0-insights-from-brazil/) and the follow up links to their argument on responsibility.

They talk of an alumni event at Imperial College London. Centered on the politics of climate change and how we need to move discussions beyond responsibility to get the positive collaboration levels needed.

Critical to the issue of responsibility is the end of life processes and when e-waste needs to be treated appropriately. That is the need to appropriately dismantle it, organize the different components, and the process and policies of reuse and recycling.

6 Heads says responsibly for this e-waste end of life phase takes into account two key steps: storage and disposal.

“Storage influences the amount of electronic products entering the waste stream before they can be appropriately treated. Nokia published survey results on the end-of-life of mobile phones, which revealed the difficulty in collecting phones as nearly 50% were kept in home drawers, and merely 5% were collected for recycling. This delay caused by storage makes collection for recycling difficult, and minimises opportunities to substitute virgin materials through recycling.”

Then in discussing Disposal:

“Once an item is thrown away, it should hopefully enter the recycling system. The recycling system is made up the following processes and the effectiveness of recycling is determined the weakest link. Often, the weakest link is the disposal of e-goods, which is closely tied to our behaviour.”

CO2Land org notes they are saying the weakest link to processing e-waste is collection.  No, it is not that simple, and there is another problem, albeit the weakness is collection the business of e-waste exists and comparative advantage of lesser-developed countries is enticing illegal exportation of e-waste. 6 Heads write, “countries like India, Pakistan and China, as this is the cheaper option. In fact, over 80% of the world’s e-waste is either dumped, landfilled or illegally shipped to developing countries where it is dismantled.” So we can then conclude The complexity of this industry is that costs entice low recycling rates and collection and then disposal determines high recycling rates. Then to avoid costs the cycle, at this time, is mostly e-waste is produced by higher standard of living countries and processed most likely by developing countries.

When considering responsibility, consider the lack of strong incentives, lack of an easy disposal system and low awareness among consumers and that behaviour is shaped and limited by the systems that surround us. The evidence is that most consumers are not aware or able to determine whether their e-waste is safe and what is the appropriate disposal methods – then think of the truck driver and offsider in Sydney. Why did they not know what was the complexity of their work. It does not matter how easy or hard it is too understand, they at least should be given good information to know what is happening because of the work.

Following is a brief insight of the story ‘Beyond responsibility 2.0 – insights from Brazil’, the measure may hold the answers:

“So how to tackle this phenomenon? Ideally, we want a solution that makes returning defunct and undesired electronics easy and cheap.

The EU Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) is a flagship policy that holds producers responsible for the collection e-waste. The systems put in place for this to happen can take many shapes and form, from collection points to buy-back schemes, the opportunities for returning e-waste are improving. What’s more, the need to divert e-waste from landfill is giving rise to business opportunities as companies like Mazuma and Envirofone deliver services to individual consumers and entire organisations.

But ultimately consumers will also need to raise the bar and play the role of active environmentally responsible citizens. We bear a social responsibility; we also need to bear an environmental responsibility.

Innovatively, Brazil has made all stakeholders along the lifecycle of electronic goods responsible for ensuring that it is appropriately returned to the manufacturer. From the consumer, to the retailer, the distributor and manufacturer, by law all of these stakeholders are required to ensure that e-waste enters the recycling system and is diverted from landfill. The National Solid Waste Law is the first to hold all actors accountable, and is a huge step towards environmental citizenship and solving sustainability through holistic means.

Furthermore, Brazil has also introduced a national programme to driver greater environmental citizenship. The Plano Nacional para Produção e Consumo Sustentável brings together the public, private and civil society sectors in a national effort to increase environmental awareness and responsibility. The effects of the policies remain to be seen, but one thing is clear: Brazil has moved towards a more holistic definition of responsibility and is making efforts to mobilise all affected parties in an effort to advance to more sustainable behaviour and technologies.”