Tag: environment

food shortages, weather patterns and prices

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

Overheard: a farmer complaining near Canberra that the entire vegetable crop of the farm is loaded in a container and shipped to China, They are not allowed by contract to sell any produce locally, nor in this country. How common is this, and it was worth a closer look for worldwide trends.

Co2Land org did not have to look too hard to find 3 trends that impact the commercial world of farming: Food Shortages, Implications of global weather, and Non Farmer induced price behaviours.

Originally posted by farminguk.com each of these trends were reported as separate items, but in tying them together it made an interesting study.

1. Food shortages ‘a major threat to global security’ 26-04-2012

The warning in the story is the concerns over global food supply. It is argued economic hardship; political instability and human conflict could be the future reaction to a poor food supply. It is stressed this is beyond the threat of hunger and malnutrition and extends into wider security concerns.

They talk of the need for policy directions to embrace developments in agricultural science and technology to avert the dangers of shocks and disruptions to the food supply system. That currently innovations in plant science is discouraged in the policy agenda.

CO2Land org did notice that the use of wording ‘anti-science EU policy agenda’ and assumes this as a covert attempt to promote GM foods.  In particular the words: “Innovations in plant science, from agricultural biotechnology to advanced crop protection products, offer major opportunities for Europe’s farmers to deliver sustainable gains in agricultural productivity. Yet such advances are currently discouraged by an anti-science EU policy agenda.”

The argument is national and international security risks of failing to tackle the global food supply crisis. Commissioned by the Crop Protection Association the UK Parliament was told “Food supplies must increase by at least 70% to keep pace with the demands of a world population set to exceed 9 billion by 2050, and the report highlights the urgent need to increase agricultural productivity, reduce food waste and improve distribution networks….The report also recognises that increasing food production sustainably in a world of rising urbanisation and already strained natural resources will require access to the most advanced farming technologies and practices. ”

2. El Nino fading: Implications on global weather 27-09-2012

This post really startled: The implications of a wane of the weather patterns do not guarantee a change replenishing soil moisture for crops.

It would be reasonable to expect cooling surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific is the wane of El Niño atmospheric osolation.  And then comes the quote reported to be from Don Keeney, Senior Agricultural Meteorologist for MDA EarthSat Weather/CropCast. “It is true that we are seeing a fading El Niño, but this does not mean that we are automatically headed for La Niña,”

So how does this affect the global food situation? Again, to quote the source: “While the easing of El Niño makes the idea of drought-busting rains in the U.S. and ideal growing conditions in South America less certain, the current trend away from El Niño does imply that the tropical Pacific will have less influence on weather patterns in most areas”.

From this we can glean future weather patterns will continue to shift from being predictable ways of announcing rain and temperature events. This is explained as the effects of other circulation patterns called teleconnections. What are the implications of this pattern shift?  The answer is less certainty and increased variability making long-range forecasts more difficult and less reliable in estimating temperature and rainfall signals.

CO2Land org can now speculate the potential of countries with larger populations will do what they can to accumulate or guarantee food security. This includes buying the entire crops at the farm gate of one country to export to the other and even then process any excess to be imported by the originating country. The near Canberra farmer even mentioned it was believed that farms produce went to China was then sent to New Zealand processed and sent packaged back to Australia. We have no proof other than see if a comparative economic benefit exists it is possible to believe.

3. Current food supply could lead to severe price rises 26-07-2012

It would seem UK and Australia shares a common problem in the food industry. That being a small number of processors and retailers were dominating the industry and farmers were finding that they are struggling to keep afloat. The demands of dominate processors and retailers mean comparative economic advantage from one country to the next will be exploited and the consumer is partly to blame because they insist on paying less.

The post tells of how many farmers or too small to be of interest to supermarket chains and that small scale farmers are struggling to exist. It cannot legally be called restriction of trade; it is simply that the economies of scale required place very restrictive contracts conditions on farmers by way of what is required by supermarkets. Farmers then find the outlets for their produce are very limited and the price to get to market further erodes a reasonable return on the price consumers will pay.

My near Canberra farmer is large scale in the sense container loads are shifted and it does seem insane that the produce is grown locally, and sent to massive packing centres wherever before being transported back to local supermarkets. It also appears the large scale producer is under increasing pressure to continue to lower costs of production and increase the varieties that increase shelve life of the products.  It is conceivable that they like smaller farmers will find resilience not enough to stay in the market place. You could then ask if it is not the weather that will sink us for food security is it a lack of competition at the process and retail end that is the problem?

CO2Land org finds it must absolutely agree the issues and problem are many to use the weather pattern analogy it is teleconnections that are bring random and less easy predictors of how to best handle the problem of enough food. But no matter the comment it is difficult to go past the arguments that the food industry is full of short termism and the state of the market drives this behaviour. As is the debate on climate change we do need to address this, the changes in the environment and learn the market itself cannot be sustainable without political will to protect our long-term future.  But it is already too late!

 

Counting apples of the Greenhouse Tree – ACT 2

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

In Australia, we are idealistic, know how to love, but childish and impossible in dealing with reality – and think reducing emissions is a fairytale notion. The same authors said,  “Over the past four years something remarkable has happened in ACT climate change policy.  Yesterday the ACT Government released its long awaited final action plan outlining how the ACT can reach its 40% emissions reduction for the year 2020. The target, legislated in 2010, leads the country in local jurisdictions aiming to reduce emissions.” This is cccording to Love40percent.org.

CO2Land org takes note that the super fast action needs to be discussed as LOL: Legislated in 2010, action ‘plan’ yesterday September 2012. We agree they now have a policy plan, and it has been researched, undergone economic modeling and considered planning. But is concerned the optimism is utopian as it relies too heavily on the idealistic, and is a good example of the need to give a reality check and not get too carried away with the concept, as ultimately the implementation will come down to the commercial reality. To illustrate, not long a go the ACT Government touted a policy calling for Zero Waste, that is until it was learnt revenues would be affected – the commercial reality was loss of revenue when success lead to loss of weighbridge fees at tip sites became the ‘tipping point’ in the decision to backtrack.

So is the reason such well meaning concepts fail simply because idealistic concepts are too closely aligned with vision statements, initial outreach attempts and childish opportunism? What can be done to ensure concrete actions are in place to make a 40% target a reality? For a start we can look at these needs of the vision: It requires continued community support, constant reinforcement that realising a solution requires we alter our way of life.  This means our emissions reduction must affect our lives so we can reduce 90% of our reliance on convention energy sources – move energy sourced from conventional power sources to renewable wind and solar, ensure 30% of work travel is done by other than the single car journey, drastically improved energy efficiency in all of our buildings. etc.

Co2Land org now find another reason of concern, a populist appeal to encourage GreenPower – albeit in time for a electioneering. Recently the ACT Government commented of ‘misleading’ representation of GreenPower. Then in the Love40percent report it said, “The renewable energy that we create is recognized as additional to any national emissions targets.  No offsets to faraway plantations or gas power required.  This plan effectively reduces the impacts of the way we live for the long term, and will wean us off almighty coal”.  It would seem they either do not understand what is legislated or they are attempting to confuse the issue and deflect that they are embarked on actions that are not carbon but generation offsets and displacements? As such there is no opportunity to generate revenue under a carbon trading scheme, nor can any offsets nor Rec’s can be created. However, the project developers (guess who?) can charge a ‘generous’ price for GreenPower which customers are encourage it the right think to do?  See how easy it is to confuse what is real and what is fairyland?

The suggestion is for the ACT Government to stick to the facts: The truth of Climate Change, that ice caps melting faster than expected and global emissions still rising, and encourage the action that will make a difference. But, alas again the ACT Government will set emissions reductions targets and make climate policy that encourages skepticism. After all the ACT Government’s Greens MLA may have encouraged skeptics when said a matter of days ago: ”There are significant issues with GreenPower’s operation and management, which are placing unfair price pressures on GreenPower customers,” Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury said yesterday.

We agree they should be afraid that we’re putting more pressure on local household budgets when life is already too tight managing a Canberra mortgage.

 

 

Apples in the tree of greenhouse – GreenPower

Posted on Posted in UncategorizedTagged , , , , Leave a comment

Carbon Management 101 – GreenPower must be additional to LREC[1], LREC generate RECs, 1 REC = 1MWh Qt*EF, 1 Carbon Offset = 1t CO2-e. Therefore GreenPower payments help meet project costs and do not count as a carbon offset, nor is it a REC, it is a project additionality – it would not have happened had it not been for the desire of the buyers to reduce emissions from the need to generate energy for their needs. Simple isn’t it?

Then, along comes a matter of days into the ACT Elections cycle, the Green MLA saying:  “There are significant issues with GreenPower’s operation and management, which are placing unfair price pressures on GreenPower customers,” Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury said yesterday. Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/rattenbury-hits-power-claims-20120917-262vl.html#ixzz26nDlNtte

Possibly it might have been wiser for them to say there is a need to rethink ‘what’ is marketed for political purposes. If we start with the word ‘Carbon’ you will notice governments – including the greens, get hung up on ‘additionality’, and there are two definable types that need to be understood. That is project additionality, and environmental additionality, as mention earlier project additionality is ‘had it not been for …it would not have happened’. Environmental additionality is what is written into carbon legislation. You would notice from the article the ACT Greens selectively leave this point out when they criticized as ”misleading” marketing of GreenPower electricity schemes. It would be far more correct and honest to say there is a need to call on parliament to address the legislation and the issues of GreenPower as project additionality. We also notice the ACT Greens are now freely calling the Carbon Price a ‘tax’.

So who is at fault that many GreenPower customers have been angered by not being exempted from power bill increases linked to carbon pricing? Is it the Greens for being silent until days before an ACT Election? Is the problem that GreenPower customers are wising up that a 49% shareholder (ACT Government) of the dominate energy provider is benefiting from GreenPower customers willing to pay higher power bills in exchange for their provider purchasing the equivalent amount of electricity from renewable sources such as wind and solar farms projects. In other words willing to invest in project additionality for MWh displacement.

CO2Land org therefore must conclude: It is correct that GreenPower customers should be spared higher costs linked to carbon. Carbon is the issue here; it does not fit to use that term, as they are two different spheres.

It makes no sense to levy a carbon price to an emission reduction tool and is the same argument that successfully separates LREC’s from being claimed as a carbon offset for an carbon liability, and to expect them to be lumped together is nonsense and misleading. What would better serve the customers of GreenPower is for adequate notice of what you are buying to be clear in labeling of the benefit assessed in terms of a difference of emission factor reduction by region. Why do we need a Climate Change Authority to do what is obvious – call it for what it is: An emission reduction scheme that customers volunteer to participate in – a means of counting the apples in the tree of the greenhouse!

[1] Renewable energy certificates known as Large-Scale Renewable Energy Certificates (LRECs) are created to conform to Schedule 2 Part 1 Section 4 of the Act. Wood waste is excluded from being a LREC.

revenue and costs to the community – reckless with the future

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

Playing the tricks on a NSW Electricity bill: Typical increase is $316 for climate change actions [red ink] and $392 [black ink – price revenue change $200 + price service availability change $162 + GST change $36] for other revenues. * These prices assume 7kWh per day consumption as written on the ‘red ink’ part of the bill.

CO2Land org is an advocate of necessary actions for the future of a sustainable world and disagrees strongly with the way politics plays the emotional card. If we strip away the emotion and look at the hard numbers of the viability of state finances we can understand the panic and scramble for revenue raising and shifting the blame and shame wherever for short-term gains – creating a radio shock jocks paradise despite distorting the facts.

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

From what’s on the table, we can see that state budgets are in a mess that seems to be getting worse rather than better.

To quote The Conversation, 25 June 2012, on the parlous health of our state finances: “These financial woes are not because of reckless spending. The trouble stems from revenues, which are flat-lining and seem set to stay that way for the foreseeable future…We are only seeing the problem clearly now because the Rudd government’s recession-busting stimulus spending that was channeled through the states is coming to a premature end”.

CO2Land org asks is the problem, and the solution to be, to address excess bureaucracy and regulation that serves as cost drivers on the community. The idea is not new and the Council of Australian Government (COAG) meeting of 12 April 2012 announced it was “meeting the red tape challenge”.

How should we tackle the ‘real’ problem? Paul Keating favoured a reform of the tiers of government and was ahead of his time. Malcolm Turnbull pushed for a republic model and it to be truly representative – and recently concede vested interests would resist vigorously.  These two persons are selected at this point to illustrate that between them [one a former and the other a likely Prime Minister] they hold the answer to our problems.  We need to address the effectiveness of our beliefs and the efficiencies of how we use our energies.

CO2Land org proposes we examine the imposts on the community and review:

  1. Tiers of government – the terms of reference being: the money waste of the structures for producing relatively ineffective practices; the effectiveness and efficiencies of parochial behaviours of state bodies; and the powers of federal government as an executive power.
  2. The rights for every resident of this country to unfettered education and training in the most effective way possible (please note: this is not a guarantee for established practices, it calls for a complete rethink of how we teach and learn).
  3. That the issues of Education, Environment and Immigration be judged by a jurist prudence principle and not in the hands of short term ambitions of any political party. If we consider this idea, we also consider the four primary schools of thought in general jurisprudence:

▪    Natural law is the idea that there are rational objective limits to the power of legislative rulers.

▪    Legal positivism, by contrast to natural law, holds that there is no necessary connection between law and morality and that the force of law comes from some basic social facts although positivists differ on what those facts are.

▪    Legal realism is a third theory of jurisprudence which argues that the real world practice of law is what determines what law is; the law has the force that it does because of what legislators, judges, and executives do with it. Similar approaches have been developed in many different ways in sociology of law.

▪    Critical legal studies is a younger theory of jurisprudence that has developed since the 1970s which is primarily a negative thesis that the law is largely contradictory and can be best analyzed as an expression of the policy goals of the dominant social group.

CO2Land org has in each is its previous postings set the theme of better practice and were it can illustrate how innovation is a trait of our human side. We have the power to control our future and all too often our willingness to get a result we align in an pluralist way to align with people we do not agree with for our own short term ends. If we look at community consultation businesses that influence, they are making their money by setting up community representative groups. These groups give comfort to the Minister of state that all is well on a certain issue. So the question then becomes why does our three tiers of government fail to give the Minister comfort? Answer, the truism is: Those that seek election are opinionated and not necessarily informed!

The matters that arise over education is the levels are tiered and try to be a fit of society as if society has a stable static requirement to conform to an ideal of more of the same. Education as funds become more scarce are tending to be generalised and specialising is seen as an elitist achievement. However, it is increasingly evident that high achievers are bored with convention and ceremony, good narcism could be the term best suited in saying a specialist position for the niches of interest will follow with them a need for a fit into the world rather than teaching to conform with alliances.

Combine all these issues and it becomes obvious that whenever a decision is made at a group level it is a political achievement. However, if the rule of law was to apply the rights of a better education, to protect the environment and law of god, we do remove the one real problem in the  ‘reasonable man’ principle being applied to protect the future from those that peddle misinformation. Our cliché being ‘better to have been educated and lost, than ignorant and foreboding’.

The Risk of Anthropocene – cause and effect

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

Innovate differently and conservation projects succeeding, what is the connection? The AGE, 10 Sept 12, article alarmed on saying “Humans’ power to determine the future of planet Earth is increasing exponentially. The result could be disastrous unless we change the way we think”. The story referred to the “Anthropocene,” in which all earth processes come to be powerfully shaped by human activity. Also quoted is: “Of all the usable energy reaching the Earth from the sun, we humans already gather and exploit as much as 5 per cent. Nearly half of the planet’s land surface has been altered by human action and practice”. Further reading of the article refers to Sander Van Der Leeun’s assessment that humans have a problem of being obsessed with making change described as a “mismatch between brains and reality”.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/innovating-how-we-think-20120910-25n23.html#ixzz267yIAS00

Then the story ‘Conservation Project Succeeding in lower Mekong’ by Maya Thatcher and Michelle Kovacevic was noticed, 10 Sept 12, and quoted is: “For thousands of years, the people living on the banks of the Mekong river have been paddling through its often treacherous waters in wooden cargo boats laden with all manner of freshly grown produce, ready for trade….But in the last few decades they have entered a struggle of a new kind. With rising foreign investment and a rapidly expanding population demanding more than small sellers can produce and transport, trucks carrying tonnes of commercially grown produce now trundle along newly built roads slicing through the riverine forested slopes. The powerful river flow has now been interrupted by dozens of hydroelectric dams; transforming it into the ‘battery of South-East Asia’….Seeking to stave off such challenges, aid and conservation projects have moved in droves to protect one of the world’s great waterways. In the Lower Mekong Basin, where the streams flow through Burma, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam, millions of dollars have been poured into integrated conservation and development projects (or ICDPs) that attempt to promote environmental sustainability of local communities while satisfying their development demands.”

‘But are these projects succeeding?’ ask the authors of Evidence-based Conservation: Lessons from the Lower Mekong, “Many ICDPs have excessively ambitious goals and they inevitably make mistakes, so it is really important to make sure that we learn from those mistakes,”says Terry Sunderland, Principal Scientist with the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and one of the book’s editors”.

CO2Land org compared the two stories as printed and wondered should all projects where we affect the environment be judged first as potential Anthropocene? In that way the consequences of what we do would be compiled and used as monitoring systems and be inspirational as a source for learning and change. It follows “we need to know about not only project successes but also about failures – if we are to learn from them, says Jeffrey Sayer, Professor of Development Practice at James Cook University and another of the book’s editors”. He goes on the say “All too often the only motivation to put monitoring systems in place is to keep donors happy, as the value of monitoring as a source for learning and change is not yet appreciated by people on the ground.”

Although CO2Land org does prefer it to be kept simple – computer says yes takes some of the sense of achievement away for overcoming the odds. Is it possible that is what Sander Van Der Leeun meant of the discourse of our reality!

Then we read of the Mekong project many alliances were formed in eagerness to get on with it, and clear and achievable objectives were not reinforced and as such it is no easy to articulate what is achievable as long term effects.

Next comes what we have been waiting for “Market-based mechanisms may help marry conservation and development

“For long-term conservation projects, funding is crucial. In recent years, possibilities have opened up for market-based incentives like payments for environmental services (PES) and reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), which place a value on ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration.

While the commoditisation of nature is not without its critics, Minh-Ha Hoang, formerly the Vietnam Coordinator for the World Agroforestry Centre, and another of the book’s editors argues that such schemes can play a valuable role as complementary to other funding mechanisms rather than being standalone solutions to link conservation and development.

“In Vietnam for example, REDD+ is being earmarked as a way to help ease rural poverty, however it cannot work if significant changes are not made to the country’s land tenure system as poor households are often excluded because they do not have land titles,” she said.

Fully understand the policy context

In many cases, the root causes of biodiversity loss and threats to parks can be traced to government policies. As the book highlights, while an excellent framework may be in place for conservation and poverty alleviation, success rests heavily on the implementation of legislation.

Policy challenges to protected areas are further compounded by a general lack of political commitment to conservation, as is evident in the weaknesses of many environmental agencies and poor financing of park management activities.

Learning from a ‘major conservation failure’

While the book was being compiled, conservation worldwide suffered a major blow: the Javan rhinoceros was declared extinct in Vietnam.

Despite significant government and NGO resources, poaching has killed the last of its kind in Cat Tien National Park, meaning that less than 50 individuals now survive in Indonesia.

So what went wrong?

Many conservation projects have excessively ambitious goals and they inevitably make mistakes, so it is really important we learn from those mistakes.

“Substantial investment was made in park infrastructure for eco-tourism…rather than spent on direct monitoring and protection of the Javan rhino,” Sunderland says in Killed for Keratin: The Unnecessary Extinction of the Rhino.

He adds that political will must be strengthened to stop cartels from trading in endangered species.

Conservation efforts recently gained much needed political clout when Indonesia’s President announced the International Year of the Rhino, aimed to help safeguard the future of Javan and Sumatran rhinos. Nevertheless, some conservationists remain cautious in their outlook, saying that now policy makers must follow through on their promises.

Sunderland warns that turning words into action is no easy task. Enforcing national and international legislation to protect endangered species is not only expensive but also highly contentious.

“Conservationists have been roundly criticized for implementing what is regarded as draconian efforts at protecting species at the expense of local livelihoods, as local people are often excluded from protected areas,” he says.

But perhaps enforcing ‘best practice’ regulations is exactly what’s needed for conservation and development projects striving to succeed in aiding the people, flora and fauna that still subsist in the Lower Mekong Basin.

To get your copy of Evidence-based Conservation: Lessons from the Lower Mekong please click here.

CO2Land org has no more to add, other than say it is time for a reality check – what we do has a cause and an effect.

Another way to design for food production

Posted on Posted in Carbon Risk, Zero WasteTagged , , , , 1 Comment

True innovation is forward thinking, adapting and making it work and challenging the status quo. Innovation involving food production is more than changing land use practices. A couple of examples are the Hatch system and purpose built skyscraper greenhouse.

The Hatch system provides a pickup and delivery service for urban needs and convenient food production. The system uses shipping containers to provide a complete growing centre, and solves a number of problems for urban farmers including tackling micronutrient deficiency by developing a hydroponic farming system that works inside a standard shipping container that will benefit those that might have alternative growing options, or find it more convenient farming in this way. Some claims are you can quickly be growing food, with little water, and have produce that needs to be transported no further than the length of a shipping container to be available. The system information is available by contacting Dean Hewson by email: dean@co2ti.com

The other absolute pearl, is a concept development of Swedish social enterprise that is building a 54m high vertical farm that is said has the potential to feed up to 30,000 people. The story by Will Nichols in Stockholm, 5 Sept 2012, indicates this type of innovation is required for the world to feed over nine billion people by the middle of the century, and these solutions are outside the traditional farm. It is thought and estimated most of the arable land is already committed to agriculture, and we may be hungry by mid-century if consumption levels continue at the same rate. Add to this problem that climate change will make predictions on production less certain at the farm.

The technical advantages is impressive, it allows increased food production with accumulative environmental benefits. Also impressive is the placing the greenhouses in urban areas reduces the need for transport.

This innovation can be even more impressive in doing more than any other building and to quote the promoter “The purpose is to make it sustainable and use the resources of a city that we don’t often see as resources,…We use the excess heat from buildings to heat the greenhouse and also carbon dioxide from outside is turned into oxygen. And you can make biogas from what comes out of the greenhouse.” The concept does not expect it to be a greenhouse only. “Of course you can build a skyscraper of 200m – there’s no limits,…But what’s also of interest is to combine it with some other type of services, like an office. Half could be a greenhouse, half could be an office or shopping area. Or maybe just build it on the top, so the vegetables come right to the supermarket.”

CO2Land org finds inspiration from these two projects and the systems should produce bankable business case and environmental benefits, and also illustrates innovative people can make such things happen.

 

Energy Performance Contracting promoted – ESI

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

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

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

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

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

Ready Steady Farmer – and the Challenge of Climate Change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations for enabling change:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pitfalls – (Carbon) and (CO2)

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

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

CO2Land org on 2 Aug 2012 published for educational purposes “Carbon the word most confused” and that story is “the problem is the word ‘carbon’ and carbon is directly linked to abatement and an offsets market.  Whereas the focus issue for farmers is methane production and it is part of the production cycle and it does seem contradictory to imply the backside of a cow can be abated as a constant!”  Then again on other dates 9th, 14th, 17th and 30th Aug each story was directly related to programs that impact on markets and ‘carbon’.

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

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

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

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

Scope 1 – yes

Scope 2 – no

Scope 3 – no

All 6 Kyoto gasses reported – no CO2 only

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

Enforced – yes.

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

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

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

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

 

 

Understanding how soil and plants cope with climate change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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