Tag: politics

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.”

Indicators of hope – Environmental and Sustainability

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

In the 2012 victory speech President Obama call out “the destructive power of a warming planet”. It is reported it was more than words and some action will come from the make-up within the state houses and Congress from this election.

In a story along a similar vein Kate Sheppard for Mother Jones, part of the Guardian Environment Network – guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 November 2012, wrote about wins and the people that will champion the changes. These being: Jay Inslee – Washington State’s new governor; Martin Heinrich – New Mexico’s next senator; Angus King – Maine’s next senator; Pete Gallego – the next congressman, Texas’ 23rd District; Carol Shea-Porter – congresswoman, New Hampshire’s 1st District

Directly quoting Sheppard:

“1. Jay Inslee, Washington state’s new governor. Inslee, a Democrat, who has represented Washington in the House of Representatives since 1993, has long been a champion of renewable energy and sound environmental policies. In 2007 he coauthored the book Apollo’s Fire: Igniting America’s Clean Energy Economy, on that very subject. He was a member of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming (back before the Republicans nixed it) and the co-chair of the House Sustainable Energy & Environment Coalition. He was also a key figure in shaping the climate bill that passed the House in 2009. As governor, he has pledged to continue that leadership.

2. Martin Heinrich, New Mexico’s next senator. Democrat Heinrich defeated Republican Heather Wilson in the race to succeed retiring Senator Jeff Bingaman. Heinrich authored the Clean Energy Promotion Act, a bill that would have expanded the number of renewable energy projects on public lands. (It didn’t pass, but it was a nice idea.) Before joining Congress he was a board member of the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance and was appointed to serve as the state’s Natural Resources Trustee, who oversees the assessment and protection of the state’s resources.

3. Angus King, Maine’s next senator. King, an independent, is drawing attention because he won’t say whether he plans to caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans. But environmental groups are certain that he will be a strong voice for climate action, based on his record as governor of Maine. After leaving office, he went into the wind energy business, building a 50-megawatt wind farm in Oxford County. He won endorsements from the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club.

4. Pete Gallego, the next congressman from Texas’ 23rd District. Gallego, a Democrat, defeated Republican incumbent Quico Canseco in this very close House race that featured fights about Jesus and a rare, eyeless spider. An outside group sent a mailer to voters accusing Gallego of siding with “left-wing extremists” in the debate over protecting this spider’s habitat from the construction of a new highway. Gallego won the endorsement of the League of Conservation voters based on his record of, in his own words, promoting a “robust, environmentally-friendly economy.”

5. Carol Shea-Porter, the once-and future-congresswoman from New Hampshire’s 1st District. Shea-Porter served two terms in the House but lost her seat to Republican Frank Guinta in the tea-party surge of the 2010 election. She reclaimed it on Tuesday, rallying support with a poignant appeal for action on global warming: “If Americans want to fix this climate change problem, they will first need to fix Congress in November.””

Co2Land org shares that many people will breath more easily at hearing there are indicators of bi-partisan support and the appointing of persons that care accordingly after the US presidential election.  Our friends have indicated they are happy to hear there are words saying we will work together, that governments will govern, and do more than just put bumper stickers on our possessions.

EOI – the label of convenience at risk

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

Calling for an Expression of Interest (EOI) gives the impression of progressive policy, but ‘paused development’ is often the result. A high risk for innovation and innovators to participate is the loss of Intellectual Property (IP). In more recent times it is common for government to test reactions to hard issues that are deemed to be important, and there is a belief finding acceptance of ‘real’ truth of the purpose – the use of EOI to assign work to institutions that have been otherwise denied funding at the expense of genuine innovation. Legally this is acceptable, but the morals are questionable when you consider that the ideas come from innovation and the innovators and they are at risk of loss of IP. Before participating in EOI invitations, the best defence could be to better understand Intellectual Property Law – starting with 101.

CO2Land org can give numerous examples of brilliant ideas. Many of these fail to be taken up because the main need was not correctly evaluated. In short a market was either not ready or the opportunity for the market to mature was outside the timeframe to sustain a reasonable return to run a business.  The carbon market is a very good example of brilliant ideas and correct intentions and misreading the timeframes. It follows that the space is a long way from being mature and it is complex as we have green markets, carbon markets and clean markets and a lot of individuals and entities wanting to be in the place where it is seen to be happening.

When we have a commodity we are well protected by our reputation and brand and the profile of what is offered carries warnings on ethical behaviours and legislation for protection. It is acceptable for the society to do this especially where the standards are deficient or omit adequate definition of the goods or services. Despite all this, as an innovator, it is very difficult to protect yourself and your intellectual property. Why? Because most participants establish their trademark/logo believing it is not necessary to establish reputation in the right of the mark. If someone comes along and does a better job of using the trademark or borrowed a look of your trademark to show a better use of it – they have the reputation not you. Also it is important to consider a reputation is not a single dimension it can be words with the addition of pictures, sounds, smells, colours and shapes.  Another question related to trade marks is different entities in different classes of specific goods and services need to be named in the specific classes. It would be prudent to check this matter out if you are moving from one market opportunity to another!

Starting up 101 – Intellectual Property (IP) is just a label of convenience! IP is a number of things that range from subject matter to rights. IP falls into categories in order to get rights and longevity over those rights. The significance of the difference makes the difference in the context of enforcing rights. Conversely you cannot enforce rights you do not have.

In relation to EOI – it could be argued you are permitting others to use or exploit your IP. Before participating you should take the matter up with a specialist IP Lawyer.

Background of what is IP in practice (Australia):

IP Matter Process to approve IP Type Definite Time
Innovation/Inventions yes Patents Yes
Genuine confidential and trade secrets no Trade Secrets and confidential information (not trivial) no – but you must maintain secrecy/confidentiality
Plant varieties yes Plant breeders rights yes
Visual features of a product yes Registered design yes
Signs distinguishing goods or services provided yes Registered trade mark Rollover by renewal fees paid
Original works and aligned subject matter (written down ideas) no Copyrights yes
Original layouts of semiconductor circuits no Circuit layout rights yes

cracks and drafts under the shadow cabinet doors

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

Getting the house in order: Turnbull rebuttal of Bishop, and Abbott says Carbon Tax responsible for energy prices rises of 30, 50 100% depending on state affected. When he categorically claims he will dismantle the tax and energy prices will fall 30%!  On Today television it was his piece de resistance, in the mean time another of the shadow cabinet was published in the Australian as saying she (Julie Bishop) has privilege of ASIO briefings! Where can we find the truth?

CO2Land org then noted a tweet from Malcolm Turnbull (Federal Member of Wentworth – Shadow Minister) rebut Bishop’s claim: Methinks there are cracks and drafts under the door of shadow cabinet! It should also be said Turnbull has a lot of experience of Government and from a personal perspective when he was the Federal Minster for the Environment he does know how to count the apples of the greenhouse tree.  Quoted from the tweet is:

[ Published on: September 28, 2012

Today The Australian carries a story by Cameron Stewart stating that I was briefed by ASIO about the Government’s decision to ban Huawei from participating in the NBN project on national security grounds.

The Australian suggests that this is at odds with my comment “Having said that, we have not been privy to the security intelligence advice that the government has had. We will review that decision in the light of all the advice in the event of us coming into government. That’s as far as I can go.”

I have not hitherto publicly confirmed or denied that I have been briefed by ASIO but I note Julie Bishop has confirmed she was briefed by ASIO and as it happens I was present at the same briefing.

ASIO did not provide us with the full advice it had given to the Government. This was not surprising. Opposition briefings are very rarely, if ever, as complete as those given to the Government of the day and as a consequence the responsible approach for us to take was simply to state that if we formed a Government we would review the decision in the light of the complete advice and intelligence material that is inevitably only available to the Government of the day.]

No doubt swords are drawn in shadowland

 

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’.

Power of Choice – review by AEMC of DR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References to support this view are:

[1]

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

[2]

Vic Coalition at odds with Fed Coalition – CFI Direct Action compromised.

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

More barbed wire fences: At odds with the Federal Coalitions Direct Action Policy, the Victorian Coalition has a position that farmers need to be very careful of, it is effective now, and does impose imposts on farmers under Carbon Farming Initiatives. In an exclusive, Kate Dowler ( August 8, 2012 through weeklytimes Now) said Carbon farming could cost farmers, instead of making them money, and is the result of the Victorian Government tripling rate bills. Quoted: “The Victorian Government does not recognise carbon farming as a legitimate farming activity under land tax and valuation acts and has ruled out changing the laws”.

The impacts:

  • Carbon farming, as the main activity on a land title, could attract commercial council rates, instead of lower farming rates.
  • The Victorian Coalition’s move results in the federal Coalition’s Direct Action policy being ineffective in encouraging carbon sinks.
  • Treasury has advised farmers state and local governments did not “recognise carbon farming as a primary production activity for the purposes of land tax or council rates”.

Also quoted is Environmental Farmers Network spokesman and Ararat farmer Peter Forster: ”The news was very concerning…This is outrageous and means farmers trying to do the right thing (enter carbon farming Initiative programs) are going to be disadvantaged… People are already reluctant to go into carbon farming – this will be the nail in the coffin.”

The piece also quoted: Agriculture Minister Peter Walsh “confirmed carbon farming was not classified as a farming activity and flatly ruled out reviewing it…He said recognising it could distort the market and produce ‘a managed investment scheme debate all over again…Prime agriculture land should be used for food and fibre production and people should be “very careful” about entering carbon schemes”.

The Victorian Minister then added when asked what he thought of the federal Coalition’s policies for carbon abatement; Mr Walsh repeated, “People need to be very, very careful about going into carbon farming”.

CO2Land org in a previous story on coalition positions and government outreach said you may be even more confused and equally reluctant to modify land use practices because of the politics – who can blame you – It may be time for the resilient to overcome the Neanderthals.

Targeted – The most environmentally hostile House of Representatives

Posted on Posted in Hot airTagged , , Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Weasel words

Posted on Posted in Hot airTagged , , Leave a comment

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

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

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