The National Greenhouse Accounts and Land Clearing: Do the numbers stack up?
by Andrew Macintosh, at The Australia Institute,
published January 2007.
Australia’s capacity to meet its Kyoto target is contingent on a reduction in emissions from land clearing. Government projections indicate that if land use change emissions are at their 1990 levels in 2010, Australia’s total emissions will be 27 per cent above 1990 levels, meaning Australia will exceed its Kyoto target by 19 per cent.
The National Greenhouse Accounts suggest that between 1990 and 2004 there was a 59 per cent reduction in emissions from land use change, which has ensured that Australia’s total emissions have increased by only 2.3 per cent. Approximately 70 per cent of the decline in land use change emissions is attributed to a fall in the rate of
land clearing in Queensland. The Federal Government has relied on the decrease in land clearing to justify its claim that Australia ‘remains on track’ to meet its Kyoto target.
Data published by the Statewide Landcover and Trees Study (SLATS) in Queensland raise doubts about the accuracy of the estimates of land clearing in the National Greenhouse Accounts. For example, the total amount of land clearing in Queensland identified under SLATS between 1989/90 and 2000/01 is approximately 50 per cent
higher than the amount estimated by the Federal Government’s National Carbon Accounting System (NCAS) between 1990 and 2001. There are also significant differences in the land clearing trends identified by SLATS and NCAS, with peaks in clearing shown in the SLATS data in the late 1990s and early 2000s not evident in
NCAS results...
Read the complete report here: http://www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/WP93.pdf
It is ironic that the tree plantations touted as 'environmentally friendly' by the 'forest' industry are a major source of greenhouse gases.
Commonsense thinking reveals it all. What happens when you clearfell and burn most of one old-growth forest after another. Then when you replace that native vegetations with the growth of monoculture tree plantations that are harvested every 12 years. Again most of the biomass after each clearfell is piled up and burnt again? More CO2.
Then neglect the maintenance of firebreaks, use napalm like substances to start each burn, light fires in a dryer and dryer climate and often in high windspeeds. Is it not surprising that these 'controlled burning' programs get out of control and start major bushfires?
"In 2002 a study conducted by a
group called ‘Timber Workers for Forests’ measured the volumes and species of timber remaining after clearfelling and prior to burning of an old growth coupe in the south. This coupe was typical for this forest type across the State and results showed only 26% of the total timber volume was removed by harvesting contractors. An average of 998 tonnes per ha (97,800 tonnes on this 98 ha coupe) was left to be burnt.
Forestry Tasmania requires that on any given coupe no more than 5 tonnes per ha of commercial wood remains (Green 2002a). Much of the wood remaining on this coupe was minor species sought after as specialty timbers for high grade applications,
however they are listed as ‘non-commercial’ by FT (Green 2002a). Not only is the non-utilisation of such timber wasteful and results in the harvesting of further areas to meet demand, but burning this ‘waste’ releases large amounts of greenhouse gasses....
International greenhouse response – changes to the overall carbon sink, In relation to climate change, the Governments acknowledge the need, identified in the National Greenhouse Response Strategy, to manage forests so as to maintain or increase their 'carbon sink' capacity and to minimise the emission of greenhouse gases from forest activities. (National Forest Policy Statement, 1992) Several greenhouse gas issues emerge from the practices of clearfelling and
conversion of native forest to plantation.
The carbon store of a mature forest is not replaced by short rotation tree crops the
volume of above ground bio-mass in a mature native forest is far greater than that of a plantation). The soil carbon storage diminishes over time, particularly as replacement plantations are harvested on second or third rotation.
According to the Australian Greenhouse Office, the estimated total biomass for Tasmania’s forests in 2001 was 721million tonnes (FPB 2002b)."
Uniting Church Report
+ see: http://www.geocities.com/rosserbj/ForestryBurnoffs.html
The big issue for Australia is what happens to the hydrological cycle under climate change. Given we're already hydrologically challenged. I don't think we know near well enough - what will happen to El Nino - same, more, less, more intense? And will general atmospheric circulation systems and ocean currents change for better or worse.
My place is 300m to 150m ASL so I would need a 100m rise in sea level to be presented with a really nice waterfront estuary. I can't wait.
Even better still, Booring Bay and Indooroopilly would be 80m under water and the ocean would have long since broken through into Lake Eyre and we would have thousands of Km of new waterfront property beside our inland sea. It makes real estate in Oodnadatta look like the best buy there is, and only a short sail from Birdsville.
And then they can desalinate sea water for all their worth for the new port city at Wilcannia, unless of course, it is covered by rainforest by then. We might finally get some decent tidal flush back into the Coorong and get a decent border between the Israelis and Palestinians.
Nonsense - the bureaucrats are on a very tight political leash and achieved what they were told.
Don't bung that one on. On the phone constantly.
Of course most of the world has not signed Kyoto and thanks efforts of good citizens such as yourself probably never will. Kyoto was the best they could come up with after integrating all the national positions. A compromise camel. So the lesson is cooperation isn't forthcoming on this issue.
No need to convince the world. Well of course not if you don't think it's a problem. Don't bother. But if it is a problem well you have to get nations to agree. They're not to agree to your "interesting" ideas I can assure you. If they don't agree nothing changes.
So we'll all simply find out what happens. Hurry on to the observed effects and seeing how we adapt (or not). Will all be most interesting.
You see Ian - I figure nothing will be done except adapt (or not). Worked that out 20 years ago when all this was just starting to get going.
So you've seen the science now and decided it's inadequate or wrong or a scam. I actually don't think there's anything anyone could show you ever that would convince you. You'd always say it was caused by something else.
So future generations may be grateful for your insight and lobbying on the issue or they may not. All depends what happens hey? But you won't be here to worry about it so who cares.
So it is alright for a bunch of unelected bureaucrats to sign away our sovereignty, and our long term competitive advantages in a glorified workshop? BS.
And there is no need to convince the world. All we need to do is make the rest of Australia aware of the scam. There is no world protocol, remember? Most of the world has not signed Kyoto Ugly, remember?
Well IMHO the Australia clause was a swifty so we could get out of doing anything about energy & transport ( as well as scoring another 8% too). What a deal !
In the end the Feds didn't ban land clearing or pay any money in compo for doing so. Thanks Qld govt and farmers (suckers).
As for your proposal looks like there's still a few major emitters to sign up or you don't have a global deal.
Many things got discussed at Kyoto - the only things you could get in principle approval on where - direct reduction in emissions and new activities started after 1990 - not business as usual. Nobody was going to pay for biosphere background advantages.
Otherwise with the your logic everyone with tundra, permafrost and peat bogs - northern Europe, Canada, US - Alaska, Canada will cop a massive bill for climate feedbacks (more concentrated at the north pole) volatilising gigatons of stored CO2 as the years go on. Don't think they'll vote for it somehow. Or perhaps more CO2 emissions from burning and drying rainforests. So you may have just lost Brazil too.
Remember you might be chuffed and all happy with yourself in Aussie but if you don't get vast majority of the emissions and the big emitting nations in the deal - you ain't going anywhere. And if atmospheric CO2 doesn't reduce or stabilise you haven't achieved anything.
But if you can convince the global community - good luck to you ! I'll observe your progress.
Why would you need to keep track of absorbed carbon after it has been absorbed and recorded as absorbed?
Do you mean the clause in the protocal we will not, and should never have even contemplated signing because the document was fundamentally flawed?
And as for selling the idea of credits for ocean absorption, I would say France would be very supportive due to their vast overseas departments. Indonesia would be very interested, all the pacific nations, all the Caribbean nations, Sri Lanka and all the other Indian Ocean island states, Chile, Japan, Iceland, Malta etc would all have a powerful self interest that is directly at variance with the oceanically challenged europeans.
Pity if CO2 laden water is moved by currents - it all gets mixed around - how are you going to keep track of it all.
Ian imagine this - have a wild flight of fancy and assume you really thought reducing growth of atmospheric CO2 emissions and stabilising CO2 in the global atmosphere was worth doing (just suppose).
Now just suppose in a fit of madness you join the new ultra-conservative no b/s Decent Australia Party that emerged from the property rights movement and that you are now a policy wallah or pseudo-spiv in the new government.
And your'e sitting in Timbuktu at the 20th Conference of Parties meeting representing Aussie - do you reckon you can sell the rest of the world on your CO2/heat attribution grans scheme above. Convince us that Europe, the USA, China and India will vote for it !
Jeez the Australia clause only got in by a whisker you know.
Luke would like people to think national heat budgets are silly but they are highly relevant for the future well being of our own children and the delivery of just and equitable outcomes to them. But since when has the green movement really given a toss about intergenerational equity?
The other major deficiency in greenhouse accounting is the absence of recognition of carbon absorption by territorial waters which should, rightfully, be included in national heat budgets.
Australia has 12 million km2 of ocean within it's exclusive economic zone. No other nation will make any call on it's tax base to look after that area and no other nation will make any effort to protect it.
We spend billions of dollars each year on a navy to maintain sovereignty over it and to protect it from unsustainable fishing. We also forego considerable revenues to ensure that the resources within it are sustainable.
It is also incontestably part of Australia according to the international law of the sea. So why has it been treated as an international common by the IPCC? Why is it that the carbon absorbed by this part of Australia is not included in our national carbon accounting.
Some could argue that this would be unfair to the Swiss, the Austrians, The Czechs, the Slovaks, the Hungarians and every other nation that does not have any territorial ocean. But these nations also have the luxury of not needing to fund a navy. And this makes a defence budget a whole lot easier to pay for.
If we accept the exclusive responsibility for a large tract of ocean, and if we carry the cost of that responsibility then we must also, exclusively, enjoy the benefits that come with those costs. As should every other maritime nation.
The irony of the current AGW debate is the extent of the hand wringing over the impact of rising sea levels on pacific nations like Tuvalu. Yet, these nations have substantial exclusive territorial oceans.
Tuvalu has an EEZ of 1.3 million km2. And given that the current estimate for carbon absorption by the worlds 361 million km2 of oceans is 2Gt of carbon each year, then each km2 absorbs 5.54 tonnes of carbon.
And that means Tuvalu's ocean territory is absorbing 7.2 million tonnes of carbon each year. So if a carbon credit system was properly based and assuming credits are valued at US$30/tonne ($39AUD), then Tuvalu would have an annual income of AUD $277 million.
And this could fund capital works of AUD$3.3 billion which would buy and transport more than enough landfill to deal with any sea level rise, with plenty of change.
Their total land area is only 2600 hectares so the entire nation could be raised by one metre with only 26 million cubic metres of fill. And I understand there is bit spare at OK Tedi and Bouganville.
But the fact is that the "oceanically challenged" Eurospiv dominated IPCC has a vested interest in maintaining Tuvalu in a parlous economic and ecological condition.
The question is, why do we put up with such a blatantly biased system?
Ian - I have provided you with the information a number of times but you have problems reading. Lesson from 2006 for 2007 - bad faith and abuse are not rewarded by having links restated. You either get it or you don't.
Given we have a think called a global circulation system and a planet with more ocean than land I think a heat budget sets of accounts for each nation is quite silly.