Hi Jennifer,
You may have read on the front page of Courier Mail on Saturday the article about Queensland’s First Carbon Farmer, Peter Allen.
Here is the link:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,20797,21794589-952,00.html?from=public_rss
The project was the first avoided deforestation project of its kind in Australia and one of the biggest in the world.
The project secured 12,000 hectares of vegetation which was eligible to be cleared under the Stat Governments 500,000 hectare clearing ballot process.
It was estimated (both ground truthed and reconciled with the AGO) that the project prevented 1,200,000 tonnes of C02 emission being released into the atmosphere.
The cut off date for clearing permits to be acted upon was the 31 December 2006 which brought an end to broad scale land clearing of remnant vegetation in Queensland
It is amazing to read some of the responses in the article and also on the blog entries linked to the project.
Instead of being supportive of a project to protect vegetation and reduce greenhouse gas emissions many people were critical of the project.
One response was:
“I thought Peter Beattie past a law a couple of years ago that said no established forest of natural growth could be bulldozed. This farmer appears to have pulled a good one to me, He's turned a few baron and unusable acres of scrub into a million bucks”
Another response:
‘How come the farmer, was in a position to destroy all those trees in the first place? There's no moral here, merely a financial decision! Such thinking has created the problem in the first place and that by a shear a 'twist of circumstances' makes the farmer look ethical.’
Green groups have come on board to say the voluntary market is open to exploitation, with no controls on who can sell carbon and no checks on the work carried out.
However, to eligible under the scheme vegetation had to be approved by the Australian Greenhouse Office under the Greenhouse Friendly initiative.
To secure the carbon, landholders had to agree to enter into ‘carbon rights’ agreements.
Briefly, the ‘carbon rights’ agreement consists of:
- A 120 year agreement not to clear the vegetation which binds to title for future owners;
- On-going grazing and management is allowed to reduce bush fires, weed outbreaks and feral animal infestations;
- The agreement areas are surveyed and added to the survey plan.
To account for fire and carbon loss a 20% buffer was added to area eligible to be sold for credits.
In the future, there are further ‘avoided deforestation’ projects planned for eligible vegetation in Queensland and Northern New South Wales.
This eligible vegetation must meet the requirements set down under the Kyoto Protocol definition of forest and enforced by the Australian Greenhouse Office.
Landholders are already skeptical of the merits of reduced land clearing after the way in which Premier Beattie and the Queensland State Government have enacted and enforced the Vegetation Management Act.
Now the job will be even harder to convince eligible landholders to enter into the project because of the criticism that the project may attract.
The Allen’s (who were interviewed for the article) did not want the media attention but where interested in the diversification of income potential in selling the rights to carbon held in their vegetation on their own land and also the opportunity to contribute something back to the environment.
However, the attitude from many (mostly urban) is that it should be an ‘ethical’ decision rather than financial.
People want the benefits but no one wants to pay for it. We (the farmers) cant win.
For more information on the project go to www.carbonpool.com.au .
Cheers,
Tom Marland
I don't mind if you slag off political masters. Get up the system by all means.
I'm only supporting science mates from a personal and philosophical viewpoint.
Anyway - I'm unloved and rejected. Not allowed on property rights demos and banned from the great circle meetings at the collective.
So as the Gombeen Man I'm a a usurious predator on the poor ? And it was you telling me how you had made great wealth and I wasn't worth a shilling.
I'm off for a big cry. My feelings are hurt.
Yeah, right, "improve our lot" by treating us without the slightest regard for any of the principles of natural justice. Perhaps you should try helping Bin Laden instead.
"capitalise gains and socialise losses", what a crock. The only people I know doing that are the Eurospivs, keeping all the benefits of their affluence while internationalising the carbon costs. Sorry to refer to your political masters like that, Luke. But tell us, with all this bootlicking of European elites, do you ever feel like a traitor? Do you ever feel like the 21st century version of the Gombeen Man?
No I'm not going to take the blame for the suburb - just my block.
Was the previous owner acting under duress - it was a business decision to acquire the land under those conditions was it not? Could have opened a habadashery store in town instead?
Surely you're not wanting to capitalise gains and socialise losses.
No we're not on your side. We just spend half our lives trying to improve your lot and find solutions only to be kicked by both sides. Who says we influence policy - you may have worked out by now it steers itself on political winds.
Luke, when you have taken responsibility for the carbon released when your suburb was cleared for housing, I will take responsibility for the clearing that the previous owner was compelled to complete by the government of the day. But thanks for the demonstration of the lilliputan scale of your moral compass.
You seriously think it is appropriate to make a subsequent owner of land responsible for the actions of a previous owner acting under duress? Or is this just a little "special treatment" you have dreamed up for farmers but not to be applied to "real people" (ie, urban ones).
Either way, the only thing that disgusts me more than your ethical vacuum is the fact that people with the morality you demonstrate have major input to the policy process. And you have the gall to claim you are "on our side".
Where's that 12 guage, I think I saw a #$%&@* Bilby.
"unelected, unrepresentative, swill that goes by the name IPCC" - well gee Ian - did our goverment reps negotiate without Senator Hill's approval and they they randomly select the advising scientists. Come on - the goverment has prided itself on its contribution the IPCC climate science effort. Are they people all acting unilaterally? Surely not.
And so would you as an unelected person like to nominate the rules?
Of course the problem with negotiations is that often the other nation states don't agree. I'd suggest they all think Australia's position is sus.
Ian in our ongoing hypothetical discussion you need to take responsibility for the clearing done on the property that you as a business person decided to acquire of your own free will. So the trees that have been replanted may now have equalled the carbon that was lost in the initial clearing. Assuming you have replanted 100% and allowed for soil carbon rundown. So now you're back to zero? Is this not being 100% consistent?
As for your insistence that monitoring all this is easy - you have to do this globally. It would be monumental. For example does anyone know the volumes of timber being logged legally or illegally in the Amazon and Indonesia. Do we know the fate of the processed timber. Accounting at the level you suggest would be a mammoth undertaking. Although perhaps the AGO having world's best practice might have a go.
You may think you are on the same side, Luke. But it is not you that is expected to lay still and think of the brave new green utopia while being well and truly *%78#@ over.
And this excuse that it was the best one could achieve in the hallowed halls of the EUPCC is pure cop-out. The climate uberlords have the luxury of bearing no responsibility for the consequences of their actions while those involved in drafting Australia's own response have specific duties, duties of care, and prescriptions in respect of proper exercise of power. And last time I checked there has been no ceding of those, or any other powers to the unelected, unrepresentative, swill that goes by the name IPCC.
And this continued cop-out under the need for "consistent" treatment of sources and sinks prior to 1990 does not wash. It is pure bullshit hypocrisy because the timelags involved in forestry mean that TODAYS EMISSIONS ARE OF YESTERDAYS SEQUESTRATION.
That is the fundamental difference from all other forms of carbon flux. It is a difference of fact, not of opinion. It is a material difference in the fundamental nature of the wood carbon cycle.
And it is symptomatic of the fundamental incapacity of the Eurocretins to distinguish between the permanent removal of a forest and the cyclical removal of trees within an on-going forestry purpose. The former involves an eventual emission while the latter does not.
And your continued assertion that I have proposed no alternative is pure political spin. The alternative I have consistently promoted is fora carbon accounting system based on fact and integrity, on actual emissions at the actual time of emission, and of proper chain of carbon custody.
It is not hard to determine the amount of wood waste on a building site because the design software is fully capable of calculating the volume of each piece of wood used in construction. This wood volume is easily converted to carbon volume and that volume can easily be recorded during the building approvals process and kept with the Lot Plan for any future reference until the eventual removal, modification or destruction of the dwelling.
It is not hard to determine which landfills get what volume of used newsprint or unrecycled packaging material and how long they last in those landfills.
The only real hurdle to proper carbon accounting of wood fibre is that the major proportion of it ends up in a government owned facility where the eventual emission takes place. And we couldn't have any system that left responsibility for carbon emissions on the shoulders of government, could we?
Peter the Europeans were pretty sus on the whole Australia clause thing. How we got it negotiated and another 8% as well is pretty slick IMO.
If we only had Ian there we would have done better.
But it has now been exposed without the tree clearing saviour one-off - we're doing very little. Like everyone else.
So Ian - a consummate rhetorical blast. Close to a classic. Which is why we love you so.
But an alternative idea ssshshshshshshs - sound of white noise static on the radio ... sshshshshhs - Earth to Ian " Hello" .. shshshshshsh
Hmmm - no suggestions for sawdust pile monitoring. No gusto for being charged for 1940s carbon emissions. Can't claim them only one way.
As for dicking around - well given most of the planet hasn't signed up - it's about what you expect. A hotch potch.
Meanwhile we notice that Aussie and the most of the globe has had a pretty hot hot hot start to the year. Tick tick tick.
P.S. Remember Ian - we're on your side. You just haven't worked that out yet.