Friday, 29 July 2011
This is an important blogpost.
As someone involved in designing and running carbon projects, I see nothing in the gillard regime's wealth redistribution schemes to help the environment. All it has done is led to the radicalisation of Australia, the terminal cancerous plague of bureaucracy, exposed the generality of the media as the useful left wing idiots they are and jeopardised every real project on the books in the environment industry in Australia.
One particular genius of gillard is her desire and ability to corrupt others. She is silencing what would otherwise be broader dissent within the environmental industry with the lure of government grants and the threat of carbon gestapo harassment.
This has to stop, right now.
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
The published claims about the CFI are that it is for farmers and other agriculturalists to create and manage soil carbon projects and related projects, to generate voluntary carbon credits.
The idea is supposedly that private enterprise such as agribusinesses will jump on board and soon be trading credits.
Here is the reality.
There is no market for voluntary credits, and the typical value of such a credit is somewhere between 1 and 5 dollars.
CO2 is excluded as a type of emission for most types of CFI project. Thus the main GHG to be reduced can't earn you credits.
The CFI is a mishmash of IPCC "data" and "guidelines" and the earlier work done for Rudd's scheme.
In practice, there are not going to be a lot of profitable schemes under the CFI. I am absolutely sure a wave of dodgy get rich quick projects will leap up, and Their ABC will cheerfully report on their beginnings- whilst quietly burying the news of their failure.
A multimillion dollar project, as most are, is not going to be viable if as is likely most of the projects only produce minimal emission reductions.
Then there is the issue of why the government and the DCCEE are adversarial to private enterprise getting involved whilst at the same time giving money to the chosen few to make their own projects. Patronage by this terrible government is the last straw.
Also the credits from the schemes the government backs are assigned to the government and its cronies, allowing them to trade during the three years when no one else is allowed to. That seems corrupt to me.
Because the government backed projects don't need to be commercially viable their credits are basically being generated by the government money paid to the project managers. This also seems to indicate that those who see carbon credits as an attempt to create new fiat currency are correct.
I thought it might be helpful to set out a simple summary of what a carbon project actually IS. I imagine at least some people are sort of reluctant to confess ignorance of this.
1. Identify an existing activity within the framework of the IPCC / UNFCCC.
2. Identify the emissions from the current activity.
3. Identify social benefits of changing this activity.
4. Develop a project plan to change the existing activity so as to reduce emissions.
5. Write up the project in approved format.
6. Validate project with help of carbon auditor / Designated Operating Entity (DOE).
7. Lodge project with UN. It is listed publicly and is available for comments from pretty much anyone. Special attention is given to comments from the people affected by the existing and the proposed activities.
8. After lodgement, await approval.
9. Keep waiting.
10. Start using back channels to find out what the hell the holdup is.
11. Assuming at some point the project is approved, the project begins.
12. Measurements verify that emissions have been reduced.
13. For each tCO2e (ton of CO2 equivalent) reduced in emissions the project earns one Certified Emission Reduction (CER)- a carbon credit.
14. Find a bidder to purchase the carbon credits. Usually, a company with horrifying emissions like big oil.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Banksters, politicians and journalists - with an un healthy deep penetration of lawyers - that makes 4 out of 5 of the least trusted groups in Australia - are going to determine the nature of our debates in the lead up to the next election, and the election itself will be financially manipulated by the banksters as well.
Our democracy is under threat, for serious and for true.
And despite the crap the banksters trot out about how fantastic our current economy is, anyone actually living and working in Australia knows the truth. This illegitimate government has maxed out the credit card, got new cards and maxed them out too, and is shovelling primary industry monies into their non-remunerative socialist projects.
Socialists don't make money and don't create prosperity. Nor do they wish to.
AMS Journals Online - Climatological Diurnal Cycles in Clear-sky Brightness Temperatures from the High-resolution Infrared Radiation Sounder (HIRS)
Monday, 25 July 2011
Anthropogenic sources are the only emissions counted under any ETS or Carbon Tax, by definition:
Greenhouse-gas emissions resulting from human activities. Anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases include industry, agriculture, mining, transportation, construction, and deforestation."
Bushfires CAN'T be a source of anthropogenic ie manmade emissions, by simple definition.
Smoking gun is below, I have xxxxx'ed out emails since it was commercial in confidence.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: FW: xxxxxxxxxxxx [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 10:09:04 +1000
I have been in meetings or travelling since we last spoke, so I thought
it best to send you an email on the question of CO2 emissions.
Under the CFI, estimation methods must be not inconsistent with (but need
not necessarily be the same as) the methods applied in compiling
Australia’s National Greenhouse Accounts (as detailed in the National
Inventory Report), where relevant, and internationally agreed
methodologies and reporting practices adopted by the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The National Inventory Report (6.8 Field Burning of Agricultural
Residues, see excerpt below) states that CO2 emissions from burning of
agricultural residues are not included in the inventory total since it
is assumed that an equivalent amount of CO2 is removed by regrowing
vegetation in the following year. Consequently, CO2 emissions reductions
from cessation of burning could not be claimed as abatement under the CFI.
The full NIR is available via the following website, and Section 6.8
contains the formulae for calculating emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse
gases from burning of crop residues.
As noted in my previous email, if combustion of the green material
(bagasse/trash) at the mill generated greenhouse gas emissions, these
would need to be accounted for. To clarify this point, only the non-CO2
greenhouse gas emissions would need to be accounted for. This is
consistent with the NGER (Measurement) Determination 2008.
*6.8 Source Category 4.F Field Burning of Agricultural Residues*
*6.8.1 Source Category Description*
/The burning of residual crop material also releases CH 4, N2O, CO , NOx
and NMVOC s into the/
/atmosphere. These gases are formed from carbon and nitrogen in the
plant material during the combustion/
/process. As per the IPCC Guidelines (IPCC , 1997) the CO 2 emissions
from burning of agricultural/
/residues are not included in the inventory total since it is assumed
that an equivalent amount of CO 2 is/
/removed by regrowing vegetation in the following year./
/Traditionally, burning of agricultural residues in Australia consists
of stubble burning (notably for wheat/
/crops), and burning of the sugar cane crop immediately before harvest.///
Note ( NIR, page 2) clarifies that gases (other than N2O, CH4) which are
estimated as part of the inventory (NOX,CO, VOCs – as listed in the
field residues list of gases) would not be required for inclusion in
methodology GHG abatement boundary. Information collected on these gases
as part of the Inventory relates to broader policy objectives on
indirect contributors to climate change. Consistency with the National
Accounts would mean only including N2O and CH4 in the GHG project boundary.
OK so what the hell does that even mean?
It is pretty simple. It means bushfires, burnoffs and all else to do with fire in a field is BIOGENIC and thus not counted. It is a "zero sum" for carbon crediting because each year's output is sequestered by next year's vegetation.
Therefore counting bushfires is WRONG and is inflating Australia's carbon footprint by approximately 25% - 33% presumably solely for the purposes of justifying a big fat tax on "carbon".
What the real figures actually prove is that Australia's giant landmass, even in its vegetation-poor deserts, sequesters ie absorbs more than its fair share of the world's greenhouse gases. Far from being big polluuuddderrs as Gillard is keen to call us all we're punching above our weight class in terms of absorbing the rest of the world's pollution.
Which just makes more sense when you look at our wide brown land.
Sunday, 24 July 2011
Saturday, 23 July 2011
Friday, 22 July 2011
There is a thing called additionality which requires a carbon credit project to show that without the creation and sale of credits the project is not viable commercially.
Wind farms aren't even viable WITH carbon credits because they don't function well enough to pass the verification stage, ie they don't actually make enough energy to be counted.
China is littered with deliberately created fake wind farms, all designed to reap government grants and investment from rash foreigners.
Until recently, the Chinese wind farm was the emu farm tax dodge of the environmental industry. Now no one will go near them except as some sort of government money extraction process.
Meanwhile virtuous and excellent environmental projects whither on the vine all too often.
Here's a simple test: If it needs government money, it's dead already.
Pollution has become a political word and therefore utterly dishonest and just as utterly useless. Emission reduction, solid waste reduction, plastic contamination- these are real. Black carbon soot deaths - this is real. Real and deadly and not getting any better.
Thursday, 21 July 2011
Lufthansa pushes biofuel bandwagon
First scheduled biofuel flights by any world airline are powered by field crop and animal fat
Airbus will operate daily flights between Hamburg and Frankfurt using biosynthetic kerosene.
Worldwide first long-term test run will reduce CO2-emissions and deliver research results
Last week, Lufthansa launched a six-month biofuel trial on regular scheduled flights. A Lufthansa Airbus A321 with the registration D-AIDG will fly the Hamburg-Frankfurt-Hamburg route four times daily.
One of its engines will run on a 50/50 mix of regular fuel and biosynthetic kerosene. The biofuel for jet engines has been approved by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
There is no need for engine modifications and the first flight of the six-month trial, operating under flight number LH013, will take off today from Hamburg at 11.15 hrs (CET) bound for Frankfurt. During the six months test run period, the use of biofuel will reduce CO2 emissions by up to 1,500 tonnes.
Christoph Franz, Chairman and CEO of the Lufthansa Group, said: “Lufthansa is the first airline worldwide to use biofuel in scheduled daily flight operations. We are thus continuing to steadily implement our proven and successful strategy for sustainability.”
As air transport is the only mode of transport that will remain dependent upon liquid fuels for the foreseeable future, the aviation industry and the research community must develop and test alternatives. “Fossil raw materials are finite,” Franz cautioned. He added that next to reducing CO2 emissions the main aim of this long-term operational trial, was to examine the effects of biofuel on the maintenance and lifespan of aircraft engines.
The biosynthetic kerosene used by Lufthansa is derived from pure biomass and consists of jatropha, camelina and animal fats.
In the procurement of biofuel, Lufthansa ensures that it originates from a sustainable supply and production process. Suppliers must provide proof of the sustainability of their processes and meet the criteria stipulated by the European Parliament and the Council in the Renewable Energy Directive.
Lufthansa puts the total costs of conducting the biofuel project at about 6.6 million euros. The German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology has awarded 2.5 million euros in funding for this project, which is part of a larger project known as FAIR (Future Aircraft Research) set up to examine other issues besides the compatibility of biofuels, including new propulsion and aircraft concepts and other fuels such as liquefied natural gas (LNG).
The use of biosynthetic kerosene is one element of the four-pillar climate protection strategy pursued by Lufthansa with a view to reducing overall CO2 emissions in the air transport sector. By combining a range of different measures – for example, ongoing fleet modernisation, technology improvements to aircraft and engines, operational measures such as engine washing or the use of lighter materials and an improved infrastructure – Lufthansa aims to achieve the ambitious environmental goals set out in its strategy. The implementation of new technologies has seen Lufthansa improve its fuel efficiency by over 30 per cent since 1991. Today the Lufthansa fleet has an average fuel consumption of 4.2 litres per 100 passenger-kilometres.
Tuesday, 19 July 2011
based on the numbers already being used by the Gillard government, the chances are excellent that their eventual carbon price is going to be around $83 a tonne.
This is the "high end" number assigned to what is called the "Social Cost" of carbon. Cut free from all the socialistic verbiage what it comes down to is that at $83 a tonne the price of emissions is high enough to permanently alter human behaviour- stop people driving, starting businesses, buying shares, basically shut down the freedom of Western civilisation.
This high price also makes renewable energy viable as an alternative to efficient sources of energy such as coal, nuclear and oil. Below this high price renewables are not going to be viable unless agricultural based renewables such as burning weeds and waste in cogen plants is considered or unless the addiction to windmill boondoggles is replaced by algae farming and wave power.
But $83 / tonne is there in black and white, and it is a figure that the Gillard-Greens alliance will be forced to use. If they don't hike the price to that level, none of their schemes will work. Of course the net effect will almost certainly be the mass closure or relocation of business and the reduction of Australia to a true banana republic. Except that bananas won't be viable to cultivate either - carbon tax on fertiliser and diesel will see to that.
Social cost of carbon:
Monday, 18 July 2011
Last updated: 16 June 2011
The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) has released its final report into regulated electricity prices to apply from 1 July 2011.
This report has found that electricity prices in NSW are set to rise approximately 6% above previously approved rises as a result of the Commonwealth’s Renewable Energy Target. In total the report states average regulated retail electricity prices will rise from July 2011 by:
· $230 per year (17.9%) for EnergyAustralia* residential customers
· $216 per year (15.5%) for Integral Energy* residential customers
· $316 per year (18.1%) for Country Energy* residential customers
Electricity prices are rising as a result of network charges, which are the costs to maintain our electricity networks (the poles and wires) and green schemes, like the Commonwealth’s Renewable Energy Target scheme, which will increase bills by 6% (approximately $75 per household). .
China is launching six trial ETS schemes including a trial national
carbon trading scheme, with no financial changes prior other than
widening the tariff difference between coal fired electricity and
Not even a glimmer of a mention that China is going to do the
Gillard / Brown style tax and spend masquerading as a carbon tax-
as if China (or anyone) would.
The planned ETS schemes in China are national, ie internal trades,
allowing importation of overseas credits under strict guidelines.
In other words China will be up and running with what Australia is
going to adopt years from now if at all, as of next year. Our lack
of an ETS makes our own trade with China in carbon credits totally
China is also taking a Coalition style approach in that these pilot
programmes are able to be shut down easily if they fail, and are
supportive of what we would call "Direct Action" projects as well
as "traditional" carbon credit projects.
The China plans should also be seen in the context of the credits
for coal burning ACM0013 scandal, in that the coal credit projects,
of which China has 116 planned, will inject large amounts of carbon
credits into the Chinese national market just in time to flog them
to Australia. Hardly a coincidence.
Added to the fact that the coal credits are inflated in number due
to creative carbon accounting it looks like Chinese business is
gearing up to give Australia one hell of a shave on carbon credits.
So why are we letting them? And why is an overtly socialist state
like China able to school a supposedly overtly capitalist country
Answer: bad governance in Australia.
In a nutshell, ACM0013 under the Clean Development Mechanism is being used, or abused, to generate huge numbers of carbon credits for plants that are basing their change in emissions on historical data that many analysts have a big problem with, and that are being issued for plants that would have existed anyway.
This raises serious, indeed fundamental issues about additionality, credibility of the CDM going forward and about the future of the carbon market.
A massive coal-based project in India is now earning carbon credits
in the hundreds of thousands a year, the exact opposite outcome of
our carbon tax
from the same basic facts.
What is significant in this is that local coal producers and users
such as energy plants are being smashed by the carbon tax, which is
(allegedly) on UN guidelines, the IPCC and the Clean Development
Mechanism Kyoto Protocols.
So how can the same "rules" credit coal plants in India and lead to
our coal plants being taxed to hell and gone?
That clearly means there is a misapplication of the rules, and a
fatally serious one, either in India, or here.
If it's in India, the whole credit system at the UN is called into
question. If that's the case, our own carbon tax is following a
and has to stop immediately.
If the problem is here, we must immediately adopt changes to the
proposed carbon law (or better yet kill it, but...) so as to
reflect the same
rulings here as India enjoys. In the process, that would, through
carbon accounting, greatly reduce our carbon footprint, at the
stroke of a pen,
rather than through merciless economic warfare on our engine room
There is a very VERY lively insider discussion on this in the
carbon trade industry right now. Ugly arguments over carbon
accounting and carbon
auditing, the principle of additionality and just exactly what we
wouldn't want if the ETS type approach is to work.
What is particularly serious about this situation is that the DCCEE
should have been all over this issue like a cheap suit. To the best
of my knowledge no one from junior time server up to the minister
even has the faintest clue this situation has occurred. I did try
and tell them a year ago but they are yet to reply to that email.
If the Gillard gang do what the do best - nothing - we will be in a
situation where our own government is penalising our coal industry,
AND forcing them to buy credits after a few years of soaking them
with a tax... At the exact same time as India not only does not
have a penalty tax (their carbon tax on coal is a pittance), but
they are now allowed to earn credits from coal. Coal is the most
abdundantly used industrial fuel source in India and its region.
This means they will now be paid by the UN carbon trade to use
coal, be allowed to trade in credits freely, escape any of their
own taxation, and see our own coal industry become totally and
completely irrevocably non competitive.
This carbon tax has scaled the dizzying heights of lunacy in less
than a week, and I say that as a carbon trader. This is just nuts.
I am back in Australia as of Saturday, and am making myself
available at once to brief any or all of you or any coal industry
personnel who need to understand this. This has got no press but it
is a big deal. It empowers India (and China) to triple dip on their
coal use whilst the bozo gillard government destroys Australia's
Politically I also hope this can be used to devastating effect
during La Gillard's "Endless Bummer" walking tour of Australia. I
know the situation described is somewhat technical but it comes
down to this:
Why are we taxing coal into oblivion under the same system that is
rewarding India for using coal?
We will end up buying credits for our coal from India's coal. Huh?
China will follow India in this.
China will then be exploiting our down spiral economy by buying
coal cheap, earning credits on that coal in China, then selling the
credits back to us. HUH?
The DCCEE is ASLEEP! And that's probably good because when they're
awake- something in our economy dies.
I'm glad the Indian coal credit saga is attracting some heat now,
it certainly should. There is more news:
Despite the advisory review board aka the Methodology Panel for
Clean Development Mechanism projects rejecting the Indian coal
credit project and refusing to approve the issuing of credits, the
UN Executive Board for CDMs which has the final say has "on appeal"
approved the super coal project.
The Executive Board has overruled the methodology panel decision to
disallow the credits from the coal energy plant in India.
That makes it official and binding on all such carbon credit
projects that credits can indeed be earned in such a way.
That in turn means Australia's carbon tax is totally wrongly based.
It further means that the lack of any appropriate legislation (the
CFI is a joke) to allow our own coal producers and users to earn
credits, given that the UN says it's OK, is a fatal error in the
existing carbon tax proposal, and that everything I initially noted
in my briefing is correct - we will see our coal struck from three
sides at once whilst Indians pave the way for the Chinese to sell
us credits to buy our coal with.
China has 116 projects planned identical in effect to the Indian
After close review and discussion with the project designer
responsible as well as one of the project managers I can also state
that the Indian coal credits are not based on new technology or any
sort of new patented invention. It is simply a change in behaviour
and efficiencies at the plant that have allegdly reduced
(proportional) emissions. This change in behaviour is actually in
part an imitation of Australia's world leading efficiencies at our
own coal burning plants. In other words, this is specifically and
literally a situation where the same facts produce carbon credits
in India - and a massive new tax in Australia. Our coal energy
producers will be buying credits from their brother plants overseas
to cancel out the "negative effect" of the SAME BEHAVIOUR.
The carbon tax is a tariff on coal that not only no one else pays,
but it is coming in as overseas coal plants are directly
benefitting from trading in carbon credits just from running their
Meanwhile the DCCEE is still averaging four months to make a decent
reply to the simplest technical inquiry, with some inquiries
basically just being ignored full stop.
Incompetence is a mild word for this level of boondoggle.
I've already received expressions of interest from India, Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Ghana, Congo (DR) and Fiji regarding credit trading in
Australia- not exactly a platinum-edged set of countries, no
disrespect to them intended. It is clear that the general
perception about Australia's carbon tax is that we don't know what
we're doing, we're ripe for the picking, and we're far too
incoherent to be any sort of credible threat in the marketplace.
Meanwhile technological businesses in Australia which should be
able to be stakeholders in real emissions reduction projects are
going broke at the rate of two a week because the uncertainty is
killing genuine investment, a point noted by Credite Suisse and
Banco Vaticano in my recent talks with them. It's also just common
The carbon tax is attracting all the wrong kinds of people into our
nascent carbon market at the same time that it is destroying our
energy efficiency, energy production competitiveness and therefore
our standard of living and natural regulatory downward pressure of
prices. We will now see all sorts of unfortunate economic side
effects from Gillard's frankenstein monster of a tax.
Brown's 10bn Clean Energy quango excludes Carbon Capture and
Storage, which also strikes at coal, at the same time it and the
carbon tax attack on diesel is destroying our algal fuel industry
before it starts.
Gillard has unleashed a perfect storm of counter-intuitive
proposals, at a time when she had hundreds of highly qualified
people of all professions who could have given her strong advice.
To my certain knowledge she didn't consult with any of them,
preferring to take climate science advice from an economist, and
economic advice from a paleontologist. Brilliant really. Something
the likes of the rest of us would never have thought of. Presumably
when she feels ill she nips down the fish and chip shop for a bit
of medical advice.
If the carbon tax goes through as currently described, the
ludicrous CFI legislation must be replaced with robust detailed
legislation to equip all industries and sectors with the ability to
directly earn credits from emissions reduction behaviour in line
with the current UN decisions. The UN authority is the only
authority the Gillard regime is citing for its own carbon tax.
Shouldn't they therefore be following its lead regarding coal?
Or is this just about attacking sectors that don't vote ALP or dare
to criticise Madame Guillotine herself?
Next time: earning carbon credits for teaching villagers how to
recycle. No seriously. No emissions reductions in sight, just run
a school and get carbon credits. Proof positive of the wealth
redistribution agenda worldwide associated with the non-ETS carbon
credit tax and spend plan.