http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/2F9B572C712AC52E8525783100704886?OpenDocument
Anthropogenic sources are the only emissions counted under any ETS or Carbon Tax, by definition:
"Anthropogenic emissions
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
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: 'xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
CC: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.
Cheers, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/~/media/publications/greenhouse-acctg/national-inventory-report-2008-vol1.pdf
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.
