Why the ALP want Australian carbon credits to be property...

Below is the email I received and my original comments as emailed earlier
today.

What is obvious:

the industry overseas involved in selling all manner of credits treats the
Gillard plan as what it is- a SCHEME. The word scheme implies exactly what
it is- a plot, a plan. Not a proper emissions reduction project.

Durban is a grim conference with the whole world's carbon schemes either
already folded or dying.

Australia is shining out for all the salespeople overseas as the last
place left where they can run their unregulated sales pitches and scams.

I say unregulated- what the government claims is great regulation will have
zero impact on stopping the dangerous types of deals because at the end of
the day they're private contracts.

***

Hi,

this arrived in my inbox:

"
Subject: Access Code: 15th September -Webinar on Overview of
Australian
Carbon Scheme and Role of Offsets
From: "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
Date: Wed, September 14, 2011 7:30 am
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@climate-connect.co.uk
Priority: High
Read receipt: requested [Send read receipt now]
Options: View Full Header | View Printable Version | Download
this as
a file

Dear Industry Colleagues,



As a build up to Durban Climate Conference (COP-17) ,Climate Connect is
organizing a series of webinars that will be focused on upcoming Carbon
schemes in different parts of the world. Below is a complimentary invite for
you to attend our AUSTRALIAN CARBON SCHEME WEBINAR.



A SPECIAL "A ROAD TO DURBAN-WHAT'S NEXT IN CLIMATE MARKETS" Conference
Booklet is being prepared and will be released at the COP-17 venue. For
sponsorship and advertising opportunities contact
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@climate-connect.co.uk .



ClimateConnect.jpg

WEBINARS

Australia.jpg15 September 2011: Overview of Australian Carbon Scheme and
Role of Offsets

Australia has announced a carbon tax regime to be implemented from 1 July
2012 and cap & trade 2015 onwards. The quantum of tax has been decided to be
A$23 per ton of CO2e. About 500 industrial units will be affected by this
tax. Companies impacted include likes of BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Qantas.




Some of the Topics that will be covered during webinar:

. Which sectors are impacted?

. Which sectors will be given free allocation?

. Can non Australian projects supply carbon credits?

. When will international carbon credits be accepted?





WEBINAR DETAILS
Date: 15th September 2011- Thursday
Time: New York 10:00 / London 15:00 / New Delhi 19:30

Broadcast location: Climate Connect Knowledge Center, New Delhi
Duration: 30 mins



ONLINE ACCESS DETAILS

Link to webinar: Meeting: Australia_Carbon_Scheme
or copy paste the following link in your browser
(https://climateconnect.megameeting.co.uk/?page=guest
&conid=Australia_Carbon_Scheme)

Meeting Host: CC Speaker
Meeting Name: Australia_Carbon_Scheme
Meeting Password: climateconnect

PHONE DIAL IN OPTIONS

Dial in number: From UK ( 0844 84 84 84 0 or 0844 8 360 360 )
Any other country ( +44 844 873 60 60 or +49
1803 002 063 )
Participant passcode:xxxxxxxxxxx "

This is a briefing for the exploiters of the carbon market, overseas
exploiters, just as Tony Abbott predicted, for how they can dive straight
in and start trading in our market. This is the same crowd that has
destroyed the EU trading scheme and looks like wrecking any sensible
trading scheme in California, etc.

We have no regulations in the proposed legislation that will make any
impact on foreign traders doing deals that are of shall we say
questionable value to Australia and Australian businesses.

Meanwhile, 100% locally owned business of my acquaintance are being buried
under red tape in NSW and Vic which is preventing them from selling new,
fully tested and approved, products which could reduce people's energy
bills by 10, 20 or even up to 50%.

Not good.
Another point about this latest insanity of making carbon credits
"permanent" is that, as tradable securities, this directly enriches the
government and ALP-linked businesses.

There are specific exceptions in all the carbon tax laws that say no one
in Australia will trade credits immediately- except for government-backed
projects, many of which are owned or run by labor luvvies...

This 2013 date when they were going to launch it does NOT apply to their
own projects. They will sell credits from their own projects as soon as
the law is passed.

Further, the securitisation of the carbon credits turns them into a
phantom currency, or fiat currency, in other words the ALP carbon credits
become a money printing exercise.

On these points alone the Liberal vision for direct action is so far superior as to make the ALP sinister agenda a sick joke, and another HSUgate / AWUgate / hookergate style scandal and grift in the making.

A glimpse into the future: Greens-ALP 2020: The fate of the skeptic

Australians are big polluters? BOLLOCKS. We're big greenies!

Hi,

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.

Wind Farms: the arts grant film makers of the Environmental Project world

I work in environmental project design for carbon credits and the phrase "windfarm project" is synonymous with "chasing government money, never going to be commercially viable".

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.