Carbon Legislation, Clive Palmer and Chaos Theory

Australia's climate change laws are being changed.. The Government does not have control of the Upper House. So a small group of senators will decide what Australia's response to climate change. Their leader, billionaire miner Clive Palmer made a promise when he appeared with Al Gore on our tv screens last night. He said he would vote for an Emissions Trading Scheme when Australia’s trading partners take national action of the same type. How long must we wait for that to happen? Not long…


On a Government webpage headed “Countries acting now” we can read the following: “Australia's top five trading partners–China, Japan, the United States (US), the Republic of Korea and Singapore–and another eight of our top twenty trading partners (New Zealand, the UK, Germany, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Canada) have implemented or are piloting carbon trading or taxation schemes at national, state or the city level. Many countries have renewable energy targets, including fifteen of Australia's top twenty trading partners. Energy performance standards for appliances, buildings and industrial plants, as well as incentives for the use and development of low emission products and technologies are now widespread.”

Clive Palmer fits the definition  of "Chaos Theory in Lawmaking" - which means that, for all the strategy and planning and consultation that takes place, their is no logic to the process and no guarantee that what comes out the end of the process will resemble anything like the intention of the policy makers or anyone engaged in that process. Because it is a human process. Bismark is reported to have said that lawmaking is like sausage making. Love of the law or love of sausages can be soured instantly if one sees how they are made.

Clive Palmer could be the best thing that has happened. He said Al Gore changing his mind on Emissions Trading Systems. There's more change coming... Hold onto your hats.

Australia's target could triple in 2 years!

What happens to the demand for carbon credits under the Emissions Reduction Fund if our target is tripled to 15% in 2016 (two years away)? It could happen. Read on...

While Australia's political leadership is confused about the direction the rest of the world is taking on Global Warming,  the rest of the world is getting serious about it. ''There is no sign - no sign - that trading schemes are increasingly being adopted. If anything trading schemes are being discarded, not adopted,'' said PM Tony Abbott while in Canada recently. In fact, the World Bank reports that eight new carbon markets opened in 2013: California Cap-and-Trade Program, Quebec Cap-and-Trade System, Kazakhstan Emissions Trading Scheme, and five Chinese pilot emissions trading schemes (Shenzhen, Shanghai, Beijing, Guangdong, and Tianjin). And new carbon taxes were introduced in Mexico and France this past year. But the big news is that the three biggest emitters of greenhouse gases last week made game-changing moves on climate. China – Emitter No. 1 – announced it will set an absolute cap on its emissions from 2016. Setting an absolute cap instead of pegging them to the level of economic growth means they will be more tightly regulated, reports Reuters. China is now the second largest carbon market in the world.  In America – Emitter No. 2 - the EPA announced a national standard to cut carbon emissions from coal fired power plants. US states can join cap-and-trade programs, building on the 10 states with market-based mechanisms, or start their own. In India – Emitter No. 3  - the people just elected as Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who pioneered incentives for large-scale solar power. He wants to use solar technology to supply electricity to 400 million people in India who do not have power.
These events make a new global climate treaty in Paris in December 2015 more likely. This will set dominoes falling in Australia which has set itself higher targets should the rest of the world fall into line, which now seems likely. We have already promised to reduce emissions by 5% of 2000 levels by 2020.  The target increases to 15% if there is an international agreement where developing economies commit to reduce emissions and advanced economies take on commitments like Australia’s. China and India are classified as ‘developing economies’.  The target increases to 25% if there is comprehensive global action capable of stabilizing CO2 levels at 450ppm or lower. 

At the same time, public opinion is swinging behind action on Climate Change as people are noticing Nature acting scarily like the scientific predictions that the denialists had rubbished. The Bureau of Meteorology reports that Australia’s climate has warmed by 0.9°C since 1910, and the frequency of extreme weather has changed, with more extreme heat and fewer cool extremes. Extreme fire weather has increased, and the fire season has lengthened, across large parts of Australia since the 1970s. Sydney broke its previous records for warmth in May, with maximums almost 4 degrees above average. Sydney Observatory Hill had its warmest May on record. The city experienced 19 consecutive days above 22C, and four consecutive days above 25C. Only one May day had a top temperature below 20C. Sydney Airport recorded it’s warmest autumn since 1958 with 21 consecutive days above 20C and seven days in a row reached at least 25C.

Public attitudes re shifting rapidly; the 2014 Lowy Institute Report revealed that 45% of Australians see global warming as a ‘serious and pressing problem’, up five points and the second consecutive increase since 2012. A significant majority (63%) say that the government ‘should be taking a leadership role on reducing emissions’. Only 28% believe ‘it should wait for an international consensus before acting’. 

In ancient times, King Canute had a his throne placed on a beach in England in front of the advancing tide and commanded the sea to retreat - to demonstrate to his followers that even he could not defy Nature. There's a lesson in that somewhere.

The Carbon Coalition, Carbon Farmers of Australia and the Carbon Farming & Trading Association

Since 2006, the Carbon Coalition and Carbon Farmers of Australia, have been a de facto industry body for those interested in the multiple benefits of soil carbon. We have staged the National Annual Carbon Farming Conference and Expo and the Carbon Cocky Awards 7 times, and pioneered education in the field, with countless seminars and workshops (Carbon Farming 101 and Advanced Carbon Farming & Trading). Several editions of the Carbon Farming Handbook have been published. CSIRO’s Dr Jeff Baldock said we were instrumental in the $24m Soil Carbon Research Program funding: “You deserve a pat on the back.” Minister Greg Hunt said, “There would be no Carbon Farming Initiative were it not for the efforts of Carbon Farmers of Australia.”

   The Association has been very active in the Carbon Farming Initiative since its inception. It has been a strong voice for farmers in the consultation process associated with the passing into law of the Carbon Farming Initiative (Carbon Credits) Act 2011 and has since been involved in commenting on regulations. Since the Act was passed, the Association has provided a focus for the emerging industry and built bridges between stakeholder groups, including farmers, scientists, brokers, advisers, and policy makers.

   We have engaged with the CFI at every level so we can give first hand advice to members:

• Developing a CFI methodology for sequestering carbon in soil

• Awarded an Australian Financial Services Licence (to be able to give advice about Australian Carbon Credit Units)

• Achieved Recognised Offsets Entity (ROE) status (qualified to manage a CFI project)

• Awarded an ANREU account – Australian National Register of Emissions Units – a facility for receiving CFI credits

• Applied for Eligible Offsets Project with a small native species planting (to learn the process of executing a CFI Methodology.)

• Assisted a business to achieve carbon neutral status, to help create a market for soil carbon offsets.

• Assisting a farmer investigate a Methodology to enable users of a ‘4^th Generation” biochar-based natural fertiliser to earn offset credits for soil carbon sequestration and reduced nitrous oxide.

   We have been getting to know marketplace operators we can trust to provide trading and related services to members, including lawyers, brokers, project originators, advisors and accountants. We are members of the Carbon Market Institute and it’s Methodology Project Developers Group.

   We are termed ‘key stakeholders’ by the then Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, the now Department of the Environment, and submit contributions to relevant consultation papers. (We meet with officials of the Department at least 4 times a year.)

   We respond to a constant stream of requests for information, by email and telephone.

   We have a schedule of improve-ments to the CFI that we are addressing. In the first instance, we are lobbying the relevant federal politicians for a flexible approach to the 100 Years Rule. We see this as the make or break issue.

   We are aware that the ‘official’ version of the ‘potential’ of soil carbon sequestration (always much smaller than the farmer reality) has gained prominence in the debate, due to a continual stream of mistaken reports in the press.

   We have identified a list of “high performance” soil carbon managers who have demonstrated a potential well beyond the mean identified by CSIRO, by an order of 10. These ‘outliers’ – routinely discarded and rightly so in most studies, but not in this case -  present a challenge for the scientists and policy makers. If these outliers can do it, it can be done.

   Meanwhile we are engaged as members of the Soil Carbon Reference Group, giving advice to the Department as it completes the Soil Carbon Methodology. We also serve on the Biochar Reference Group.

   Shortly the Bill to establish the new CFI – the Emissions Reduction Fund – will enter the arena of Parliament. We will be lobbying to address the access issues (100 Years, a barrier to farmer involvement) and the farmgate price (an incentive).

   We aim to see soil carbon and other farm-based offsets traded safely and ethically, and growers paid fairly for the carbon they “grow”. The Association also includes in its vision offsets arising from all other forms of on-farm carbon sequestration as well as all forms of agricultural emissions reduction.

    www.carbonfarmersofaustralia.com.au

            Call Louisa on 02 6374 0329

Loopholes and escape hatches: Government committed to CFI success

Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Amendment Bill 2014

The legislation for the Government’s new Direct Action Carbon Farming Initiative gives the Minister Greg Hunt unprecedented power to intervene in case his program needs tweaking. It appears that the program’s builders want as much wriggle room as possible to make this program work. Eg., It gives the Minister the power to make ‘legislative rules’ (308) which have the force of law. These ‘rules’ can prescribe anything that meets the aims of the Act.

The draft legislation is full of loopholes and escape hatches for maximum flexibility. For instance there is some concern about the ‘reverse auction’ system – with the Government as the sole buyer. The draft legislation not only allows for ‘a tender process’ but also ‘any other process’. (Division 3, 20F) Could ‘any other process’ include ‘banding’(similar projects compete against each other for funding). Banding on the basis of methodology groups or technology applications would level the playing field on costs.

The Government’s resolve to get a workable system is starkly displayed in this next example: Under the old Act a ‘methodology determination’ (the recipe for an activity, essential for carbon credits to be created) had to ‘comply’ with the ‘offsets integrity standards’ (eg. permanence, additionality, etc.). But the new Act requires only that it must be made ‘having regard to’ these standards. (23 Section 4) Is this just in case the integrity bar is set so high that there is no interest on the supply side? 

The vehicle for most ministerial massaging of the trading system is the ‘methodology determination’. The Minister is solely responsible for making or varying methodology determinations (recipes for abatement). When doing so, the draft Act says that he must ‘have regard to’ advice from an expert panel, the offsets integrity standards, and ‘certain other matters.’ (198 Section 105) This could mean anything. It is clear that these ‘other matters’ are not certain at this time. In another place ‘other matters’ is described as ‘such other matters (if any) as the Minister considers relevant’. (208 Subsection 114(2) Again, the Minister is given this power when deciding whether to vary a methodology determination.

The draft legislation spells out the ‘crediting period’ for eligible offsets projects (15  years for sequestration projects and 7 years for emissions avoidance projects). But while it lays down the law, it creates a large loophole in the form of a methodology determination which ‘may specify a different crediting period.’

Minister Hunt even has it within his power to eliminate the barrier many land managers see in the 100 Year permanence standard.  (Sequestration, or capture and hold projects, must be secured for 100 years.) Under existing Carbon Farming Initiative rules, a risk buffer of 5% is applied to such projects, meaning that for every 100 tonnes of carbon stored by a project, 95 Australian Carbon Credit Units are issued. This buffer means that a farmer does not have to replace credits if carbon stores are lost because of natural events such as a bushfire. Extending the CFI’s proposed 5% Risk of Reversal Buffer to 20% could remove the major barrier seen in a 100-year permanence option. The buffer units would be ‘banked’ in a ‘mutual society’-like account that can spread the risk across multiple farm businesses, multiple industries and multiple climate zones. The banked tonnes underwrite the primary tonnes against loss for any reason, removing the farmer’s liability to make good any losses. As the risk reduces with the passing of the years, a percentage of the value of the banked tonnes could be paid out in 5-year increments until the 100^th year. The Minister can vary the permanence period discount number if ‘another percentage is specified in the legislative rules in relation to a particular kind of project’. (89 Subsection 16(2)).

In an attempt to make sequestration projects more attractive, the Government has included a 25-year permanence option in the Emissions Reduction Fund. The number of Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) issued for these projects will be discounted by 20% relative to 100-year projects. This discount reflects the potential cost to Government of replacing carbon stores if 25-year projects are discontinued. There is no provision for the ‘banking’ of the ACCUs or the return of units over time. And the reduction of the size of the barrier it represents in the farmer’s mind is not as effective as its disappearance altogether. There is only one man can do it: the Minister.

With so much of his political reputation riding on the success of Direct Action, it is little wonder Minister Hunt has written into the script a leading role for himself in this drama.