The average vehicle on Australian roads is ten years old. That trend is unlikely to change quickly; you can safely conclude that virtually all the Ford Territories, HSV Clubsports and Lexus LS470s being bought today - let alone the next few years - will still be on the road in 2020. And, even if they were to start today, it would take Ford and Holden three to five years to produce hybrid Falcons or Commodores (as an example of more fuel-efficient vehicles); Toyota can do it a little faster because there is a hybrid Camry already in production overseas. So much of our transport emissions over the next decade and a half is already locked in.
The timescale for replacing Australia’s baseload coal-fired power stations with something more efficient (and that includes renewables) is similarly long; while we might stabilize emissions from the electricity sector by 2020, I very much doubt we’ll make substantial cuts before then without going on something akin to a war footing; the appetite for such substantial sacrifices isn’t clear to me.
But the roadmap from the Bali climate change conference implied emissions cuts by rich countries of 25-40% by 2020. How is this circle going to be squared? I suspect this question has been keeping Penny Wong, and the rest of the federal Cabinet, rather busy. And a big clue can be found in Ross Garnaut’s interim climate change report, and Kevin Rudd’s activities in Papua New Guinea recently.
PNG’s emissions from deforestation, alone, are roughly one-quarter of Australia’s. If we could stop that logging, and count it towards our reduction total, we’d be a long way towards our 2020 emissions reduction target. And it be faster, easier, and less painful for everyone except illlegal (mostly Malaysian, I believe) logging companies than actually making cuts ourselves. Indonesia, while a greater challenge to deal with, offers even more potential for relatively cheap and quick emissions cuts.
So how do we stop the deforestation? In short, pay people more to not chop down forests, instead of paying them to do so. In the long, pay people for the tonnes of avoided greenhouse emissions. But to do that, you need scientific research to accurately characterise how much greenhouse emissions are locked up in particular patches of rainforest, so that the value can be traded appropriately. And, what do you know, look what Rudd announced in PNG last week - an agreement to cooperate to do just that:
Recognising that a fundamental requirement for participation in global carbon markets will be the ability to measure change in forest carbon stocks over time, Papua New Guinea and Australia will work actively together to increase Papua New Guinea’s capacity in forest carbon monitoring and assessment…
…Papua New Guinea is developing a REDD policy and necessary enabling frameworks to generate REDD carbon credits for the international market. The Government of Australia has committed to developing an Australian Emissions Trading Scheme, and will explore the options of linking to other international systems. Australia and Papua New Guinea will exchange experience and expertise that will support Papua New Guinea’s and Australia’s participation in international carbon markets.
So, if this agreement pans out, we can pay PNG to stop logging, and we can meet our emissions targets without drastic changes to our cities, hasty shutdowns of coal-fired power stations, etc. etc. To be fair, it’ll be the one greenhouse policy that our predecessor government got right.
Except it’s not that simple. Tim at GreensBlog points out some of the issues in their response to the draft Garnaut report. To summarise, aside from the problems of ensuring that those forests actually stay un-logged forever, we’re not going to be the only buyer of carbon credits in an increasingly global market. If there is to be Kyoto round 2, the other developed countries will be snorting up credits like 80’s yuppies snorting coke. So, unless we, um, “leverage our long-standing partnership with Papua New Guinea”, we won’t be getting those carbon credits on the cheap.
But there’s a further problem with this whole thing. The timber logged from PNG isn’t being used locally - it’s being exported. And the demand isn’t going to go away just because one source of supply goes. Unless the problem is tackled globally, the net result could just be faster logging in countries that haven’t signed on to trade carbon credits. It’s the same as unilaterally shutting Australia’s coal mines - pretty soon, more coal would be mined elsewhere to take up the slack.
While the issue of emissions-shifting is a general problem with any emissions trading scheme that’s not absolutely universal - it seems to me to be a particularly severe concern in this sector. It will be interesting to see how this issue is handled as the new global climate change agreement is negotiated.
A small part of the solution re cars is that it’s quite possible to get 30-50% reduction in emissions depending on which car you purchase right now, and that can only get better. So cars bought in five years should be at least 20% more efficient, and by 2020 will be much more than 20% efficient. I don’t think the cars will be a big problem to meet the declared target. Except for the growing size of the fleet as well, spurred on by immigration and population growth. Ok so we’re stuffed there.
Again with stationary power, a modern power plant is already far more efficient that our current stocks, so if/when we replace our existing plant we’ll meet those first round targets. It’s meeting growth in demand that screws us again. But there’s a lot of low hanging fruit in energy efficiency.
As for PNGs and elsewhere’s forests, there are so many complex problems with that, and we all still want our timber. Stopping deforestation wil have so many benefits, but accounting for it all decently requires a lot more thinking.
Time to stop artificially restricting the Australian timber industry (plantation and native), since trees are the only carbon neutral building material (apart from strawbale, mudbrick etc).
Ignoring freight for the moment, the Falcon, Commodore and Camry/Avalon designs for the next 5 years are effectively locked in. They may lop a few percentage points off their fuel consumption, but that’s about it.
Ditto for imported four wheel drives.
All of that will easily get chewed up by population growth.
Consumer preference will see less and less Falcons etc being bought. The new Falcon spells the end to my mind of broadmeadows manufacturing. I cannot believe the drugs they must be on. Their claimed fuel efficiency is what, 11 l./100 km? It’s perfectly possible to buy a car today with the same utility and for almost the same price that gets 7 l./100km. Shop a little harder, pay a little more, get 4.5l./100km. In 12 years I’m sure that the commodore replacement (ha, not built here!) will get those figures. Meeting the 20% figure.
But yeah. Population growth, no heavy rail (freight or commuter) investment, we’re screwed.
Good post Robert, as always.
I’m rather sceptical of the cars and improving fuel efficiency notion. I think it would be interesting to compare the fuel consumption of a family Ford from the late 70’s or early 80’s with their equivalents available now. I can also recall lots of small cars in the 70s and 80s that had similar fuel economy as small cars now. It seems as if a lot of efficiency gains are swallowed up by making bigger small cars or cranking up their power.
I tend to agree with Wilful that consumers will drive the change to more fuel efficient cars - depends on bowser price I guess. Ford and Holden must have their heard up their asses if they can’t (didn’t) see this coming.
Climate change denialists say that stopping deforestation doesn’t work cos the trees eventually die, releasing all that carbon again. I’m guessing they missed the lesson on the carbon cycle at highschool. Or they are stoopid.
and petrol will probably have to go up a lot more before it really starts ot influence car purchasing. Even a 4liter per 100km improvement equates to only $1200 per year per 20,000km (assuming $1.50 per litre petrol). Given that fuel efficient cars tend to be smaller and/or more expensive upfront, this doesn’t add up as an incentive for a lot of people yet.
wilful says
I was able to reduce emissions from my car over 80% last week alone. I’ve also access to a system which allows a +90% reduction of emissions from commercial aircraft.
I call it “leaving the car at home” and “not taking an overseas holiday”.
Oddly, not much support for these ideas amongst my Greenie neighbours.
Just a minute seen these type of runaway arguments before,how things cannot be done.And are you kidding me that you are so impressed by Penny Wong already,that you see her struggling with a fate and drama befalling the earth,and by just simply getting elected,this has all the quality of mind to find resolute and workable solutions!?This stuff isnt going to be solved by the intended production of statistics and what they may mean,or the general view that keeps on revitalising itself ,whilst still confounding itself more than anyone else interested.For example I have known for some considerable time,that trees are not so active as living creatures under certain conditions,what this may mean when one is cutting them and being concerned,at that point,about greenhouse gases,is quite well known by the C.S.I.R.O especially Australian species.Shipping can be adjusted to tidal matters,more effectively,I would say byapplying some technical understandings.The PNG forests need saving as much as possible for conservation reasons rather than Greenhouse.How these matters are coalescing as one phenomena has worried me for some time.Should we give up metal fuel tanks for bonnet top flexible tanks and drip feed our motors of cars,and every hundred kilometres drive into a servo,to freeze the car over except the fuel tank and motor…ExAir Hilsch Vortex Tube ..Darwin Headquarters Australia!?Laugh now, think about it later,because there are just too many people rigid beyond belief in their thinking of solving these issues.
Where has the common sense gone? The government is committed to giving tax reductions. The public are expecting to commit to global warming solutions. So give the tax cuts and apply a carbon tax. Nett cost to the public is positive as the inflationary aspect of the tax cuts is nulled and the money relocated to energy restructuring will reduce future power increases.
Why won’t this happen? Greed.
Has anyone done any studies of petrol price vs. fleet consumption vs. credit expansion yet? If demand for petrol is deemed to be inelastic, I wonder where the boundaries are? On my (infrequent) trips to the petrol station, I’m increasingly coming across people who are putting in only $5 or $10 into their 1990s Commodore. It must get them exactly one lap around town if that. I can understand why Robert is so pessimistic about our ability to reduce carbon emissions via the motor fleet, but behaviour can and does change remarkably quickly when confronted with rising costs. I suspect you’ll see more kids walking to school if petrol gets to Mr Caltex’s $3.00 a litre forecast.
Robert, it’s good to see you acknowledge the previous government got something right with its ground-breaking launch of the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate. It should also be noted that Australia hosted APEC last year and put the topic of climate change on top of the agenda. APEC resulted in the Sydney Declaration. This was the first time major emitting countries such as China, the US and Indonesia agreed on the goal of reducing global emissions.
Many people laud the Kyoto Protocol but how many realise that Kyoto actually excluded a mechanism to protect old growth forests? As a result, rainforest destruction is rampant in developing countries, such as our APEC neighbours Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, due to clearance for logging and oil palm plantations. Indonesia is now the world’s third worst greenhouse gas emitter due to deforestation, peatland degradation and forest fires. And of course, as a developing country, Indonesia is currently not bound to meet emission targets under Kyoto. It is horrifying to think of the amount of forest and associated bio-diversity that has been lost over the past 10 years of the Kyoto Protocol.
One of the most important achievements of the recent UN Climate Change meeting in Bali was that delegates agreed to include forest protection mechanisms in future discussions about a new post-2012 climate change agreement.
But how much more rainforest might be lost in the intervening period until 2012?
The Shadow Climate Change Minister, Greg Hunt, is pushing for the Australian government to build on the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate and accept bi-partisan support for a “Global Rainforests Recovery Plan” for the period 2008-2012, with rich developed countries contributing to assist developing countries protect their forests for the good of the globe.
The post-2012 climate change agreement is scheduled to be finalised at the UN Climate Change meeting in Copenhagen in 2009. Deforestation is bound to be a major issue on the agenda at this meeting.
Addressing the problem of global deforestation is going to be a difficult task. There are many complex economic, social, governance and conservation issues to consider. The international community also has to consider how to tackle growing global demand for timber and palm oil, especially given the growing global population - currently 6.6 billion and tipped to grow to 9 billion by 2042. However, the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate website notes that “if we even halve the current global rate of deforestation, we would reduce total annual global greenhouse gas emissions by 10% - this is equivalent to more than 5 times Australia’s annual greenhouse emissions, and about 10 times the savings achieved during the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (which will only reduce annual emissions by 1% by 2010)”. http://www.climatechange.gov.au/international/forests/fs-international.html
Given the savings to be made in global emissions by reducing global deforestation, surely we have to give this our best shot?
Let’s hope Australia and other rich developed countries will be in a position to report on their practical action to assist rainforest countries reduce deforestation and reduce global emissions at the UN Climate Change meeting in Copenhagen in 2009.
It’s a conundrum. I’ve got no idea how it’s all going to work out. Yesterday there was an extremely pessimistic position put on ‘peak oil’ by Michael Lardelli a geneticist from the University of Adelaide on Perspective. He says that peak oil is now and that 30% less will be produced by 2020 when we will have 4 million extra people.
But the real killer is that virtually none will be available on international markets at anything like affordable prices.
On forests, I think Stern estimated that it would require $12 billion per annum to stop deforestation. The problem is that you’ve got to keep on paying until the people who would make money out of chopping trees down can make more money doing something else.
Stern also notes that the problem will ‘correct’ itself when the last tree is chopped down, which is the way we’re heading.
There is also the possibility of sequestering large quantities of carbon in the soil through new farming methods, which the farmers are getting a bit excited about. Rudd and his minions seem to be onto it also.
Another possibility is growing timber, turning it into charcoal and then crushing it and putting it into the soil. The fancy word for it is terra preta, a technique invented by the Indians in the Amazon basin 7,000 years ago. They reckon it enhances moisture carrying ability and boosts plant growth. If, as claimed, 9.5 billion tonnes of carbon per year can be sequestered that way (that’s 34.8 Gt of CO2) we’d be laughing. OK the article did say this could be achieved by the end of the century and the problem is a bit more urgent than that.
What is the efficiency of a car stuck in gridlock? Crap!
We need congestion taxes to decrease the number of cars heading to/from the CBD each day. Trolley buses (electric buses) are very smooth and that plus more bus-only lanes will slash those gridlocked lines of cars.
Electric trolleybuses use electricity, a lot of which will be fossil fuel based elctricity but they convert that electricty MUCH more efficiently than the internal combustion engine, esp one stuck in gridlock. City of London showed it can be done. . .
Convincing people such as the Pope that God is OK with condoms and having more than 2 babies is not such a good idea would have more effect on deforestation than any other suggestion to date. Haiti is a good case study of the relationship between the Pope and timber lines, as well as being a sobering preview of where the whole deforestation thing is heading. Outlawing chainsaws and anything larger than a D2 bulldozer would also be effective.
Brian: WRT Peak Oil, gawd I hope not, because the pressure to turn coal into fuel will be nearly irresistable, and while we might sequester the emissions I doubt China will.
Elizabeth: I’m happy to give the former government credit on this issue, but overall they were pathetic (and, it seems, in substantial part as a result of John Howard’s personal blind spots).
As for APEC, any negotiations made in the fag-end of the Bush White House on this issue are essentially meaningless, and the rest of the world is waiting for somebody sane to take office in 2009 before beginning to negotiate seriously with them.
Robert, spot on. But I have no idea whether Lardelli is on the money, which is one of the reasons I have no idea how things are going to work out.
You mentioned there was no taste for putting the economy on a war footing. Quite so, but this may well change in the next 10 years. One factor may be whether the sudden decline in the Arctic ice cover in 2007 is a one-off or whether it presages a complete collapse. There was good recovery in the winter, but the old ice (10 years plus) is now down to about 3% whereas it used to be 80%. I’ve read that the weather conditions which were a significant factor last year look like being repeated this year.
If something dramatic happens attitudes will change, although the complacency of the US is huge. Apparently in all the presidential debates, climate change rated just 8 questions out of over 3000 so far.
BTW Catalyst is looking at climate change tonight, specifically the polar regions, I gather.
Why do I get the feeling that Elizabeth Hart is one of Greg Hunt’s advisers?
In the greater scheme of things, I don’t think anyone will recall Howard as a very effective mover on climate change. But, the grandly titled “Global Initiative on Forests and Climate” was a good one. Not that it has (or will) made any difference to Indon land clearing.
Robert and Wilful. I’m not one of Greg Hunt’s “advisers” but I do wholeheartedly support his push for a “Global Rainforests Recovery Plan”. I’m an “ordinary person” who became interested in the problem of tropical deforestation after watching a Foreign Correspondent program back in September 2006. I’ve been researching the issue since then, and have been lobbying both the Coalition and the ALP on the issue since early last year.
I detect a hint of cynicism, Robert, about the previous government’s policies? Fair enough, we’re all entitled to our opinions. Although I think it’s fair to acknowledge it’s rather more difficult to handle these things and please everybody when you’re in government.
Last year was the first time I’ve been moved to become an “activist” and it was a pretty eye-opening experience, I can tell you. Quite frankly, I was astonished and thrilled when the government launched the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate, it was a fantastic opportunity to get attention for the world’s forests. Whatever your political views and cynicism about pre-election announcements, here was Australia offering to lead on a very important issue. Here was something we could build upon, it could have become something big!
So you might appreciate I was even more stunned and distressed by the apathetic and even derisory reaction the launch of the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate received from some “environmentalists”. At that time, I don’t think they had any appreciation of the potential for a “global fund” for forests. (I wonder if any of them read Part VI of the Stern Review – International Collective Action: 25. Reversing Emissions from Land Use Change). Since then I’ve been trying to support the GIFC in any way I can, specifically sending letters to newspapers and posting on blogs, plus continuing to write to politicians.
So yes, I guess we’re all entitled to be cynical. And I’m pretty cynical about the lack of support for the GIFC, it’s a real shame.
Why doesn’t the federal government offer the states some cash so they can make registration of fuel efficient cars much much cheaper and inefficient cars more expensive?
This will directly affect the existing car fleet as older fuel inefficient cars become less desirable, their value drops and you get the situation where the car is worth less than the amount to register it.
At the very least there should be no tax breaks for inefficient cars.
rf said:
You’re not kidding. 30 years ago the VB Commodore ranged in power from 64kW (2.85L 6-cyl) to 114kW (5.0L V8).
Today the Commodore ranges from 186kW (3.6L V6) to 270kW (6.0L V8). The Epica (the next model down) has two versions of 6 cylinder letter: 2.0L/105kW and 2.5L/115kW.
So thirty years on and there has been a massive increase in the power of vehicles such that the lowest power car in the model below the commodore is nearly as powerful as the biggest V8 commodore 30 years ago. This is an arms race. There is simply no need for cars to have this much power.
Elizabeth R, the trouble with Howards initiative was that it had the same credibility as would Mugabe championing human rights. The public had stopped listening to Howard much earlier and only examined his wild plans out of interest to see how each new scheme was to improve the wealth of the favoured. Deforestation cannot be treated in an empirical way as it is entirely a socialogical outcome. And I would be bitterly disappointed if Robert was right and Australia was looking to New Guinea to stop cutting its timber so Australians could carry on guzzling petrol, burning coal, hacking through old growth forest, and just generally believing that they can avoid any effects simply because it is all so hard.
I call it “leaving the car at home” and “not taking an overseas holiday”.
Oddly, not much support for these ideas amongst my Greenie neighbours.
Unless you have reliable statistics for people with environmentalist sympathies vs. their brownie neighbours on either of these, kindly stick such idle and unfounded slander up your arse.
Ta muchly.
BilB, I think you might be missing the point of my argument. If you can forget about the politics for a moment, and just focus on the opportunity of the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate.
In an effective post-2012 agreement, all countries will have to play their part in cutting emissions. However, on top of that, rich countries can also help poorer rainforest countries protect the rainforests, the protection of which is good for the whole world, not just the countries in question. (Kyoto doesn’t facilitate that at the moment).
I think it has been pointed out many times that, even if Australia cuts its emissions, it’s not going to amount to much in a global context. Yes, of course Australia has to lead by example and cut its emissions etc etc, but on top of that, we can contribute to a global fund to protect rainforests which might make a real difference in cutting global emissions.
But that’s just it. You can’t divorce the politics of this particular initiative from the wider debate. Nor should you.
Robert. To borrow a famous phrase from an environmental activist at Bali, “If you’re not willing to lead, please get out of the way”.
Bye
Eliz
I think what Robert is saying is that you can’t avoid politics if you’re trying to change peoples’ behaviour on a large scale - rather than saying you should do nothing but “play politics”.
Just as you can’t avoid smelly pooey stuff and bugs and dirt if you want to grow nice vegetables.
Furthermore, you have to look at the problem as a whole - “how are we going to get worldwide emissions reductions of the scale necessary”? For a green group, it has to be “how can we act to maximise global emissions reductions”?
When you look at the Howard government, as well as doing essentially nothing domestically, they provided political cover for the US government’s attempts to block any substantive global action at all on the issue. While you shouldn’t overestimate the importance of that (the US does what it does largely for domestic reasons), you shouldn’t discount it either.
If I were an environment group, I would see the removal of the Howard government as a very high-priority task in improving the chances of a good deal post-Kyoto; any such deal will have to include rainforests anyway. If they support the government’s initiative in any substantial way, they run the risk of some Australian voters (who don’t understand all the nuances) thinking that if they are concerned about greenhouse issues, it’s still OK to vote for the government. So while they may get a forest deal a little faster, they run the risk of being lumbered with another three years of Howard and thus reduce the chances of a good post-Kyoto deal.
This may be yucky politics, but, as Helen says, sometimes politics is an unavoidably yucky business.
Elizabeth, if you’ve made a special study of issues relating to forests I’d encourage you to continue to share information.
On the Howard Government, the best insight comes from the former Liberal insider Guy Pearse. He’s very cynical about the Howard Government and backs this up with massive documentation.
I’ve heard that Greg Hunt is both knowledgeable and enthusiastic and Turnbull was personally thereabouts but there are still denialists/delusionists in important positions. Nick Minchin, Andrew Robb and Ian McFarlane come to mind.
I had my say on APEC at the time. Howard was basically trying to subvert and replace the UN process. The Chinese were not amused and would never have let him succeed.
China, India and other significant developing countries agreed to do their bit at the G8 meeting at Heiligendamm three months earlier.
I don’t know a lot about the GIFC, but I understand that the initiative was a rebadging of a program Forestry Department already had on their books. Nothing wrong with that as such. I recall Indonesia welcoming it but saying it was not enough to make any real difference.
But the need is certainly there. According to this wonderful chart deforestation was worth 18.3% of total GHG emissions in 2006. I think Indonesia leads even Brazil in destroying forests, does it not?
Brian. I don’t claim to be an expert on forestry issues. As I said earlier, I became involved as an “ordinary person” and “concerned citizen” and I’m self-taught from surfing the internet etc in my “spare” time. There’s a bewildering amount of information out there. (My husband sometimes gets a little irked at the time I spend on it).
I wrote detailed letters to the relevant Ministers and Shadow Ministers last year, and I have been continuing with the correspondence ever since. (My correspondence is probably in a government file labelled “obsessive nutter”). I was also a volunteer on an environmental action group but I dropped out of that early this year as I was frustrated with the ongoing negativity. When I started I was “apolitical”, but I admit I became more partisan as it appeared the Howard Government was acting on this issue. As I mentioned earlier, I was stunned when the GIFC was announced. Whatever the reasons behind it, it was a fantastic opportunity. I assume Malcolm Turnbull was a significant driver behind it. Greg Hunt appears to be very keen and I think his heart is really in this issue.
I’m sure there were all sorts of competing interests in the Howard government. No doubt it will be the same in the Rudd government. It’s inevitable really. Again, coming into this “apolitically” I didn’t have any firm prejudices when I started. I also didn’t have the faintest clue about Kyoto (and I don’t think I was on my own there). I have been interested to read some of the arguments against Kyoto, e.g. “Time to ditch Kyoto”, Gwyn Prins and Steve Rayner, Nature 449, 973-975 (25 October 2007).
I was mainly prejudiced against Kyoto because it deliberately excluded a mechanism to protect old growth forests. So as a result, 10 years of possible protection has been lost. And also developing nations weren’t required to meet emission targets (and yes, I understand there were reasons for that at the time.) I’m concerned about this ongoing dichotomy between developed and developing countries, particularly as most of the top emitters are developing countries with growing economies and very large populations. It also seems incongruous to me that countries such as China and PNG are in the same category. But there you go, I admit I’m no expert.
Anyway, I guess we could argue on about APEC and Kyoto til the cows come home and still disagree. It’s all water under the bridge now because the focus is on formulating a fair and effective post-2012 climate change agreement. For me, in my own small way, the focus is still on building on the possibilities of the GIFC.
I know Rachmat Witoelar dismissed our $200 million as a relatively small amount for the scale of the problem. However, it was a start, and a step forward in recognition of the problem. Anyway, I’m disappointed that more people didn’t jump on board last year and try and build momentum for an effective global fund for forests.
Elizabeth, we’re mostly concerned citizens and ordinary people here, though some have academic qualifications which may or may not be relevant to what they blog on.
Possibly people didn’t jump on board Howard’s initiative because a large part of his motivation was to make himself look competitive with Labor on climate change when he found out that the electorate really cared about it. Because of this the groundwork was probably not done properly. That’s a guess.
It’s my impression that the Indonesians at the highest level do care about the forests and may well be more effective than us in seeing that it is on the agenda. They have some problems with corruption closer to the coalface, as it were, which they know about. It’s similar in Brazil, where people get shot if they are in the way and policing on the ground is very thin.
Robert. Thanks for your illuminating insights into how environmental groups might work, i.e. try and stymie any positive initiatives because they don’t like the Howard Government. That explains a few things.
Last year we had a unique opportunity, with APEC being hosted by Australia and with the UN climate change meeting being held in Indonesia, to get attention for the tropical rainforest destruction issue.
In my letters to the then government and opposition back in early March, I requested this issue be put on the APEC agenda. In the end, the topic of climate change was put on top of the APEC agenda. Given that APEC is primarily about trade and development, I don’t think it has been adequately appreciated how significant it was that climate change ended up being put on top of the economic leaders’ meeting agenda.
The government also launched the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate in March and held a High Level Meeting on Forests and Climate in July. Just before the High Level Meeting on Forests and Climate, I tried to highlight to some of the people on the environmental group for which I was a volunteer, that APEC and the UN climate change meeting in Bali were an opportunity to get attention for the deforestation problem. They just ignored me. Perhaps Robert’s explanation demonstrates why. Environmental groups are constantly exhorting people to take action and lobby government for improvements. I have to say I would feel pretty aggrieved if it turned out they actually tried to sabotage positive initiatives because they didn’t like the shade of government.
I remember at the time of the forests meeting, I rang the Department of Environment to try and find out more about it. The chap I spoke to on the phone was quite cagey and frosty and it transpired he was worried I might be some sort of “sabotaging environmentalist” trying to get details that might be used to help disrupt the meeting. We continued our conversation and I think he eventually appreciated I wasn’t out to disrupt the meeting. Again, Robert’s explanation might explain why this department officer felt so wary of my enquiry.
This experience prompted me to fax a positive letter to Malcolm Turnbull about the promising possibilities of the GIFC, and included detailed questions about the global growth in palm oil consumption, the ironic use of palm oil in biodiesel, sustainability issues such as the viability of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, and the impact of world population growth on the environment and palm oil consumption.
During APEC, plenty of people decried the Sydney Declaration. But it was the first time countries such as China, the US, Indonesia, Malaysia and Korea agreed on the goal of reducing global emissions. They also agreed on the aim to increase forest cover in APEC countries by at least 20 million hectares by 2020. I suggest developments at APEC in September were useful for the UN climate change meeting in Bali in December.
The cynicism towards Howard’s forest initiative is understandable, given Howard’s utterly atrocious record and the belief many had that Howard didn’t really believe in doing anything much on climate change all. Howard’s comments since losing office show such cynicism is well placed. However, just because someone’s (i.e. Howard’s) motives may be cyncial or not genuine does not automatically mean the policy is crap (although it is a good reason to scrutinise it extra closely for holes).
I think there is merit in using forest protection for the reasons Robert outlined (including quick gains), with the significant caveats that Robert also mentioned.
Personally, I think the elephant in the room (or the cow in the room) when it comes to quick gains in reducing greenhouse emissions which doesn’t get mentioned anywhere near as often as it should is livestock. Significantly reducing food consumption from animal products - and especially cattle - will make a significant dint in emissions, and because it will dramatically reduce methane, rather than just carbon, the impact will be felt much more quickly, becuase methane that it is already in the atmosphere disspates much more quickly than the carbon than it is already out there.
However, it seems getting people to call for reducing meat and dairy consumption is even less of a no-no than getting people to reduce their car usage. Achieving the necessary targets will be hard enough as it is, but if we keep ignoring areas where clear gains can be made just because its inconvenient or unpopular, we really aren’t going to have much chance.
Elizabeth Hart, what a strange way you have of looking at the world. In your eyes it is the environmental groups who are the problem, because they ‘try and stymie any positive initiatives’. Well, I’ve got news for you- it was the Howard government that had been in power for the past 11 years, not the environmental groups.
Apart from the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate (grand sounding name, but has it actually achieved anything in 12 months?) I would be surprised if the Howard government initiated any worthwhile environmental intiative over the past 11 years. But of course that would be all the fault of the environmental groups, not the said government.
The Sydney Declaration was a sham and everyone knew it. Even the Howard government propaganda machine didn’t bother, so deep was the odour eminating from it, no amount of perfumed spin would disguise its essentially flatulent nature.
As I mentioned earlier, I was stunned when the GIFC was announced. Whatever the reasons behind it, it was a fantastic opportunity.
Was the GIFC that plan announced by Malcolm Turnbull where Australia would pay large amounts to developing countries to preserve their rainforests, while completely IGNORING South-Eastern Australia’s continuing to clearfell and woodchip our own oldgrowth, including approving a humungous pulp mill, to be fed by ? Even if it gave sufficient compensation to the other countries in question, it was designed to make us look like complete hypocritical dickheads. Typical Howard government multitasking - trashing our last remnant forests and our overseas reputation in one go!
Brian. Yes, I suppose the cynics amongst us might suggest the Howard government was jumping on the climate change “gravy train” before the election. Others might see it as the government responding to concern from its electorate. Isn’t this a good thing?
Anyway, from my perspective, it almost seemed some people were willing the government’s initiatives to fail. It was very distressing to see the GIFC receive such little support. As I said earlier, when I entered into this I didn’t have any political agenda, I was just a “cleanskin” simply lobbying for the rainforests. My attitude changed as I watched developments throughout last year.
As for Labor, in my experience they appeared to be lacking in depth in the area of climate change that I was interested in, which surprised me given that climate change was always designated as their special province and they’re always very vocal about it. In my eyes, the political parties weren’t fitting their stereotypes. I sent two detailed letters to Peter Garrett (plus other shadow ministers) and didn’t even receive the courtesy of an acknowledgement letter. I received two letters from Kevin Rudd’s office in July and September, neither of which mentioned their me-too deforestation policy announced in May, although one letter did include a list of policies which was irrelevant to my enquiry.
I know there were climate sceptics in the Howard Government, the climate area is very complicated and there are lots of conflicting arguments. However, I think the Howard government’s Environment Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, was pretty dedicated, as is their current Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Greg Hunt. From my viewpoint, Peter Garrett was hopeless. This was amply demonstrated before the election when he indicated Labor would be willing to enter into a post-2012 climate change agreement without developing nations. Labor subsequently very quickly changed their position on this and came in to line with the Howard government’s stance.
I’m sorry if I sound like a full-blown cheer squad for the Howard government, but it’s a very small group at the moment. Yes, maybe the GIFC was an election ploy. Maybe John Howard is a climate change sceptic. But you know what? I don’t care. A unique opportunity came along last year that might have had a real benefit for the world’s forests (and reducing global emissions) and it was just too good to let pass by. It will be a real shame if Australia’s leadership on this issue is allowed to fall away. We particularly need to take action in the 2008-2012 period.
The UN COP 13 (Bali) decision re “Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches to stimulate action”, encourages “Parties” to take immediate action to protect rainforests: http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_13/application/pdf/cp_redd.pdf
Australia got the ball rolling on this back in March, are we just going to drop out of leadership on this issue? We should be joining in an alliance with other like-minded countries to develop strategies to assist rainforests countries protect their rainforests, particularly for the 2008-2012 period.
Helen, to be fair, the situation in tropical rainforests and temperate eucalypt forests is not quite the same. You’ve got peat bog destruction, albedo issues (basically, how much radiant heat gets reflected straight back out into space), whether the forests are regrown or not, how fast that regrowth occurs, and so on and so forth.
As I understand it, the stats suggest that domestic forestry is not a major net carbon emitter.
Doesn’t mean I support the pulp mill, BTW. A regrown forest may hold just as much carbon as an old-growth one, but that doesn’t mean they’re identical…
adrian. I don’t think I have a strange way of looking at the world. Maybe I’m just a pragmatist.
I agree contrarian environmental groups are essential to get attention for the world’s problems. But it seems hypocritical to me if, as Robert suggests, they stymie or ignore government initiatives because they don’t like the shade of government.
A lot of people involved with environmental groups are volunteers. Many are also paid employees. Last year I spent a lot of my “spare” time researching and lobbying on this issue at the behest of environmental groups. I don’t appreciate the fact that my efforts were the equivalent of beating my head against a brick wall.
As for your comment has the GIFC actually achieved anything in 12 months? Here are the announcements that I am aware of: The Global Initiative on Forests and Climate; the High Level Meeting on Forests and Climate with participation by many international experts; the contribution to the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility; funding to improve systems for monitoring forests; funding for the management of forest and peat land fires; the $100 million Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership; the APEC Sydney Declaration goal to increase forest cover in APEC countries by at least 20 million hectares by 2020; Malcolm Turnbull’s promise to push for international action on the sustainable sourcing of palm oil at the Bali meeting; and John Howard’s pledge for orangutan conservation.
All of these developments served to raise the profile of the global deforestation problem.
Who knows what could be achieved if people really got behind it and tried to build momentum?
As for Labor, in my experience they appeared to be lacking in depth in the area of climate change that I was interested in, which surprised me given that climate change was always designated as their special province and they’re always very vocal about it. In my eyes, the political parties weren’t fitting their stereotypes.
Highly inaccurate!
You heard of a thing called the Labor Right?
Or a Ferguson?
Or the forestry wing of the CFMEU….
the stats suggest that domestic forestry is not a major net carbon emitter.
NAFI’s stats, perhaps?
I do not quite get your point that Indonesian forests are different from Australia’s forests. Of course they are. Our wet schlerophyll environments are unique and precious. The carbon sequestration part of it is only part of the picture.
Helen. The Rudd government is in power now. So we’ll have to wait and see what action they take on building on Australia’s existing leadership in addressing the problem of global deforestation. I’m interested to see more details re the PNG deal and what’s happening in Indonesia.
It’s also up to the new government to deal with the situation in Tasmania. Yes, it’s hard work when you’re in government trying to please everybody, but I wish them all the best and I will be the first to congratulate and support them if they build momentum on addressing the global deforestation issue.
Andrew Bartlett. The other elephant in the room is global human population growth. I wrote a letter to The Australian on this topic in response to the opinion piece by Vaclav Klaus on 12 March, and it was published today. (I also included a reference to the impact on deforestation…but sadly that was edited out). Here’s the link if you’re interested: “Population Alarm”: http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php/theaustralian/comments/population_alarm/
No, through the Australian Greenhouse Office’s AGEIS system.
My point is that the effect on greenhouse gas levels, and, ultimately, climate, of logging in Tasmania and logging in Indonesia are probably not the same. As I understand it, the science tends to indicate logging in Indonesia is far worse for the global climate, both because of the nature of Indonesian wilderness (in a nutshell, there’s a lot more embodied carbon released) and the differences in forestry practices.
That doesn’t make logging in Tasmania a good idea - as you rightly say, they are a unique and precious resource. But that doesn’t automatically imply that logging them has an equal effect on the global climate as does logging in Indonesia and PNG.
I see what you mean now Robert. But we won’t make things any better by cutting them down. There is an unfortunate tendency among many commentators in the meeja to say well, we’re such a tiny population anything we do is a blip, so we may as well do nothing, in fact, mmm have some more brown coal!
The advantage to global climate change in not cutting down our own oldgrowth, is not so much in the extent of our oldgrowth but in not sending this “do as we say, not as we do”, message to Indonesia. Having this laudable initiative to help them keep their forests while actually subsidising our own woodchip industry is hardly calculated to garner respect and cooperation IMO.
AndrewB,
It is worth noting the correlation between livestock (methane plus) and land clearing (CO2 reduction minus), with Brazil of the past particularly noteworthy. But reducing grazing land in favour of rapid vegetation growth has a double tiered impact, now that you have made the point. Personally, and this is where Robert M and I diverge, I think that grazing land used for biofuel production in the developing countries is an important wealth redistribution step. When farming provides very real returns to poorer communities, and as oil climbs steeply upward this will become more powerful, there is a far greater certainty that these communities will have the flexibility to adjust their lifestyle in a way that the world community needs.
helen, helen, helen,
(Yep it’s me, the same guy from RTS, who you falsely accused of being a PR stooge for those nasty loggers).
Firstly, forestry is essentially a State issue, so the Federal government has limited capacity to tell state governments what to do, so neither Howard/Turnbull nor Rudd/Garrett have major influence over this issue. Their EPBC triggers are limited and given the information they had in front of them they could not have done anything other than approve the Gunns mill. Which is not to say that was the best policy outcome.
Secondly you’ve totally conflated clearfelling, a type of forestry operation that is typically (always in SE Aust) followed up with regeneration, with deforestation , which is turned into depauperate grazing land, or palm-oil plantations, in inadequately governed places like Brazil and Indonesia.
Thirdly, ‘last remnant forests’ is pure unadulterated crap. In Victoria less than 10% of public land or 3% of the total State is available for timber harvesting. Overwhelmingly our forests are ‘locked up’ in formal and informal reserves, which account for representativeness of biodiversity, and will never ever see a bulldozer. Some professional ecologists are suggesting that we need more forestry, since that’s the only way to be able to manage these landscapes.
Most of the harvestable forest is regrowth, very little is old growth. The amount of old growth forests in Victoria is INCREASING, right here and now, and the only threat to this position is mega-fires.
Ash forests, the most commercially valuable ones, have a biology that indicates replacement events, typically fires, and virtual monocultures as they outcompete other species. Fire frequency analysis suggests stand replacing events occur in a 60 - 100 year cycle, and that is probably best for the ‘natural’ cycle of these forests. Most of our timber is from the 1939 fires. If we were to stop all harvesting and to successfully suppress bushfires, allowing old growth to entirely predominate, this would be both an unnatural environment and be bad for quite a number of plant and animal species. The mosaic approach undertaken by modern forestry, while not perfect and still improving, is mimicking with increasing success the ‘natural’ cycles (which were often managed by Koories).
Now onto what happens with the carbon. Under global accounting rules, Australian LULUCF/forestry is a net sequesterer of carbon. It is true that OG forests have a lot of carbon stored in them, however they have stopped sequestering and are emitting methane as they rot, so are typically net emitters. Unless they’re rainforest, they’re basically sitting waiting to be burnt, since they’re fire adapted species. Regrowth forests are actively taking up carbon.
Harvesting will release a significant proportion of the carbon through the regen burn, but it needs to be remembered that these areas will inevitably burn anyway (if they are to be healthy and natural), and a proportion is taken away as timber, used for all sorts of good things, and fibre, for paper and manufactured wood products. This sequestered carbon does and will hang around, in houses and furniture, and in landfill (where paper doesn’t rot, it seems). This stored carbon currently isn’t accounted for but that’s just an accounting problem, not a physical one.
The burnt coupe will start regeneration as soon as the treatment occurs, and the actively growing trees will suck up lots of carbon, so when the forester comes back in 60 to 100 years, there will be just as much carbon there as there was before the last harvest. In the meantime, the timber will still be sitting in houses displacing steel, aluminium, concrete, glass etc as a building material, with excellent building properties.
So a sustainably managed forest is in eh scheme of things a definite positive for the climate change story. At the same time these multi-use forests are acting as water catchments, biodiversity reserves, recreational opportunities and sustaining many small regional towns.
I know you’ve read a book that says the CFMEU are evil, and I won’t dispute that, but they aren’t the timber industry, and the many evils ascribed to the timber industry are generally said in ignorance. We should all love our forests, and that includes the excellent carbon neutral products we get from them, as well as their many other utility and non-utility values.
`Fire frequency analysis suggests stand replacing events occur in a 60 - 100 year cycle, and that is probably best for the ‘natural’ cycle of these forests.’
wilful - check your data. No way that a species that grows to 100m or so would have such a short cycle. If your objective is to establish a ‘natural’ cycle, I’d suggest trebling the period you cite. And why is old growth ‘bad’?
TFA, isn’t wilful saying that a tree that is no longer actively growing is no longer removing carbon from the air? If you cut it and make a house out of it, then the carbon is stored there, making space for a new tree to grow.
Of course, as I suggested earlier you could turn the log into charcoal and bury it in the soil.
Elizabeth, perhaps you could lobby Tony Blair, who’s running around launching something called his ‘Breaking The Climate Deadlock’ initiative.
Also there is a meeting going on of the Gleneagles Dialogue in Japan, where the environment and energy ministers from the world’s 20 largest greenhouse gas emitting countries are having a chat under the auspices of the G8.
We are being represented by just one minister, Martin Ferguson, who I’m sure can do the work of two!
Brian, that is certainly part of wilful’s message, but there are risks in taking that message at face value.
Primarily, it implicitly assumes that the only reasonable objective in managing old growth forests is to maximise carbon sequestration. (wilful, I hope that I am not making too much of a caricature of your argument!) Old growth vegetation communities are relatively rare from a continental perspective, & I maintain that they are best managed to conserve what was once rather closer to the norm in Australia. I doubt, for instance, that one could find many Powerful Owls or Leadbetter’s possums in 60 year old E. regnans forests. See numerous papers by Lindenmeyer & Possingham for details and evidence.
Manage those forests to maximise carbon sequestration, and I’d guess that there’s an uncomfortably high probability that the owl & the possum would be lost from E. regnans communities. In the case of Leadbetter’s possum, that equates to extinction.
Re charcoal in soils, I’m not confident this would be successful in sandier soils. My understanding is that organic carbon will oxidise in soils which are well aerated ie the soil carbon goes to CO2 over a relatively short time frame.
Point taken, TFA. There will be pressures enough on species from climate change which we must be careful not to exacerbate.
Point taken about sandy soils also. I grew up in the brigalow belt and now live in the foothills of Mt Coot-tha in Brisneyland. Not much sand in either place.
completely OT
Brian - I too lived on the foothills of Mt Coot-tha until a couple of years ago. Lovely location; am enjoying current circumstance, but feeling somewhat nostalgic. Hard to replicate the suburban 3-metre python-in-your-cellar experience, not to mention backyard bush turkey mounds.
Unfortunately, never had a good look at the brigalow - my loss.
That’s amazing! We had a 3 metre carpet python who used to visit from time to time. It worked it’s way along Davies Road mopping up the vermin and then moving on. Mark knew it well when he stayed here in the 1990s.
Haven’t seen it for a few years. Possibly died of old age, possibly some idiot with a shovel…
Saw a small bush turkey in our front yard the other day.
Brian, you are correct, and I am certainly not suggesting that we should start logging old growth forests just for carbon sequestration purposes. So TFA, yeah that was a step further than I would be prepared to go. The extra carbon sitting in OG undergrowth takes a long time to fully resequester (more time than we’ve got). But harvesting in regrowth forests (which are structurally simpler) is unquestionably carbon positive.
I’m very familiar with David Lindenmayers and Hugh Possingham’s work. Not all, nor even a majority of regnans and delegatensis forests should be subjected to those sort of fire frequencies, but those forests that are certainly appear able handle it, while still contributing significantly to biodiversity conservation.
My purpose is merely to state that while old growth forests are certainly vitally important for biodiversity , they are only a seral stage and only part of the story. A fully old growth forest would not be a healthy forest, and would have reduced biodiversity. A fully regrowth forest would be worse, so the best outcome for forest health and vitality is a mosaic with all growth stages present.
My second point is that old growth forests are categorically not threatened by timber harvesting, and are in fact increasing in area. This is despite some highly misleading claims (lies) bandied about by some of the more irresponsible green groups (looking at you, Wilderness Society).
It all really comes back to the alternatives though. We dont chop down forests just for kicks, we make buildings out of them. Buildings that would otherwise be made of steel or concrete. And a tree chopped down in Victoria is a tree not imported from somewhere awful.
In a perfect world we’d get all of our timber from Australian plantations, but we’re a long way from that, and in the meantime, forestry is far lower impact than many other land use activities (farming, mining). It’s quite hard to come up with a short list of species that are directly threatened by logging as currently practised, it’s quite easy to come up with a long list of species threatened by farming and urban development.
Brian & wilful
On topic - One of the greatest obstacles to managing forests for carbon sequestration is the very limited understanding of belowground processes. Its very difficult and expensive to conduct research in this area, but fungal & microbial biomass is emerging as a large fraction of belowground C. But AFAIK little is known about how this C pool turns over, or how it varies between ecosystems, or how it responds to temperature, nutrients, soil moisture and so on.
Off topic - Brian, Brisbane is quite exceptional WRT urban wildlife, but I’m not sure that many Brisbanites realize their good fortune in this regard.
Unfortunately cars and urban pythons are not a happy combination. I saw a surprising number of roadkilled pythons along Toowong Tce, usually at the time of the year when they wander (Sept-Oct as I recall).
‘they are only a seral stage and only part of the story. A fully old growth forest would not be a healthy forest, and would have reduced biodiversity.’
Wilful, the Clementsian models of successional dynamics have been pretty much abandoned by plant ecologists in favour of the patch dynamics models of Pickett & White. Its pretty difficult to find any reference to seral or disclimax stages in the research literature of the last 30 years or so, with the possible exception of the Central European community classification school.
And what is your measure of ‘health’? Certainly the nutrient dynamics of old growth can differ considerably from younger stands, but is that necessarily unhealthy? I know we hear a lot of ecosystem ‘health’ etc, but I’m wary of such terms; they introduce a risk of moving from objectivity to subjectivity. And they can all too easily be manipulated to an end.
WRT biodiversity, the results may very well depend on what taxa are measured. You might be correct with regard to some parts of the biota while being incorrect with regard to others. For instance, I’d expect a far greater diversity among the decomposer communities in old growth.
Thanks for that link Brian. Yes, I might broaden my lobbying list on a global scale. Why pussyfoot around, just go straight to the top!
There was an article about Blair’s project in today’s Australian. This quote from Blair particularly hit a chord: “The fact of the matter is that if we do not take substantial action over the next two years, then by 2020 we will (be) thinking seriously about adaptation rather than prevention…” http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23375781-2703,00.html
In the link you sent to me with Tony Blair’s speech he says “we need a new global deal and at the heart of it there has got to be a substantial cut in emissions”.
Yes, we need “a new global deal”. I’m concerned that we’re focusing too much on the past constantly going on about Kyoto. Nearly every time Penny Wong opens her mouth, she tells us that Australia has ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Yes, I think we’ve got the symbolism out of the way. What happens now? Just another four years of talking until 2012?
I’m still one of those heretics wary of the Kyoto Protocol and agree with Gwyn Prins and Steve Rayner’s argument that Kyoto “has stifled discussion of alternative policy approaches that could both combat climate change and adapt to its unavoidable consequences”. For example, protection for forests being left out for the past 10 years, even though the problem was highlighted many times. Now they’ve agreed to include it post-2012. What happens to forests between 2008 - 2012 whilst they’re talking about it? More meetings, meetings, meeting? At least the UN COP 13 (Bali) decision encourages parties to take immediate to protect rainforests so let’s hope they get on with it: “Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries: approaches to stimulate action: http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_13/application/pdf/cp_redd.pdf
I agree with the US stance – there’s no point to an agreement that doesn’t include all the major emitters, including developing countries with super fast-growing economies and enormous populations. Perhaps the US refusing to ratify gives them more leverage with China?
Here’s a couple of quotes from Gwyn Prins and Steve Rayner, “Time to ditch Kyoto” article: Nature 449, 973-975 (25 October 2007) relevant to your comment about the “Gleneagles Dialogue” chat…
“Focus mitigation efforts on the big emitters – The notion that emissions mitigation is a global commons problem, requiring consensus among more than 170 countries, lies at the heart of the Kyoto approach. Engaging all of the world’s governments has the ring of idealistic symmetry (matching global threat with universal response, but the more parties there are to any negotiations, the lower the common denominator for agreement – as has been the case under Kyoto.”
In September (2007) the United States convened the top 16 polluters. Such initiatives are summarily dismissed by Kyoto’s true believers, who see them as diversions rather than necessary first steps. However, these approaches begin to recognise the reality that fewer than 20 countries are responsible for about 80% of the world’s emissions. In the early stages of emissions mitigation policy, the other 150 countries only get in the way.”
TFA, I think we are in violent agreement, you are merely stating things differently, perhaps misunderstanding my point.
Isn’t that exactly my point, restated? Structural diversity comes from a variety of age classes across the forest. We want neither all OG nor all regrowth, but a happy medium, catering for a wide variety. Health is a loose term true, referring to capacity to maintain the usual assemblage of species in the landscape.