Re your reference to Limits to Growth and Donella Meadows, (Club of Rome) etc.

I remember being rather annoyed at Ross Garnaut’s off-hand dismissal of the Club of Rome with his reference to “their ill-fated prophecy about limits to growth in the early 1970s…” in his Draft Report. (Garnaut Draft Report, p. 29).

How can Garnaut rationalise his “born again conservationist” persona with this statement?:

It is clear from the present state of knowledge—as it was not to earlier generations—that it would be possible for the world economy to adjust to the approach of economically relevant limits to fossil fuel availability, without bringing the increase in human consumption of goods and services to an end. (Garnaut Draft Report, p. 29)
(My emphasis)

Can Garnaut really believe there is no end to “the increase in human consumption of goods and services”?

Here’s a quote from an abstract of Limits to Growth:

There may be much disagreement with the statement that population and capital growth must stop soon. But virtually no one will argue that material growth on this planet can go on forever. At this point in man’s history, the choice posed above is still available in almost every sphere of human activity. Man can still choose his limits and stops when he pleases by weakening some of the strong pressures that cause capital and population growth, or by instituting counterpressures, or both. Such counterpresures will probably not be entirely pleasant. They will certainly involve profund changes in the social and economic structures that have been deeply impressed into human culture by centuries of growth. The alternative is to wait until the price of technology becomes more than society can pay, or until the side-effects of technology suppress growth themselves, or until problems arise that have no technical solutions. At any of those points the choice of limits will be gone. [sic]
(My emphasis)

Re the comment “But virtually no one will argue that material growth on this planet can go on forever”. Ah, if only that were true… (And if only people had listened and taken notice back in 1972…) I think there are many people (e.g. Garnaut) who seem to think that growth is limitless. A case of wishful thinking? But, really, we have to be practical. In addition to consumption in the developed world, the continuing growth of the human population, particularly in developing countries, is impacting severely on the general environment

(I’ve already made many arguments about population growth on various Larvatus Prodeo threads, e.g. Penny, Peter, Marn and the Professor (see from # 18 onwards) and Modelling says: do a deal, and make it a good one (see from # 23 onwards). I also refer to Garnaut’s worrying adoption of Contraction and Convergence in my comments on those LP threads.)

For those people interested in an up to date analysis of Limits to Growth, check out this paper by the CSIRO’s Graham Turner: A Comparison of the Limits to Growth with Thirty Years of Reality

In his paper, Turner refers to the “effectiveness of the many false criticisms attempting to discredit the LtG”. (p. 37) (My emphasis)

Turner concludes:

Unless the LtG is invalidated by other scientific research, the data comparison presented here lends support to the conclusion from the LtG that the global system is on an unsustainable trajectory unless there is substantial and rapid reduction in consumptive behaviour, in combination with technological progress. (p. 38).
(My emphasis)

I wonder if it’s time for Professor Garnaut (and others) to have a rethink about his optimistic ideas on limitless growth, on the endless increase in human consumption of goods and services?

Well, biofuels (alone) just ain’t the answer to our prayers, are they? The whole picture – and finding practical remedies – is very complicated.

At last it seems we humans really are reaching our “Limits to Growth”. Thank you Donella Meadows et al. We read your warnings, and passed on quickly to other topics.

Here are some quotes from a follow-up article I found on-line in today’s Australian: Ministers pass buck on biodiesel imports

THE two federal ministers responsible for Australian efforts to combat deforestation in the Asia-Pacific region have washed their hands of responsibility for the importation of millions of litres of biodiesel made from palm oil.

Environment Minister Peter Garrett and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, who have co-ordinated the deforestation campaign as a central plank of the Government’s climate change response, have passed the buck on the issue to each other and to Resources Minister Martin Ferguson.

Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt said the Government should initiate an urgent investigation into the consequences of Australian biodiesel imports for Asian rainforests.

Australian Greens deputy leader Christine Milne said the Government should end the exemption from the 38.14c-a-litre fuel excise enjoyed by the sellers of palm-oil-based biodiesel.

“The Government says Indonesia and Malaysia should stop logging their forest carbon stores, and we’ll pay them to do so, then they are subsidising the destruction of those forests to produce biofuels,” Senator Milne said.

Mr Garrett, who raised concerns about biofuel subsidies in Opposition, said the issue was one for Senator Wong.

Senator Wong said the issue was best handled by Mr Ferguson.

So, I wonder who is going to sort out this shambles before Copenhagen?

It’s all very well winning Brownie points by ratifying Kyoto, but being complicit in tropical rainforest destruction is going to tarnish the halo considerably…

Imported biofuel a risk to wildlife, (The Australian, 27 January 2007)

AUSTRALIA is contributing directly to the widespread destruction of tropical rainforests in Indonesia and Malaysia by importing millions of tonnes of taxpayer-subsidised biodiesel made from palm oil.

Imports of the fuel are rising, undermining the Rudd Government’s $200 million commitment to reduce deforestation in the region – a problem that globally contributes to 20 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions.

The bulldozing of rainforests to make way for palm oil plantations is also putting further pressure on orangutans and other endangered wildlife throughout Southeast Asia. And the Australian biofuels industry says it is struggling to compete with the cheap imports from Asia, which are touted as an environmentally friendly alternative to diesel.

Without action, the problem will only get worse, with demand for biodiesel imports likely to rise sharply when NSW legislates to introduce Australia’s first biodiesel mandate – 2 per cent this year, rising to 5 per cent when sufficient supplies become available. But the Rudd Government is likely to come under pressure to follow the lead of other Western nations in banning imports of palm oil-based biodiesel.

On e last cheap shot from me: referencing yourself via your wiki greenlivingpedia and pretending it’s authoritative and independent, aint going to cut no dice.

Wilful, it’s a wiki article, not pretending to be anything other than that. You can edit it too if you wish – feel free to add any relevant content to it with references; but please stay away from unsubstantiated opinion.

As per my previous post – I find it encouraging that we appear to have a little common ground – on the need to protect wet old growth forests at least.

On e last cheap shot from me: referencing yourself via your wiki greenlivingpedia and pretending it’s authoritative and independent, aint going to cut no dice.

Mackey et al have measured some wet old growth forest (years ago, and previously published) and said “look, this is three times as much as the accounting rulebook says”. Yep, actually everyone already thought that, but thanks for confirming it anyway.

Yes, it is quite clear that all wet old growth forests in Australia currently being logged (Tasmania, Victoria and NSW) should therefore be immediately protected.

But so far, Garnaut is silent on this and the resultant logging, greenhouse gas emissions and habitat/biodiversity losses continue at full steam ahead.

Another critical point made in the report is that already logged forest should be left to regain its full carbon storage – which would take 150 years or more. Treating our native forests as pseudo plantations is clearly not appropriate, yet this is the status quo which needs to be challenged.

This article summarises the issue: [green carbon]

Full accounting I am very confident will show that native forest harvesting is overall about square, maybe a bit positive as a sink.

Mackey et al have measured some wet old growth forest (years ago, and previously published) and said “look, this is three times as much as the accounting rulebook says”. Yep, actually everyone already thought that, but thanks for confirming it anyway. No one was actually thinking that the average for forests across Australia told us anything about a particular.

Where they get truly deluded is in their arrogant policy advice. They seem to suggest all forest will become old growth if you take away harvesting, and they say that processing emissions aren’t counted, and they deliberately ignore fire, and they badly generalise wet, highly productive forests to drier forests, and they refuse to count sequestered carbon.

It seems that there is two issues here, firstly should Australia account for emissions from forest management? Secondly, if we do, does harvesting native forests increase or decrease greenhouse gas emissions?

Does your comment #78 mean that you agree that we should account for forest management?

I’m sure I’ll have more to say on the second issue, but it seems to me that the science from Mackey et al looks good.

That doesn’t mean I’d recommend doing it, just that I’d use different arguments, as you and wilful have.

The fact that they store more than previously thought is important, clearly, especially if the land use changes.

Mackey was on the radio yesterday morning.

Just because you don’t like the facts or they don’t fit your paradigm doesn’t make them false. Keep an open mind.

Brian, I agree with Wilful that chopping down and burying trees would be counterproductive – and would actually liberate carbon.

If you add up the biodiversity, water production, climate change refugia, carbon sequestration and nice places to visit factors that forests have then they are clearly worth protecting for everyone to enjoy, rather then them being plundered by a very small proportion of the population for commercial gain and climate risk.

What do you think about this statement?

Green carbon accounting and forest protection of all natural forests in all nations must become part of a comprehensive approach to the climate change problem.

http://epress.anu.edu.au/green_carbon/pdf/conclusion.pdf

Note enough time now to chat about the Mackey et al publication. But it’s not science, it’s propaganda, basically worthless. Merely a repeat of his earlier research, which bears no relation to real forests or forestry. Surprised Lindenmayer put his name to it.

have a look at the acknowledgements, see who funded it.

Also the regrowth and the enhanced growth from biochar treated soil would surely draw down more carbon than the increase in the growth of mature forests, which would be minimal, wouldn’t it?

I’m in favour of keeping old forests, but I’m wondering about the validity of the arguments we can use to do so.

Also, a large amount of the carbon biomass is burnt when they burn the logged areas for “regeneration”. This includes bark, branches, leaves, humus and leaf litter, and understorey plants.

Mackey also makes the point that leaving forests already logged to regenerate and regain a maximum carbon content – is preferable to logging them again like plantations – which results in more carbon emissions.

Good to see some real science brought to bear on this topic.

Some interesting and compelling information in the paper:

* Eucalypt forests of south-east Australia – stretching from Queensland through NSW and Victoria and into Tasmania – store the equivalent of 25.5 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases.

If all those forests were cleared and all of the carbon in the biomass in the soil were to be released into the atmosphere – that would be the equivalent of about 80 per cent of Australia’s annual greenhouse gas emisisons every year for 100 years,

So we really have to protect our natural forests.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates such forests held 217 tonnes of carbon per hectare, but the ANU report found Australia’s forests stored an average of 640 tonnes per hectare.

In some areas, forests stored 2000 tonnes of carbon per hectare.

Seems like it is a “no brainer” to protect these immense carbon stores – both in Australia and worldwide – as the cheapest and quickest form of emissions abatement we have.

Some quotes from the Executive Summary and Concluding Comments: Green carbon : the role of natural forests in carbon storage. Part 1, A green carbon account of Australia’s south-eastern Eucalypt forest, and policy implications.

The international community has now recognised the need for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) as a vital component of a comprehensive solution to the climate change problem.

Only since the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali (UNFCCC COP 13) have international negotiations focused on the role of natural forests in storing carbon.

From a scientific perspective, green carbon accounting and protection of the natural forests in all nations should become part of a comprehensive approach to solving the climate change problem. Current international negotiations are focussed on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries only. However, REDD is also important in the natural forests of countries such as Australia, Canada, the Russian Federation and the USA.

As the world community begins the difficult and complex task of negotiating the terms for the post-2012 commitment period under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), various mechanisms are being proposed to provide the incentives and investments necessary for forest protection particularly in developing countries. The international regulatory framework being developed to help reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation needs to be based on a scientific understanding of natural forests and the ecological differences between natural forests and industrialized forests, especially monoculture plantations. Protecting existing natural forests from deforestation is important because it prevents the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels that will necessarily result. The imperative to protect what is left of the world’s natural forests (in addition to their intrinsic and other non-market values) comes from recognising their role in the global carbon cycle and the need to keep intact an essential component of Earth’s life-support systems. The green carbon stored in natural forests is a significant component of the global carbon cycle, and about 18 per cent of annual greenhouse gas emissions come from deforestation.

More reliable estimates of baseline green carbon will enable the contribution of natural forests to the global carbon cycle to be valued properly. Our analyses show that in Australia and probably globally, the carbon carrying capacity of natural forests is underestimated and therefore misrepresented in economic valuations and in policy options. Scientifically, it is important to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in all forest biomes – boreal, tropical and temperate – and in economically developed as well as developing countries.

Green carbon accounting and forest protection of all natural forests in all nations must become part of a comprehensive approach to the climate change problem. (Emphasis added)

EXCELLENT !

Glad you’re starting to see things through “the prism of the forest”…