Author: admin

A NSW program which allows carbon (C) stored by forests to be used to offset fossil fuel emissions may be increasing future atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (C02), according to a Senior Research Fellow from the University of Sydney.

Forests do trap CO2, but for how long? Dr Charles Warren from the University of Sydney School of Biological Sciences says the fact that forests remove CO2 from the atmosphere and store it in wood and soil is not in contention; what is in contention is the definition and longevity of storage.

CO2 can return to atmosphere after 100 years: ‘In our lifetimes, and the 100-year window set by the NSW Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program, storage is real and quantifiable. But this isn’t the case when we consider what happens in our grandchildren’s lifetime. On time scales greater than 100 years much of the supposedly "stored" C will be released back to the atmosphere,’ said Warren.

Decomposing trees quickly release their carbon: He argues that the problem is that C stored in the forests can be released very easily (and rapidly) into the atmosphere. ‘Trees have finite life spans (e.g. hundreds of years for many Eucalyptus), and when they die and decompose "stored" C is quickly released back into the atmosphere.

Fires impact regrowth, future CO2 storage: In the absence of fire, regeneration and re-growth of many Eucalyptus ecosystems is negligible and the amount of biomass and stored C decreases in very old forests,’ he said. According to Warren fire makes "storage" risky and ephemeral, and this is especially the case in Australia. C stored in forests is always at risk of being lost by fire. It is neither feasible nor realistic to keep forested areas fire-free in perpetuity.

Can’t equate fossil fuel emissions and forest carbon: Trading fossil fuel emissions for C "stored" in forests is flawed, because the two are not equivalent. Forests are not stores but part of the actively cycling pool of C, whereas fossil fuels have life spans measured in millions of years.

Burning fossil fuels and planting trees increases CO2: ‘The net result of burning fossil fuels and then planting trees (to offset emissions) is that amount of carbon available in the active carbon pool (the atmosphere and forests) increases. The C in forests can be easily released back into the atmosphere, and thus it is possible that planted forests may contribute to increasing long-term atmospheric concentrations of C02 – the exact opposite of the intended effect,’ said Warren.

Reducing atmospheric CO2 means emission cuts: ‘The only way of reducing atmospheric concentrations of C02 is by reducing emissions or by sequestering C in perpetuity (e.g. geological storage).’

Reference: Media Release, 13 July 2006. For further information please contact the Media Office on Ph: +612 9351 4312 or 0421 617 861.

Erisk Net, 17/7/2006

According to John Breusch, Prime Minister John Howard will seize on Queensland Premier Peter Beattie’s concerns about emissions trading as he moves to undermine the Labor premiers’ efforts to develop a national carbon market, reported The Australian Financial Review (17/7/2006, p.8).

Howard wants emission trading to wait for clean coal tech: Because of concerns about the effect of higher carbon prices on Australia’s fossil fuel-dependent economy, the Howard government argues that emissions trading should be introduced only when so-called clean coal technologies, which are still in the development phase, are ready to come to market.

Beattie agrees on waiting to start carbon trading: Beattie echoed these concerns in the lead-up to Friday’s Council of Australian Governments meeting. "Queensland has invested heavily in developing this technology and work on providing solutions is under way," he said. "Once we reach a satisfactory stage in producing clean coal technology we can move progressively into a carbon trading scheme."

Nuclear Taskforce must examine carbon price signal: A number of members of Howard’s taskforce looking into nuclear power have also said their inquiry must include an examination of a carbon price signal given that nuclear would be a far more expensive option than conventional coal-fired power stations.

Howard stresses problems of EU carbon market: But in his speech to a Committee for Economic Development of Australia function today, Howard will highlight the problems of Europe’s carbon market since it began operation last year. Under the European scheme, businesses in high-emissions industries received "permits to pollute" which could be bought and sold.

EU prices collapsed from bad pollution estimates: At first, the prices of these permits shot up, heartening advocates of the scheme. But when it was revealed recently that governments had initially overestimated how much businesses were polluting, the price of carbon collapsed.

The Australian Financial Review, 17/7/2006, p. 8

Source: Erisk Net  

Summer time could come a month earlier in the ACT under plans to harmonise the start and end dates for daylight saving, reported The Canberra Times (15 July 2006, p.4).

COAG push: COAG has agreed to consider a proposal for the ACT, NSW and Victoria to bring forward the change to the first Sunday in October rather than the last, in line with Tasmania.

Big states call tune: ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope said he would have to look to the territory’s bigger neighbour when deciding which path to follow. “I have agreed to work with NSW and Victoria on a proposal that the ACT introduce summer time one month earlier than we currently do," he said.

How true: Mr Stanhope said that while he was loath to defer the decision to NSW or any other jurisdiction, "reasonably it would be almost impossible to contemplate an ACT in a different time zone to NSW."

The Canberra Times, 15/7/2006, p. 4

Source: Erisk Net