Abbott’s answer to climate change: ERF
|
Tony Abbott has announced a confusing and sketchy direct action policy on climate change centring on an unfunded multi-billion dollar “Emissions Reduction Fund” that will invite carbon reduction bids from firms and, as expected, a major drive on tree planting and biosequestration. The fund, to be overseen by an as-yet undetailed “expert body” is intended to be a “market mechanism” for polluters such as coal-fired power generators to seek Government funding for lower-emission projects. Abbott also referred to the possibility of unspecified “penalties” if polluters undertook activities that increased their emissions beyond “business-as-usual” levels. A priority for the Fund will be funding the abatement of 85m tones of CO2-equivalent via soil carbon projects. The Coalition has also committed to a $1000 rebate for solar panels or solar hot water systems, at up to $100m a year, and plant 20m trees by 2020 in “urban forests”, although Nationals leader Warren Truss later appeared to say that additional trees would be planted on marginal agricultural land. There will also be investment in algal energy technologies. The entire package will cost $3.2b but no detail has been provided on how it will be funded, with Abbott promising to provide details later. Comment: It’s hard to pass judgement on the Coalition’s direct action climate package announced by Tony Abbott this afternoon, because quite how it will work is either unclear, or yet to be announced. How will the whole package be funded? Well, that’s for later. Who will oversee this multi-billion dollar fund? That’s for later. How will it ensure money is well spent? Later. How will it deliver a 5% reduction in emissions? Well, there’s nothing to indicate it will, but Tony Abbott boasted of consulting with a huge range of industry and environment groups and produced a sheaf of endorsements from them saying the plan could achieve a 5% cut. On closer examination, the endorsements turned out to be industry groups who stand to benefit directly from the fund, like soil carbon companies, coal seam gas energy companies and the National Association of Forest Industries. Where will all these trees – 20 million of them – be planted? Well, in urban forests or marginal farming land, depending on who you asked, but there was confusing talk from Abbott of also putting electricity wires underground. How is this a “market mechanism” when the Government will pick the projects? Abbott talked about building a bridge. What will happen if the rest of the world agrees to higher emissions targets? Well, that’s actually a matter for Kevin Rudd, says Abbott. In truth, the Abbott fund proposal is a great idea. We should be investing more in carbon-reduction projects, and Abbott is proposing to invest directly in some emerging technologies like algal synthesis. But the idea that this is going to get us within cooee of a 5% reduction on our emissions with a growing economy and growing population is complete nonsense, regardless of what any self-interested industry might say. There is simply no system here for restraining or slowing our growing carbon emissions. The Coalition has proposed one of the few carbon abatement mechanisms that is even worse than the Government’s CPRS. |
|
|
|
77 Comments
I heard Tony Abbott talking today about sticking solar panels on a million roofs. So let’s say that’s 1kilowatt per home we have a “power station” distributed across the country and rated at 1000megawatts.
It’s something, but only the equivalent of say ONE coal fired unit. Neither Abbott nor the other lot get it. We need legislation that enables the financing and construction of megawatt sized solar power plants ( PV or thermal).
Indeed Bernard, not within cooee.
Who does Abbot think he is fooling? WHAT A GOOSE!!!!!!!
In fact, Bill, it’s less than 1kW. The sun doesn’t shine all the time. Abbott’s suggestion is pissing against the wind. And the tree growing scheme is a platitude too. 20 million trees won’t even make a dent in Australia’s emissions. And anyway, it’s not a real LONG TERM sink.
I think Abbott is just as much of a denier as the other dingbats in his party. This is a platitude so that he can look like he’s got a policy because most people still think “something should be done”. If he actually won government (god help us) this would be all forgotten, just like the ETS he took to the last election.
20 million trees? Sounds like a lot. It’s not. At typical plantation densities of 1200 per hectare that’s 16,700 ha. Victoria alone has 360,000 ha. of plantations.
Nice to have a few more trees, but utterly trivial.
This is the equivalent to sacrificing a chicken to the Climate God.
Bob Hawke planted the first of “one billion trees” at the Murray/Darling confluence in 1989…I think the poor little bugger died (the tree, not Hawke, dammit). It’s not clear if any of the “one billion trees” every made it…In 1998, in response to a question in parliament, an MP inquired about the welfare of the missing trees. The answer was
“The One Billion Trees Program has now been subsumed within the Natural Heritage Trust’s Program—
Bushcare: The National Vegetation Initiative.”
Don’t you just love the verbiage- “The national vegetation initiative”…jesus.
Anyway, “Greening Aust” claimed to have them in the ground:
“Greening Australia has estimated that over the life of the program, approximately 1.1 billion trees and
shrubs were established by planting, direct seeding or assisted natural regeneration.”
I smell rubbery figures burning…but never mind, the point is that one billion trees might make some difference to Australia’s ravaged environment. 20 million won’t. Sadly, neither quantity will have any effect on global climate, whether you’re an AGW cult devotee or not.
It is great to see alternative policy that doesn’t revolve around a tax.
Further more, it is great to see Urban Forests and green corridors receive mention at a national level. Urban Forests have a multitude of social, environmental and economic benefits that contribute to the liveability of Australian communities. For example, they reduce cooling costs and peak energy demand, improves thermal comfort in outdoor areas, reduces heat-stress related events and in general, enhances the liveability of Australia urban environments. In addition, Urban Forests can also fix carbon dioxide form the air and store the excess in woody tissues.
Interestingly, the Food & Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations promotes Urban Forestry as a component of sustainable urban development. http://km.fao.org/urbanforestry/
Moreover, Urban Forests has been recognised at a state level (i.e. SA Million Trees Program as part of the SA Urban Forest Biodiversity program) not to mention the Housing NSW Green Street Program.
“It is great to see alternative policy that doesn’t revolve around a tax.”
Not at this stage it doesn’t. But it will be interesting to see where the money IS going to come from.
One small note on solar panels; knock at least 25% off the 1kW figure for inverter losses. After 10 years, knock off another 25% (off the National total) as inverters fail and lazy households don’t replace them. It’s hard to see Australia meeting their targets with distributed power projects like this. Almost the most expensive form of generation known to man too.
Urbangreen, agree with all you say. But it helps diddly-squat to remove appreciable amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. Abbott is using this as part of his solution for CLIMATE CHANGE.
Saying that they want debate is a bit late …. the public and the parliament have been debating it for years. What ‘new’ alternatives are likely to pop up that haven’t been discussed ad nauseum already?
Yes to planting more trees … but the rest is pie in the sky
Surely trees have some experience at planting themselves? Forests seemed to be doing just fine before we came along. I had the impression that what was in contention was the land that the trees were growing on. Which makes me wonder, where are these urban forests going to be exactly?
It seems unlikely that Mr Abbott is suggesting demolishing houses and businesses for these urban forests, so perhaps they are high-rise forests.
Or perhaps they really are on marginal agricultural land. However I thought that “marginal” meant that it was hard to get things to grow there, eg because of rainfall, salinity etc?
Taking the idea to its logical conclusion, the one place you could really plant a lot of trees without a political backlash is the desert.
Clearly this is what Mr Abbott had in mind..
GregB - Data presented at a conference recently in Melbourne indicated multiple direct and indirect benefits of trees in the urban environment. http://www.universitas21.com/GRC/GRC2009/Fairman.pdf
Some of the indirect benefits relate to energy savings from less reliance on cooling and heating costs associated with shade provided by trees.
Direct benefits will be stored carbon in trees as well as the ongoing CO2 captured through photosynthesis.
There is a great website in the states that covers the breadth of research related to urban forestry. http://www.naturewithin.info/
Marcus van Jager - There are options available in urban landscaped that are prohibitive to urban forests. These options may include green roofs and vertical walls. http://greenroofs.wordpress.com/ The sky is the limit – literally!
Urbangreen, I smell an industry proponent or lobbyist. It is pretty dishonest not to reveal that in your sales spiel.
While I agree that building efficiencies and new industry and jobs around renewable power (and other like-minded initiatives) is laudable, the target of 5% is little more than tokenism. What’s more, such a small target is hardly an incentive to build a sustainable sustainable energy industry.
Its an interesting idea. Sounds a little like the scheme running in New Hampshire in the US. They run a state fund that invests in green house gas reducing projects. Its called the GGERF if you want to look it up.
As Evan says, it will depend on how it is financed. The New Hampshire Fund is funded by a state based ETS called the RGGI (10 states, auctions permits for the right to emit CO2, number of permits reduce over time to reduce CO2) . The Liberals don’t have that option, unless they decide to onsell the carbon abatements into the international markets (if that is even possible)
The tree thing is a bit of a side show in my opinion.
How long does it take a tree to grow? What type of tree? At what stage of its maturity does it become beneficial to the countries (worlds) environment?…..thanks
It’s a con job to do absolutely nothing about climate change, because the Coalition leadership believes climate change is “absolute crap”.
And they would make taxpayers pay, and not the polluters.
More Liberal taxes, obviously.
I seem to have a vague memeory of Malcolm Turnbull mentioning something about overseas countries paying us to plant trees here for them, to help the o/s country reach their own targets for CO2 abatement. Maybe that’s how Mr Abbott thinks he will fund this intiative?
Though I must say, with Barnaby Joyce’s ‘New Best Friend’ Peter Spencer leading the charge for farmers to be able to chop down trees on their marginal land again, down the line it may all end in tears, unless Mr Abbott could persuade other countries to pay over the odds to get our farmers to grow Carbon Sinks, akak trees, for them. Frankly, I don’t think there’ll be too many takers for that one.
On the other side of the equation, wasn’t the Coalition also going to pay other countries to not cut down their own trees?
It all sounds like a very expensive exercise, once finally costed, that much I do know, and potentially another agrarian socialist rort for the rural constituency of the Coalition.
Also, when MT was advocating a ‘Just Plant Trees’ approach, someone did the math and calculated that to produce any viable CO2 reduction results, most of Australia’s arable land, as well as the marginal stuff, would have to be appropriated. As I recall, the NFF were non-plussed, and called him on it, whereupon the policy seemed to die a death, until now.
Maybe Abbott hopes he can stare down the naysayers where MT could not.
All in all, though, this is basically a Pie-In-the-Sky Climate Change policy. No, better still, it’s a Clayton’s Climate Change policy. The policy you have when the majority of your party don’t really want one, but the Australian people want you to be seen doing something.
so if the coalition and the ALP have policies to combat global warming can we all agree it’s actually happening and move on?
SBH,
It’s the Coalition’s Claytons Change Policy.
The Climate Change policy you have when you don’t believe in Climate Change.
maybe Lord Monckton could Chair Abbott’s ‘expert panel’?
Hey Tony:
theres a bushfire over here.
Tony:
just piss into the wind, that’ll fix it !
Going back to Frank Campbell’s comment near the top.
Yeah we [friends and rellies] have planted 15,000 trees [all local natives] at our place in the last decade or so.
Pretty good eh [and we are proud of it actually, took a lot of hard yacka and some of our money].
But only about 10% survived and are still here.
Planting trees is a good thing to do.
But it is not going to stop the polluters polluting.
The only credible policy is to phase-out coal power and coal exports by 2050 (or earlier if possible).
Of course, it’ll never happen: Coalition strikes gold with mining magnate
Good to see the Sheriff of Nottingham (and his band of robber barons) resorting to the use of the “S” word (Soil) after 20 odd years in parliament. This is despite supporting farmers angry at laws that prevent them clearing their land of native vegetation.
“Perhaps he’s finally accessed a paper published in 1893 by one W M Saunders Director of Experimental Farms who said “ that from the productivity factors controlled by farmers, none is more important than the maintenance of the soil which is the chief aim of all good farming and on which a continuance of good crops mainly depends. In the soil a large store of fertility has been laid up but through careless and injudicious management, may be prodigally wasted.”
Meanwhile the Sheriff’s farmer friends persist with the notion that all environmentalists are city dwellers, sipping lattes, devoid of the necessary brain cells to implement good rural practices. Nevertheless, the Sheriff’s farmer friends have managed to strip 50 – 80% of soil carbon from Australia’s farmlands. In addition, taxpayers are contributing to the cost of almost $1 billion per year to tackle the calamity of dryland salinity in WA and the Murray Darling Basin alone. I’ll have a wager that the deserts will win if the Sheriff of Nottingham, the new leader of stupid, wins government at the next election.
I forgot to add that I expect TA to choose the handsome farmer, and ex-Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson to chair his ‘expert panel’. He probably needs a paying gig, and he’s always been easy on the eyes…which might suck a few more women voters into the Coalition tent.
Anyway, what I really want to see is Ross Garnaut rubbishing this policy, because he’s certainly tried hard to take the paint off the government’s CPRS recently, and the Coalition Climate Change policy is orders of magnitude more Mickey Mouse.
Flower: you’re quite right. In 1893 Saunders criticised ‘careless and injudicious management”…still true. Paddock-thrashers rule. Worse than 1893 because of mechanisation and chemicals…
In 1850, Supt. La Trobe (later Vic governor) issued warnings about thistle infestation. In 1856 the Thistle Act (1st weed control act) was passed. By the 1990s, DPI and everyone else had given up. Weeds rule, OK. I’m surrounded by neighbours who ignore their Spear Thistles. Every year there’s a snowstorm of thistledown…
Now you know why the climate cult angers me- it will deliver power to loggers, paddock-thrashers and a legion of related ratbags.
Abbott has his say in the House of Reps on his Claytons climate change policy and who follows him to second his motion? His environment spokesperson Hunt and co author of the policy? nope. The Nats leader then, former environment whizo? nope. So important is the Coalitions answer to the Govts policy, no environment spokesperson speaks second up but pouting Chrissie Pyne steps up to the despatch box. There was a mass exodus from the Govt benches, and the Opposition side including Abbott. What a mess. Its to be hoped red Kerry gets stuck in if he has the monk on the 7-30 report.
whilst the devil will be in the detail, I find it refreshing to have an environmental plan that actually involves improving the environment rather than just containing emissions within a said threshold.
some bloggers are debating the worth of trees….. sheesh…. I wish trees were held in the same regard as oil. whilst I am an expat, I sense that public sentiment has long moved on from any of the ALP environmental proposals?
“Tony Abbott has announced a confusing and sketchy direct action policy on climate change centring on an unfunded multi-billion dollar “Emissions Reduction Fund” that will invite carbon reduction bids from firms and, as expected, a major drive on tree planting and biosequestration.”
BK, more confusing than the Governments ETS? Why is it sketchy seems fairly straight forward…are you confused yourself?
Unfunded…well opposition policy will always be somewhat under/over funded…its called not having a government department to fully score your proposal….
the rest of your piece is to stupid to respond to.
I won’t argue about the 1kW for the household output GregB - there’s a lot of variability there. It’s the sheer mismatch of numbers that does not get mentioned. The demand is massive compared to what a household PV system can generate even if there were 20 million of them. And let’s not ignore growth in demand!
ABBOTT’S SMOKE AND MIRRORS
Abbott has announced a target that means that the generators must maintain their carbon intensity - this means that Brown Coal Generators can continue to produce more electricity as long as they produce the same amount of carbon per KWh generated. Given that the electricity demand is growing at 5% per annum, this means that they can grow indefinitely as long as they keep to the same level of carbon intensity but increase their actual emissions year on year .
This beautiful policy is to be funded by $1bn of Government money which can only come from tax revenue…
Trees will play an important role going forward but this policy is fundamentally falwed as it allows industry to continue growing its total carbon emissions.
Assuming 1kw is the target and at the best retail pricing I can find which after bribes & kickbacks is what I suspect a govt would pay. Keep in mind solar arrays fall way short of maximum output much of the year.
8x250watt panels at $800 per unit = 2000watt@10hrs (pending where you life is average yearly output per day@maximum output levels).
Just the panels, $6400 x 1,000,000
AHA! Just watched 7:30 report … and TA floundered. Badly. Straight answers just didn’t exist.
He answered direct questions with the soundbites of the day ‘labors big fat tax’ and ‘money-go-round’ amongst others, and tried to have the viewers believe (again — he said it several times today) that under the CPRS the taxpayers carry the entire freight.
If they want to fund this carrot, what essential services will have to go? Hmmm. Now let me think. Maybe they can get rid of medicare entirely? Or why not stop the middle class welfare? Private health insurance rebates for the wealthy comes to mind … wait, no, that few hundred dollars a year we (and I’ll readily admit I’m one of them) get given whether we want it or not is sacrosanct.
The hypocrisy would be laughable if these people weren’t in positions of power.
I cannot believe that these pollies think the electorate is that stupid or that unaware!
Why does everyone seem to think that the CPRS is so difficult to understand anyway? Admittedly, I’ve taken the time to try and understand it … but it is based on logic, on what the markets and the economy needs to do to survive in a low carbon world, and provides compensation to the consumer … unlike the GST which left the consumer with the all the cost since he sits at the end of the proverbial foodchain.
It’s a shame Mr Policy didn’t see fit to recycle some of Turnbull’s Green Carbon Initiative from this time last year. In it Turnbull espoused energy efficiency projects, new technologies like CCS, and - this is the good one - biosequestration, which includes much more than just tree planting.
While the Mad Monk has adopted the tree planting schtick, as many commenters have already pointed out 20M trees is small change.
Turnbull’s approach at least had the balls to include biochar, algal sequestration (a truly exciting possibility) and grass/shrub planting on marginal lands that often had the added benefit of desalinating soils.
While hardly enough in their own right to reach even 5%, let alone the 50%+ that we’re going to need by mid-century, these were nevertheless interesting possibilities worthy of exploration. I’ve heard nothing from either side of politics on them since the Green Carbon Initiative went the way of the dodo around about last Feb. Pity, that.
I too watched the 7:30 report and found Abbott’s policy to be irrational. Kerry O’brian is fantastic at identifying poltical rhetoric and making advesrsion overt.
My biggest concern about Abbott’s cliamate and political agenda is that he has the capacity to make the irrational seem logical. In a countrty that is generally politically passive, I think he may influence swing voters.
“But it will be interesting to see where the money IS going to come from” says Evan.
My guess: $900 from 2/3rds of the electorate…..
I wonder what hocked plasmas go for at the local Cash Converters?
At least China has no bone in the secondary market.
@Timbo: In a country that is generally politically passive, I think he may influence swing voters.
It is the biggest worry of all, since much of the media is so anti-labor, they give the coalits more airplay than they deserve in order to sell the nonsense they espouse.
Perhaps there needs to be the kind of ‘groundswell’ of base voters emailing and calling their local members as supposedly happened at the time of the lst ETS senate vote.
Actually……..
At that rate Abbott could reduce our emissions by 10%
I have seen some pathetic performances by politicians over the years but by God that effort by the mad monk on the 7-30 report truely justifies his nic name. The man has no idea what he is talking about, he is still in denial, he does not believe in global warming, he trots out the same over used hackneyed one liners, as in the House this afternoon. This is the idiot Minchin has put in Turnbulls seat, it is a bloody joke. 20 million trees!!!!, best the goose finds one, way out in the Simpson desert and lives under it, thats all the use the clown is, none…and he is as ugly as sin to boot.
I cannot believe the Libs are that desperate to have this nong as leader. the fat man from North Sydney must be wetting himself in anticipation of Abbott leading them to an election.
David – have you even read the Coalition policy with regards to 20 million trees? Do you realize that these will be planted in urban forests…that is urban environments where the majority of Australians live including you presumably? Would you rather stand in full sun and bake or retreat under that shade of a tree? So you park your car under a tree on a 40 degree summers day? The indirect benefits of urban forests are absolutely amazing.
Tony Appleseed
Haven’t I heard this fairytale somewhere before ?
Urban forests are great landscaping, yes they help reduce heat island effect etc, but their effectiveness on climate change- zip.
and urbangreen the other area Tony Abbott mentioned was marginal farming land, WTF??
If we were really serious we would replace cotton crops with hemp, which is faster growing, works as green mulch (and therefore returns CO2 to the soil) and can be used for fibre, fuel and food.
The really annoying thing with TA harping on about the “great big new tax” is, his scheme requires actual taxation to fund it, whereas if business are smart and adopt CO2 minimisation strategies early, the CPRS could provide them with a profit in the form of unused credits.
I think I would have liked the policy more if they’d just said “All we’re going to do is buy Hazelwood Power Station and replace it with a peaking gas turbine. Thanks, that is all.”
The thing I don’t understand in this policy is how they can guarantee to meet a National target?
Anyone else spot the possible problem with ‘solar panels on a million roofs’ and ‘20 million trees’ - nice, shady trees - in those same urban areas?
Urbangreen: I was always under the impression that trees and parkland within urban areas are the responsibility of local government and have been apart of beautification programs for some time.
Additionally, it has been urban planning policy for quite some time to increase urban density so as to reduce urban sprawl, thus reducing environmental impacts. It appears these policies are in opposition. Although I support the idea of greener cities, the focus should be on renewable energies and sustainable farming to support the growing consumption of cities.
I would also like to know how we measure 20 million trees? is it how many are planted? and if so what if 5 million die or are cut down?
So JamesK, are you saying you actually don’t have a problem with a massive new tax so long as it is one imposed by the Coalition?
It is incredibly ironic that those who are calling the ETS a “massive new tax”, which it is not, have actually ended up supporting something which IS a tax and will cost them more than the ETS.
Very interested in seeing some media interrogation of Abbott along the lines of urban forests = bushfire hazard.
Shouldn’t be too hard for some hack to link bushfire royal commission to Abbott’s shithouse, cop-out CC policy.
But I guess we’re all on Crikey because we’re so underwhelmed with mainstream journalism.
So all this press coverage lately is lies again? So Global Warming and Climate Change are real? I am confused with that. I will not and do not believe in man amde Global Change, and I think any little things we can do will be better for the world anyway. More and more reports are coming to lite stating its bull so lets not jump just yet hay?
James P: see my post of 3.01pm.
You’re right. Integrated land management doesn’t exist in Australia. Abbott’s plan is incoherent. That doesn’t matter, because it’s just a stalling device to deflect Rudd’s expensive AGW plan, which itself will have no effect on GW at all.
Abbott is proposing a trivial number of trees (over a decade!) as “urban forest” and “marginal farm land”. Where would the urban trees go? Into bushurbia? No doubt he means eucalypts. 4% volatile oils. Didn’t he notice Black Saturday? We’ve already seen a redneck backlash against native veg. At the very least there’s a political problem there…
Urbangreen notes the many advantages of urban trees. In close proximity to buildings, roads and people, who wants eucalypts? Hopeless for shade. Drop limbs easily. Are notoriously messiduous. Their detritus is somewhat toxic to plants and rots down very slowly. From an urban point of view, most eucalypts are an arsehole on a stick. You don’t want them in your face. So, chose exotic but suitable eucalypts and other natives….that’s one limited possibility. Better, plant deciduous trees like oaks etc. Real shade. Real windbreak. But then dammit you come up against Nativist zealots!
Or pack more native trees into existing urban open space…OK, but why? You do get the impression that the two months the Coalition spent chewing this policy over produced little but confusion. Certainly on trees.
As for “marginal farm land”, what’s the point? To add 2% or whatever to the national plantation stock? It’s a joke. Plantations are a major wildfire hazard now, and dry out streams…if the addition is permanent mixed forest, fine, but still trivial. I think the shadow cabinet put trees in because it will press the electoral Tree button, which gives a warm green feeling followed by a vote…
@Dewgong
I think the point is that if $10 billion is Rudd chump change then $4 is just a rounding error.
Why so bitter?
Didn’t you get your aforesaid chump $900 plama screen starter ‘investment’?
Leaked Shadow Cabinet transcript:
Tony Abbott: I think ahhh that we need to be really bold here ahhh and plant 20 million ahhh trees in cities and ahhh crap farm land…
Kevin Andrews: That’s an incredible number of trees Tony. Are there enough seeds?
Tony A: Yes , ahhh, it is, but we have to ahhh show we’re serious about this climate change crap…
UrbanGreen…wondering what the major impact on ‘climate change’ the 20 million trees will have. Im not certain the reason Abbott is making the planting a major part of his planet saving policy, is to provide shade for us urban dwellers and our vehicles. Where I live there are an edequate number of trees already, but of course there are plenty of open spaces to choose from.Deserts, plains, salt lakes, oodles of choices What type of tree to plant? therein is the question.
How hilarious to see the solar muppets espousing on the virtues of such a ludicrously expensive and inefficient addition to the base load power base, until…
Tony Abbott comes put with a plan for solar panel rebates to a million homes and it’s suddenly a stupid idea.
And then there’s the previously good (under Labor) - now bad (under Tony) - suggestion planting of trees…
Well, umm…that’s just wrong.
Hilarious stuff. The gift that keeps on giving.
Mama, I can’t speak for others, but I’ve always thought the Government paying for solar on roofs was an inefficient way to provide low emissions power.
I’ve also thought it was an inefficient way, Mama. There you go again, building those strawmen! Your carbon footprint must be huge with all the carbon you rip from the soil to build your strawmen!
Frank Campbell - Who was talking about Eucalypts? There are multiple options available including native and exotic plant species.
David - Sure its only one component of the policy. There are many urban areas that have open space that may be adequate for trees and more broadly vegetation.
Jamie.paterson - The policy document indicates that areas for urban forests will be carefully selected in consultation with local authorities and communities, and in accordance with principles of public safety, including fire and road safety provisions.
Oldskol - urban forests do have a key role to play in mitigating climate change. There are several reports on the web that capture this. Take a look http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/urban-forests/
Hey there Big Fat Mamma, you like your mate Abbotts trees, so how will the planting of said trees assist climate change? How long will it take to plant said trees (50 years?), who will plant them/ perhaps the asylum seekers from Christmas Island at 5 bucks an hour? What will be the loss rate of said trees through death, climate, lack of water, land clearing by farmers etc etc. Abbott cant produce the answers, as you are the fountain of all knowledge on these and all other matters, please shed some light, preferably sonar.
It appears Frank that we are in agreement, even on the proposed ETS which brings me to the same old tedious question: What do you propose for Plan B? What do others propose since reiterations on my proposal remain void of response?
The Environmental Protection Act (or similar) was legislated in most Australian states (and also in the US) during the 70s. In both countries the Act has been corrupted, manipulated and exploited by industry, sycophantic governments and senior bureaucrats thus rendering the Act unenforceable.
The EPA legislation (properly enforced and suitably amended) should replace the ludicrous ETS. The “Polluter Pays” is already written into the Act, however, I look forward to the day when a Royal Commission is conducted into the affairs of EPA government agencies but more particularly, their sidekicks: the departments of “environment” and “conservation.”
In the Parliamentary Enquiry, “the lead pollution of Esperance WA” (where industry slaughtered 9,000 native birds), the bipartisan committee identified:
“Major failings in the Department of Environment’s industry regulation function and shortcomings in other regulatory agencies.
“The committee believes that these regulatory failures combined with the irresponsible and possibly unlawful conduct of the Esperance Port Authority, Magellan Metals Pty Ltd and BIS Industrial Logistics exposed workers and the community to unacceptable and avoidable health and environmental risks.
“Finding 18: Industry regulation by the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) is grossly inadequate.”
The same senior bureaucrats are running the show at DEC (except those who’ve jumped camp and are now on Alcoa’s payroll) so it’s “business as usual!”
The DEC’s shadowy cousins in the US operate in similar fashion : “ Coal Ash Industry Manipulated EPA Data, Ghost-Wrote Agency Reports for a Decade:”
http://www.alternet.org/story/145507/coal_ash_industry_manipulated_epa_data%2C_ghost-wrote_agency_reports_for_a_decade
Is there any hope for the survival of the species – any species?
@horatio blowerhorn
“…Hey there Big Fat Mamma…”
Hiding behind stupid childish insults betray a deep oedipal frustration and anatomical inadequacies.
Seek help.
And grow up.
@Evan Beaver
“…I’ve always thought the Government paying for solar on roofs was an inefficient way to provide low emissions power…”
Agree 100%.
What a shame Abbotts ‘policy’ didn’t include any blueprint for a widespread roll-out of nuclear power facilities to be constructed across the length and breadth of the land.
Now that would have been truly visionary.
No discussion about the future energy demands of a growing Australia can be taken seriously without involving U238.
100% Base Load Power
o% Emissions
To urbangreen from ruralgreen:
I think if you ask Father Tony he’ll say they were thinking of gum trees, to the extent they were thinking at all.
I’m pleased to see you don’t rule out “exotic” trees in urban areas. Better talk to those councils and catchment management authorities around the country who are busying destroying them and replacing them with either nothing (preferred) or pyrogenic natives…check out Clunes and Creswick for starters.
If you really believe that urban forests (a great idea) have a ‘key role in mitigating climate change’ you’re fantasising: the site you link to refers to shade and windspeed reduction. The US assumption is (as the illustration shows) great fat oak-like trees. I’m sure California for eg wouldn’t pack urban areas with eucalypts as they score poorly on both shade and windspeed reduction. In any case, available urban land is so tiny that CO2 reduction globally would be risibly small. The Right is right on this: given the shaky condition of the AGW hypothesis, any environmental work should have multiple justifications. Pity the Abbott plan is still a hodge-podge of unclarified ideas.
@ FLOWER (5:44pm)
If you are going to quote; quote with integrity:
” In the soil, a large store of fertility has been laid up…, which may … be continually added to and improved, but by careless and injudicious management may be prodigally wasted…”
http://www.soilcarboncoalition.org/files/pdf/Janzen_01.pdf
While Abbotts scheme is far from perfect, it does provide a vehicle to promote activities which could add to and improve soil fertility and organic life (carbon)..However, I am very skeptical about how is going to fund such a vehicle.
On the other hand, Rudd’s ETS also falls short of the mark… there has been no mention of soil carbon or sustainable agricultural practises; which is half the reason it was criticised in Kopenhagen.
Soil carbon and sustainable agricultural practises don’t fit in to this accounting based scheme; there are too many variables. If there is to be positive change in agriculture, funding needs to be provided to support farming families during the change over.
And what’s with the us and them mentality: “…farmer friends persist with the notion that all environmentalists are city dwellers”…
Some of the most effective (not just the loudest) environmentalists are farmers. From the work of P.A. Yeoman (http://www.yeomansplow.com.au/) in the 1950’s through to Peter Andrews’ Natural Sequence Farming (http://www.naturalsequencefarming.com/); farmers are living on the land, love the BUSH and rely on soil health.
Check out yesterdays story on Triple J’s HACK (http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/features/boomshadow/) or the latest issue of the Australian Farm Journal (http://www.farmonline.com.au/farmmags/AustralianFarmJournal/index.aspx) and you will see that the issues of Soil Health are at the forefront of farmers’ minds. The vast majority of farmers feel a moral obligation to leave the land in better condition, for the next generation.
So why are there salinity and fertility issues you may ask?
Controlled Environment Laboratory Analysis: Science at large has become too focused on statistically significant data sets; i.e. measuring a few variables in a controlled environment, then drawing conclusions on how the real world works.
Hence the UK Data scam.
Meanwhile, people who take a Wholistic approach like
Elaine Ingham (http://www.soilfoodweb.com.au/), and
Maarten Stapper (http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/stapper/default.htm) face an army of academics willing to discredit their work.
Rudd’s ETS will reduce emmissions, but there also needs to be funding set aside for sustainability projects; in this regard Abbott is on the right track.
On trees, I used to be blinkered about the virtues of native street trees vs exotics. Then I moved to Canberra. The oaks and liquidambah’s in particular are superb street trees. But I don’t think they’re a terrific idea for bushland rehab. Bird habitat considerations are much more important further afield.
“Hiding behind stupid childish insults betray a deep oedipal frustration and anatomical inadequacies.”
It appears that MPM is speaking from troubling personal experience here. Some women can be very unkind.
I think the point is that if $10 billion is Rudd chump change then $4 is just a rounding error.
But even if it is a smaller amount you would still support a tax to raise it yes?
I don’t think residents of northern Sydney will like Appleseeds planting program, we just got rid of the greenies, after the bushfires, not allowing controlled burning of national parks.
You are not planting more trees in my back yard unless you volunteer as a firefighter and give me your mobile number !
I wonder how the urban tree planting will be done? Our local council already has a green land maintenance and tree planting programme. I suspect a lot of the ‘urban’ money would go to councils and groups already tree planting who would have spent the money to plant trees anyhow and so there’s no real improvement in the amount of trees in urban areas, but the Libs could claim them in their 20 million count.
I am not against urban tree planting - I’ve participated in a few tree plantings myself - but I can see how quickly this could mean no real improvement on the way things were going to be anyhow.
If the shoe fits big mama wear it…not only are you devoid of a funny bone you are a sad sack as well. No matter slip the sack over the old prune like face, that will help old girl.
@Dewgong
Oh deary deary me….
It’s probably hopeless ……but pray for open mindedness and, with an attitude that perhaps there’s an alternative meaning to my original post other than the one you persist in fantasising about, try re-reading it.
Government money comes from where?
1. China(borrowed and unfortunately will need to be paid back…approx a record $150 billion on the way to $300 billion)
2. The aussie tapayer (never ever ever paid back unless you never ever paid in the first place and you vote ALP)
3. Playing with budget (robbing Peter to pay Paul see no. 2 for the ALP)
@ Frank Campbell 1:11pm
“I’m sure California for eg wouldn’t pack urban areas with eucalypts “…Surely you are joking here… Have you been to LA? Their highways / expressways are line with Eucalypts.
I agree with you that there are much better species that could be used.
But, maybe not the best example.
Murragang
I was simply endeavouring to truncate a lengthy post. The truncation in no way takes the quote out of context therefore your “integrity” innuendo is BS!
“Some of the most effective (not just the loudest) environmentalists are farmers.”
No doubt they are Murragang – these are the relatively new kids on the block but it’s a foolish man, snoring at the wheel, who endeavours to greenwash a major environmental calamity by espousing the good works of a few.
1. EPA Western Australia - State of the Environment 2007: Excerpts:
• “Loss and degradation of native vegetation continues to negatively affect biodiversity in WA.
• “The agricultural Wheatbelt zone is the most highly cleared area in WA due to past land clearing. Some local government areas have less than 5% of original native vegetation remaining.
• “About 7000 and 8000 hectares were approved for clearing in 2005 and 2006 respectively under the clearing provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (which equates to about 10 football ovals per day).
• “Over 14 000 hectares of land is lost to land salinisation each year (equivalent to 19 football ovals per day):”
http://www.soe.wa.gov.au/report/land/land-salinisation.html
2.
http://www.csu.edu.au/research/ilws/research/publications/crsr/docs/Critical_Landcare.pdf
“WA has not enforced ecologically sustainable productivity on the management of its publicly-owned rangelands. Whereas the land-use managers – whether of pastoral leases or agricultural freehold – are culpable for the resource degradation they tolerate or have caused, society is culpable for allowing those who have over-cropped, over-grazed, over-cleared and are continuing to do so.
“The common public good seems to have been neglected by government in favour of private landed property ownership. The plea of government ignorance could once have been sustained, but certainly not at any time during this last quarter century at least.”
Furthermore, the jolly old Farmers’ Federation, Pastoralists and Graziers are forever whinging and holding the nation to ransom, forgetting that their soil eroding, cloven hoofed livestock, and the crops which feed them, occupy 57% of Australia’s landmass but the farmers, never satisfied are now exporting live, anything that can manage to hop along on two legs out of four (with the help of an electric prod!) – all aboard!
These ships and their filthy bunker fuel, significantly increase global CO2 emissions and contaminate marine life. Slaughtering these critters in their own regions would reduce global emissions and benefit the economy of the nation, not just the profits of a few avaricious farmers but who cares, so lock up your cats, dogs and parrots (live ones only!) – the potential is enormous!
So JamesK, let me get this straight, to pay for the coalition’s plan you would be comfortable with either
A) Raising taxes on consumers
B) Cutting spending in the budget
C) Adding to the national debt
Correct?
@horatio blowerhorn
“…If the shoe fits big mama wear it…not only are you devoid of a funny bone you are a sad sack as well. No matter slip the sack over the old prune like face, that will help old girl…”
The adults are laughing at you dear boy.
Know how to tell the difference.
So Dewgong, out of those three things you mention, tell me which one(s) are not also key components of Kevin Rudd’s ETS plan?
@ Flower 3:18
Firstly, you did not provide the source for your obscure quote. It is not a recent document of common knowledge. You said it was “a paper”, provided the author and the year, but not TITLE or SOURCE.
Which is what I mean by integrity.
Also, you left a reasonably important part out of your quote: the fact that through correct management practises soil can “be continually ADDED TO and IMPROVED.”
Many farmers realise that historic practises are not sustainable. I am the first to admit that there is a major issue here; which is why I am advocating the inclusion of Soil Carbon in Climate Change policy. There are people endevouring to change the face of agriculture in Australia, through sustainable practises (e.g. controlled grazing, promotion of soil health, etc); but such change will not come over night and certainly does not come with out a COST.
However, trying to include Soil Carbon as part of an ETS would mean that funds would be taken up by Government Funded Carbon Accountants, rather than PROMOTING SOLUTIONS to the problems faced by modern agriculture.
My opinion is simply that Sustainable Agriculture activities need to be promoted and supported in any proposed Climate Change Policy. A Climate Change Policy will remain incomplete and ineffective unless these matters are taken into account.
I personally think that food is an important part of life and I would like to see a world where my kids aren’t facing a Global Food Shortage. I am not sure how much energy localised sluaghter would save being that such activities would require cool chain shipping. And I am not sure it would work when shipping to third world countires that do not currently have the required cool store infustructure to keep large volumes of meat.
The end of you post seems an little extreme and I hope you can change the world taking such a moral stance.
Do you grow ALL your own food???
Flower: spot on. What farmers say they’re doing, think they’re doing and are actually doing are three very different things.
Murragang: no, not joking. You misunderstood. A century ago California was infested with Eucalypts. They know them. So new urban plantings as per the site referred to would presumxbly avoid them at all costs.
Frank, I did not realise the problem with Eucalypts inLA was a century old. I obviously misunderstood your comment. Thanks for the insight.
“Firstly, you did not provide the source for your obscure quote.” Hey - get a life Murragang.
And there’s no justification for you to pull the moral card, endeavouring to obfuscate your ignorance on cool chain “shipping”. In addition, the third world countries to which you refer, have modern supermarkets and refrigeration.
Regional CO2 emissions from cool chain “shipping” can not be compared to three weeks on the high seas. A recent report is available. CCS can not be compared to feeding some 40,000 dead and diseased animals and hundreds of thousands of tonnes of drug laced faeces and urine every year to marine life and more particularly when millions of humans are starving!
“Do you grow ALL your own food???” Actually I do the best I can Murragang. You see I don’t much like consuming food from Australian agriculture due to the biosolids (human faeces) used as fertilizer (plus the gratuitous use of hydrocarbon based pesticides and insecticides!)
While I appreciate the necessity for recycling, consuming food which has originated from the collaborative endeavours of departments of environment and overly eager self-regulated growers, is not all that appealing:
“Sprinkled over each hectare were up to 30 kilograms of radioactive thorium, six kilograms of chromium, more than two kilograms of barium and up to one kilogram of uranium.
“On top of that there were 24 kilograms of fluoride, more than half a kilogram each of the toxic heavy metals arsenic, copper, zinc, and cobalt, as well as smaller amounts of lead, cadmium and beryllium.”
http://savingiceland.puscii.nl/?p=929&language=en
“An action group opposed to a biosolids storage facility at Annadale Farm in the mid-west Western Australian Moora Shire is hoping to win the support of state politicians.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/16/2006666.htm
The action group did not win the support of politicians - naturally, however, human sewage has been applied to Australian food and livestock crops for years and is increasing - so is food poisoning - now an estimated 5 million victims a year:
http://www.afgc.org.au/index.cfm?id=130