• A starting price of $23 per tonne of ‘carbon pollution’ (measured as CO₂ equivalent) to be paid by the 500 heaviest emitters and increasing by 2.5% over and above normal inflation, followed by a move to an emissions trading scheme in 2015,
• AU$9.2 billion of this money will go to assist many of the businesses and workers impacted by the plan,
• There will be tax cuts and pension increases to protect people from the inevitable price gouging by the major polluters, with a leap in the tax-free income threshold from $6k to $18k,
• AU$1.2 billion Clean Technology Program intended to drive energy efficiency in manufacturing and to support research and development,
• The closure of Australia’s most polluting electricity generators, to be replaced with gas-fired units by 2020,
• A $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation with a mission to to finance new clean energy technology,
• An Australian Renewable Energy Agency (AREnA) to manage $3.2 billion in clean energy investment,
• A target of 20 per cent renewable energy by 2020,
• and agriculture to be excluded from paying the carbon price in the immediate term.

All in all this is a massive leap forward for Australia with an emissions reduction trajectory being locked in at 5% reductions on 2000 figures by 2020, building up to n 80% reduction on 2000 figures by 2050. While personally I would have liked to see a more aggressive trajectory, with 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 and complete decarbonisation of the economy by 2050, the political realities in Australia simply ruled this out.

The full details are available on cleanenergyfuture.gov.au. — DS

Technorati Tags: Australia, carbon emissions, carbon price, carbon tax, CO2

Operation: Coolenation® is the primary school education resource that teaches the science of climate change to younger kids, and their teachers. In the video above, Operation: Coolenation programme manager, Pearl Tassell, introduces the programme.

Find out more from cooleantion.com, or check out the facebook page or follow @coolenation on Twitter. — DS

Technorati Tags: Climate Change, climate science, education, kids, schools, science

The Potsdam Institute research says that, if we are to have a reasonable chance of containing global warming to within 2 degrees, we only have a “budget” of 890 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions. This is a fixed budget, because carbon stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. So what is important is how much we emit?—?not when we emit it. If we continue to burn fossil fuels in line with our current business-as-usual approach, then we use up our budgeted emissions by 2024!

To add insult to injury, the quantum of fossil fuels required to emit 890 billion tonnes of CO2 is equivalent to only 25% of proven, economically recoverable reserves. This means that, in theory, 75% of known proven and probable reserves have no economic value.

This has startling implications for investors because there will either be (a) some form of global action that will seek to limit warming to 2 degrees; or (b) no effective action, with the consequence being runaway climate change. These are the only two options we have. The first one severely devalues our fossil fuel reserves as we scramble to reconfigure global energy networks; and the second one, while possibly maintaining the market value of those reserves for longer, is like driving off the edge of a cliff.

There will be a cost associated with carbon emissions, that’s inevitable. There will be investments into emissions reduction programmes on as massive scale, funded via carbon credits. This is what they mean by “a price on carbon”, and its implications are littered with unknown unknowns. One great way for you to get your head around what the impacts might be is to work out how much your liabilities might be, that is, what your firm’s carbon footprint is.

If you are an Australian small business then check out G3MS Lite, Carbon Planet’s amazing greenhouse gas accounting system for small business. It’s only $99. — DS

Technorati Tags: Australia, carbon, carbon accounting, climate, Climate Change, CO2, coal, fossil fuel, G3MS, investment, oil, planning ahead, small business

This is very encouraging news. Since the Rudd Government decided to shy-away from its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, it has been punished in the polls for its perceived spinelessness. Prime Minister Gillard, who seized power this morning in what has been termed a ‘bloodless coup,’ went on to say:

It is my intention to lead a Government that does more to harness the wind, and the and new, emerging technologies. I will do this because I believe in climate change. I believe human beings contribute to climate change, and is is as disappointing to me, as it is to many millions of Australians, that we do not have a price on Carbon. And in the future, we will need one. But first we will need to establish a community consensus for action. If elected as Prime Minister I will re-prosecute the case for a Carbon price, at home, and abroad. I will do that as global economic conditions improve, and as our economy continues to strengthen.

This is is excellent to hear. The carbon industry in Australia has been hammered by the government’s reversal on the CPRS with hundreds of millions of dollars in value collapsing amongst Australia’s listed ‘carbon companies’, in parallel to the rest of the world. Carbon Planet has not been immune from this either. Right now the carbon markets are a place for the true believers.

A formal mechanism for putting a price on Carbon is vital. Moreover that mechanism should be predicated on funds going towards projects with a minimum of friction, but with the highest standards of oversight, assessment and carbon accounting. I believe what we need is harder targets that harden to 110% below 1990 levels by 2050, fewer exemptions, limited free permits that are phased out quickly, a sunset on coal mining (30% of the world’s emissions come from Australia’s coal.) I doubt that stretch-target is achievable, but it’s what we need. — DS

Technorati Tags: #spill, #spillard Spillard, Australia, Australian Politics, Julia Gillard, politics, teamjulia

The Australian Government has shelved plans for a carbon pollution reduction scheme, preferring to wait and see what the rest of the world might or might not do. In November last year Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said:

When you strip away all the political rhetoric, all the political excuses, there are two stark choices: action or inaction… As one of the hottest and driest continents on earth, Australia’s environment and economy will be among the hardest and fastest hit by climate change if we do not act now.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald in a story “Rudd’s ETS flip-flop sparks climate chaos“, Penny Wong, Minister for Climate Change said:

… the delay would ”make meeting our [emission reduction] targets more expensive” and that without a carbon price Australia would not meet the targets at all.

So what is to be done? All all is not lost. There is still legislation in place such as the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act, enacted by the previous, conservative, Government to determine the raw baseline data upon which an emissions trading scheme might be based. The NGER requires companies who produce or consume more than a certain level of energy, or who produce more than a certain level of greenhouse gas emissions, to report their emissions (see thresholds here). This legislation came in in 2007 and the first reporting period only just ended with barely 60% of the firms that should have reported actually reporting. The fines for failure to report are in the order of $110k per default plus $11k+ per day they remain in default (and there are also clauses for civil penalties of around $200k and possible custodial sentences) and its been estimated that some $500 million in fines will be owing already based on this.

As I have said repeatedly, relying on the Government, any Government, to act in the best interests of its people is pure folly. One shining light in all of this is that Australia, historically, is an overachiever when it comes to voluntary action on climate change. Indeed Australia comprises around 5% of the world’s voluntary carbon market. Recognising this the Government will continue to push ahead with the National Carbon Offset Standard which establishes clear and unambiguous definitions for what comprises a valid carbon offset and defines ‘carbon neutrality’. This is a huge boost for voluntary action in Australia which, in the absence of a viable compliance scheme down-under is, for now, the best shot we have at making any sort of real difference.

What is certain is that the climate problem is not going to go away by itself, and the solution must be tied into an economic response. Firms caught in the NGER Act are being forced to report on their emissions and that in turn is stimulating them to then manage those emissions in anticipation of some sort of carbon price. And a price on carbon is inevitable.

”You can’t get to your targets without a cost on carbon … we have been very clear that we have to put a price on carbon,” said Minister Wong [yesterday].

If your firm is smaller than that required to report under NGER you are still almost certainly going to find yourself supplying goods and services to one or more of those NGER firms. These firms are typically instituting green procurement policies anyway and so there is a trickle-down effect in reporting.

No matter the Government’s inaction, Australian Business has an opportunity to embrace voluntary action and prepare itself for the time when carbon is properly priced.

To express your personal displeasure at the Australian Government’s back-flip, check out GetUp Australia. — DS

Technorati Tags: Australia, Climate Change, CPRS, economics, global warming

Here, for example, is what Plimer wrote on Australia’s ABC Network website last August:

The atmosphere contains only 0.001 per cent of all carbon at the surface of the Earth and far greater quantities are present in the lower crust and mantle of the Earth. Human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere must be taken into perspective. Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day.

John Cook of the increasingly popular Skeptical Science website currently lists the “volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans” viewpoint as number 54 on his ever-growing list – 107, to date – of debunked sceptic arguments.

I had the opportunity to see Ian Plimer in person at an event recently and there is no doubt he is a skilled, avuncular speaker who understands the power of a good narrative. He weaves fact and fiction seamlessly and with such confidence that it’s hard for an audience, even a smart, well read audience like the one I was at, to see where the truth ends and the lies start. That in my mind makes people like Plimer more dangerous than the ranting street-corner climate sceptics who have been popping up of late.

Plimer also neglects to mention the vast sums of money he is paid by his mining interests, or the money he’s made simply be being a professional climate change denier.

So cheers to The Guardian and to people like Jon Cook for presenting the bare facts.

Oh and if you, like me, have no clue how to pronounce Eyjafjallajökull, this little song might help. — DS

Technorati Tags: AGW, Climate Change, climate denial, CO2, CO2 emissions, debunking, Eyjafjallajökull, Ian Plimer, Iceland, sceptics, skeptics, volcano

Wow I just reduced carbon emissions in the UK by 45% from current levels. How? Well I closed all its coal fired power stations, and then closed oil and gas fired power too. I shut half of the UK’s nuclear reactors and built some massive solar and offshore wind farms. I reduced blighty’s reliance on imported food and improved manufacturing efficiency by a mere 12%. Then I mandated 50% electric cars, 100% electric rail, and moved heaps of freight from the roads and the skies and onto rail as well. I did all this and overall reduced travel and consumption by a realistic 0% and kept my energy production in a slight surplus. I’m now thinking of building giant underground batteries to keep the nation going even if another volcano blacks out the sun for a few months.

You can have a go yourself using the Guardian’s awesome interactive National Carbon Calculator.

The one thing it didn’t show me was how long all my changes might take and how much they’d cost. Nor did they give me an option for moving more people onto bikes, improving the walkability of cities, or give me the option to beam power down from giant space mirrors and grow rooftop gardens. That’s how I’ll get my next 45% reduction to be sure. — DS

The climate is changing and human activity is almost certainly to blame. That’s the conclusion of a new report called State of the climate just released by the Australian CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology.

This snapshot provides observations and analysis of Australia’s climate and the factors that influence it. Two organisations, CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology have combined to present this current picture of Australia’s climate.
The Bureau of Meteorology has been observing and reporting on weather in Australia for over 100 years, and CSIRO has been conducting atmospheric and marine research for over 60 years.

The snapshot is sourced from peer reviewed data on temperature, rainfall, sea level, ocean acidification, and carbon dioxide and methane levels in the atmosphere.

Some key facts from the report:

1. Since 1960 the mean temperature in Australia has increased by about 0.7°C
2. The number of days with record hot temperatures has increased each decade over the past 50 years
3. There have been fewer record cold days each decade
4. 2000 to 2009 was Australia’s warmest decade on record
5. The geographic distribution of rainfall has changed significantly over the past 50 years
6. From 1870 to 2007, the global average sea level rose by close to 200mm
7. The rate of sea level rise increased during the 20th century
8. During 1993 to 2009 sea level rise has been 1.5 to 3mm per year in the south and east of Australia and 7 to 10mm per year in the north and west
9. Sea surface temperatures around Australia have increased by about 0.4°C in the past 50 years
10. Ocean Acidification is now being observed at the base of the food chain in the Southern Ocean

What this means.

Australia will be hotter in coming decades

Australian average temperatures are projected to rise by 0.6 to 1.5°C by 2030. If global greenhouse gas emissions continue at current levels, warming is projected to be in the range of 2.2 to 5.0°C by 2070. Warming is projected to be lower near the coast and in Tasmania and higher in central and north-western Australia. These changes will be felt through an increase in the number of hot days.

Much of Australia will be drier in coming decades

In Australia compared to the period 1981-2000, decreases in rainfall are likely in the decades to come in south- ern areas of Australia during winter, in southern and eastern areas during spring, and in south-west Western Australia during autumn. An increase in the number of dry days is expected across the country, but it is likely that there will be an increase in intense rainfall events in many areas.

It is very likely that human activities have caused most of the global warming observed since 1950

There is greater than 90% certainty that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have caused most of the global warming since the mid-20th century. International research shows that it is extremely unlikely that the observed warming could be explained by natural causes alone. Evidence of human influence has been detected in ocean warming, sea-level rise, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns. CSIRO research has shown that higher greenhouse gas levels are likely to have caused about half of the winter rainfall reduction in south-west Western Australia.

Climate change is real

Our observations clearly demonstrate that climate change is real. CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology will continue to provide observations and research so that Australia’s responses are underpinned by science of the highest quality.

The CSIRO and the BOM are two of Australia’s most trusted, most respected scientific institutions. This report comes out at a time when many members of the public have been confused by the non-stop lobbying by fossil fuel industries, by charlatan academics and by a Government whose response to climate change has been lacklustre to say the least. Climate change is here, it’s real and it’s something Australians have to address head-on. — DS

Technorati Tags: Australia, BOM, carbon, climat change, climate, CO2, CSIRO, report, sea level rise

Media outlets have referenced the emails apparently stolen from University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in their recent reports on “record snowfall” and criticisms of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), suggesting that the emails “undermined” global warming research or reporting claims about what they “appeared to show.” Those media did not report, however, that scientists and fact-checkers have found that the emails, in the words of FactCheck.org, “have been misrepresented by global-warming skeptics” and “don’t change [the] scientific consensus on global warming.”

Indeed, if you do check out FactCheck.org’s story ‘“Climategate” Hacked e-mails show climate scientists in a bad light but don’t change scientific consensus on global warming.’ you find the following:

• The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
• Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
• E-mails being cited as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to “hiding the decline” isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The “decline” actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.

The full article, which is a fascinating insight into the way a small band of militant climate change deniers manipulated the media for their own weird ends, adds conclusively:

Even as the affair was unfolding, the World Meteorological Organization announced on Dec. 8 that the 2000-2009 decade would likely be the warmest on record, and that 2009 might be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. (The hottest year on record was 1998.) This conclusion is based not only on the CRU data that critics are now questioning, but also incorporates data from the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The next time someone starts screeching ‘climategate’ at you, you can cite the stories above. — DS

Technorati Tags: Climate Change, climate deniers, climate science, climategate, deniers, factcheck.org, global warming, hype, IPCC, lies, media, UEA, UNFCCC, University of East Anglia

Late last year Carbon Planet published a couple of White Papers on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation. One of those papers gave an overview of the history of REDD policy to date. The video above summarises that into a short timeline for your viewing pleasure. Enjoy — DS

Technorati Tags: carbon, climate, Climate Change, COP15, Copenhagen, forests, Kyoto, REDD, video policy