News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Australia's climate 'get-out' clause on bushfire slammed 

Australia's climate 'get-out' clause on bushfire slammed

02 Nov, 2009 05:58 AM
AUSTRALIA has been accused of pushing for a "get-out clause" on climate change that would grant it unlimited carbon credits from new forestry plantations while pretending that enormous greenhouse gas emissions from bushfire did not exist.

The Federal Government wants a Copenhagen climate deal to allow countries to opt to include forestry and crop lands that draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in their national greenhouse accounts.

Most land and forestry emissions, including "natural disturbances" such as bushfire and drought, would be excluded.

In a year such as 2003, when Victorian fires burned more than a million hectares, this could mean not accounting for up to 200 million tones of carbon dioxide - about a third of Australia's annual emissions.

Forestry emissions are among the many unresolved issues on the agenda at a week-long UN climate meeting starting today in Barcelona - the last formal talks before next month's Copenhagen summit.

The Australian position, in line with the structure of the existing Kyoto Protocol, is backed by Canada and New Zealand.

It raised the ire of the developing countries' bloc known as the G77, which wants to limit the offsets that can count towards a national greenhouse target.

Environmentalists say the Rudd Government is following the Howard government in lobbying for accounting rules that would reduce the pressure on greenhouse-intensive industries to change.

Greenpeace forests and climate campaigner Paul Winn said "emissions are emissions", having the same impact whether from bushfire or coal-fired power. He backed the G77 position.

''We all want to see better land management, we all want to see terrestrial sinks included, but up to now [land and forestry emissions] have just been a get-out clause," he said.

Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Owen Pascoe said Australia should use forestry offsets to increase its 2020 emissions target.

He said the ACF did not oppose excluding natural disturbances, depending on the details, but the Government was yet to define them.

Would, for example, a fire lit by a faulty power line be considered natural or caused by human hand?

Forest land is predicted to draw down about 42 million tonnes of carbon dioxide next year - about 7 per cent of Australia's annual emissions.

A Government spokeswoman said it wanted a deal that would encourage comparable effort from all countries to reduce emissions from deforestation.

It is widely acknowledged that a treaty is unlikely to be signed in Copenhagen.

The European Union offered some progress on Friday when it agreed that the cost of fighting climate change would top 100 billion euros ($A164 billion) by 2020, but did not back it with specific commitments.

A Climate Institute analysis suggests existing pledges would require Australia to take on a target of a 15 per cent cut below 2000 levels by 2020, based on the criteria that were set out by the Rudd Government.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1



RELATED COVERAGE

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Hardly fair if we get in trouble for a natural bush fire. They say that 1 million hectares of bush fire causes 200 million tonnes of CO2. I am pretty sure that's more than 3 million hectares of Australia each year. I am sure that these people do not do many checks before they start blowing this stuff out.
Posted by Bruce, 2/11/2009 7:17:06 AM, on Queensland Country Life
I always thought their "science" was corrupt. Who taught these people to think? They still haven't learned that if you have your cake and eat it too then it must have been somebody else's cake that you ate.
Posted by Ted O'Brien, 3/11/2009 5:57:49 AM, on The Land
Am I right in the the understanding that if these offsets were included and 'natural disturbances' not exempt, then every time there was a drought, the farmers would cop a bill for the associated emission? Sounds fair - NOT
Posted by The orchardist, 3/11/2009 8:30:32 AM, on Queensland Country Life
The only reference I could find in the green paper regarding soils was a graph on page 121. The pale blue line on the graph shows Australia’s emissions without land use, land use change and forestry (article 3.4 activities) included. The yellow line was Australia’s emissions with full article 3.4 activities included.

The paragraph above the graph drew attention to the current risks in accounting for the variability of emissions from land systems and the impact that large variations in emissions would have on ongoing abatement incentives for farm businesses.

But what I find absolutely fascinating is that, while the yellow line has more ups and downs, if you take a long-term view of the yellow line, the average emissions are LESS with full article 3.4 included.

And this is in the complete absence of any incentives to change agricultural management to actually capture and store carbon. And the data covers the past decade which has been one of the most drought-affected in our history.

While there can be a significant loss of carbon in fire, drought or inappropriate practices, this carbon, plus more, will be rapidly recovered after the drought ends and forests regrow

Posted by soil carbon, 3/11/2009 8:44:13 AM, on Queensland Country Life
Watch the greens squirm. They are now the exclusive custodians of vast areas of forest and it is their negligent management policies that directly influence the volume of CO2 emitted in their broadscale megafires.

Some figures for NSW fell off the back of a truck a few years ago which indicated 700,000 ha of National Park were burned while a similar total area of State Forest only lost 70,000 ha to megafire. Meanwhile, a larger area of Private Native Forest lost only 7,000 ha.

So it is about time the various state EPA's were made to pay for their carbon emissions from their own budgets.

Staff cuts would be a good place to find the necessary funds. And they could always thin some burned out regrowth for woodchips to fund the rest.

Posted by Ian Mott, 3/11/2009 10:12:22 AM, on Queensland Country Life
What happens to those countries that have volcanoes? Do their emissions count in their totals?
Posted by Just Thinking, 3/11/2009 12:11:51 PM, on Queensland Country Life
You should remember that the whole carbon industry is based on complete untruths. The more CO2 the better it is for us and for the plant life.
Posted by Len, 3/11/2009 12:16:38 PM, on Farm Weekly
Grazing pastures and ruminant livestock make far better sense to me for carbon sequestration.

I asked the CSIRO for figures of CO2 released from bushfires some years ago, following the disastrous Snowy Mountains fires in NSW but silence prevailed. Were the Victorian bushfires really only 1/3 of our annual emissions or maybe more? It is good this is finally coming out.

Posted by Common Cents, 3/11/2009 1:04:25 PM, on The Land
Good question, 'Just Thinking', and as a matter of fact the volcano smoke together with the uncontrollable forest clearing smoke in Indonesia the past seven years or so is the cause of our continuing droughts. The government is aware of it yet nobody is doing anything about it.

Google in the name Keith Potts and check it out. What do you others think about this? How can we help fix the problem because the fires are now burning in peat 15 to 30 meters deep.

Posted by Will, 3/11/2009 7:23:24 PM, on Stock Journal
I remember reading an article by Alexander Downer in which he said we shouldn't fear rapid increases in population and the effects on our carbon output, as it really is just transfering the emissions from the Third World into Australia (no increase, just a change in location). Perhaps we can convince the G77 and UN that by exporting our cattle (which the Greens claim are warming the planet through their incessant flatulance), that too is just a transfer of emissions? Perhaps we could work into the whole credit scheme an offset through exports? What a ridiculous farce. Who is running this BS?!
Posted by Andrew Phillips, 8/11/2009 6:33:48 PM, on Stock Journal

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
30 October, 2009
31 October, 2009
POLL
Q: Should the Nationals and Liberals dissolve the Federal Coalition?

Yes
(47.1%)

No
(46%)

Undecided
(6.8%)

Total Votes: 526
Poll Date: 01 November, 2009

Most popular articles

Ray White Rural Horse Deals Australia


 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...