Archive for November, 2008

Introduction and Discussion of the Australian Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Green Paper

Written by Caroline Hoisington on Sunday, 23 November 2008

A Cleantech.org and GHGblog.com Briefing Paper by Caroline Hoisington, Resource Economist

Introduction: the Green Paper

A number of commentators on the Green Paper for the proposed Australian Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme that will enable Australia to meet its international obligations under the Kyoto Agreement have said that it is lacking in specifics. Actually, the Green Paper contains a great deal of information on the Government’s proposals for how the cap and trade emissions trading scheme (ETS) will work at various levels. However, it does not contain many numbers but focuses on the mechanisms. More detailed numbers - estimates of economic and financial impacts of introducing the cap and trade scheme - are to be included in the White Paper, to be released in October.

The framers of this proposed ETS have taken on a complex challenge, in an area where experience around the world is still developing. By signing the Kyoto agreement, Australia is joining the leading group of countries in this regard, and if the Australian plan is not weakened with measures that will undermine the incentives it creates, it may help Australia to earn new revenues and create new employment opportunities by becoming an innovation leader.

(more…)

Soil Carbon from rangelands in the US

Written by Karla Bell on Sunday, 16 November 2008

Scientist, Allen Savory in his paper “A Global Strategy for Addressing Global Climate Change describes a holistic method of restoring grazing lands, arid lands and degraded lands using methods of animal husbandry that mimic nature and restore soil health, increase biodiversity and absorb carbon back into the soils. He says, soils are further degraded by industrial agriculture using pesticides and chemicals and modern methods of animal husbandry. Dr Savoury has founded holistic management as a movement.

Dr Allen Savoury has 50 years of scientific and practical experience with a network of farmers now representing 30 million acres worldwide using his holistic management techniques. Holistic management has been proven to work even in drought for over 23 years.

His work is very timely and needs to be explored as more focus on Agricultural Emissions as a contributor to GHG emissions is emerging. So far global projects under CDM/JI have not considered soil carbon and no methodologies have been approved. Most new proposed Emissions Trading schemes including Australia, and New Zealand do not include agricultural offsets, the exception is the proposed US Cap and Trade mooted for 2009. To pass the Senate support from rural American states will be necessary. Soil carbon credits may be the rural stimulus package that Clean Tech is for the cities’ utilities and transport infrastructure.

If the car industry spearheaded by GM has to reinvent itself so may the agricultural sector. Following close on the heels of Global Climate Change is a food crisis noted by UK Scientist Professor Lang and some like Scientist Dr Allen Savory believe these twin issues are linked and part of the same problem.

The first and current high technology path under the current Kyoto Protocol focuses on reducing GHG emissions from industry, utilities and transport by plant improvements, fuel switching from coal to gas or oil to bio-diesel and using alternative energy such as solar, wind, nuclear as examples. The high tech path is the focus of mainstream Scientists including the IPCC where the focus is on reducing fossil fuel emissions. It does not address the burning of the world’s grasslands, savannah and does not mention land degradation as a major source of carbon emissions leading to Climate Change.

Furthermore, Savoury maintains that low impact agriculture is the second path, to combating climate change and the only path that can deal with the existing build up of carbon emissions in the atmosphere.  Savoury also notes the limitations on carbon sequestration underground or in the oceans and as many others have noted in the long term carbon can be expected at some point to be released or cause ocean acidification.

Organic farming is often seen as the solution as it may not use chemical and pesticides but this does not mean it is a naturally managed system integrated with animals. The new agriculture will need to be truly holistic in that it mimics nature and restores soil health-keeping soils permanently covered. The cropping practices are more akin to nature’s poly-culture complexity than today’s single-crop fields that leave the soil bare between plants and rows and, in many cases, over the entire non-growing season.

Such a new agriculture will remove and store carbon from the atmosphere risk-free, while also increasing water retention. According to the United Nations, one-third of the earth’s land surface (10 billion acres/4 billion hectares) is threatened by desertification, the bulk of which is rangelands. And this estimate is conservative. Rangelands are similar to croplands in that if the soil is bare any time of the year, they will deteriorate and release carbon previously stored. At the same time the ability of such rangelands to store water is reduced. As so much of the soil in rangeland areas is bare - grasslands that appear healthy to anyone driving by in a vehicle commonly have 50% to 90% of the soil bare and exposed between plants - the erosion figures from them dwarf the dramatic figures recorded for croplands.

Soil Carbon farmer Tony Lovell and Bruce Ward  made a submission to the Garnaut Climate Chanage Review regarding Landuse, Agriculture and Forestry. They were suggesting that soil carbon be accepted as a source of carbon credits under Australia’s proposed Emissions Trading Scheme. They maintain that using holistic management far more land is available to store carbon. Estimates are that forestry projects could absorb about 5% of Australian emissions, but the real opportunity for acting as major carbon sink is the 64% of landmass of rangelands, crop lands, that currently remain an unrecognised sink for carbon emissions.

Dr Savoury takes exception to the notion that large herbivores cattle, sheep and goats producers of methane are the problem, but indeed could be a major part of the solution. The generally accepted wisdom is that livestock overgrazing and trampling is responsible for a major part of the land degradation as well as methane emissions.

See Clean Living, this blog on Food Miles

Savoury noted, “An alternative to grassland burning and inevitable desertification as a young biologist/game ranger in Africa in the 1950s. Studying the damage from Government policy to burn Africa’s grasslands, he noticed the healthiest land was associated with remnant wild populations of large game animals, where large populations of thousands of buffalo and  game, complete with packs of lions that followed closely and kept the herds bunched, the soil and vegetation was healthiest. What the wild, large concentrated herds did not consume, they trampled onto the ground, thus removing the old growth and preparing both plants and soils for new growth.

The animals in intact communities were doing what we were doing using fire, but doing it better with no adverse effects of soil, wetlands, springs and rivers. The world’s vast savannas and grasslands developed over millions of years with soil, soil life, plants, grazing herbivores and their predators-all acting as one vast indivisible functioning whole in nature.

The world’s large grazing animals run in herds as a defence strategy against pack-hunting predators. The larger the number of animals, both prey and predator, the larger the herd masses. Such herding grazers have what are referred to as non-self-regulating populations. This means their numbers are only controlled by accident, disease or predation, rather than any innate breeding control. Because they cannot regulate their own numbers these populations were often enormous with numbers running to many millions.

In fact, as we have discovered, only through increasing livestock numbers while planning their concentration and movement carefully can desertification be reversed on most rangelands. Once restored, rangelands can store even more carbon than croplands can for two reasons: the rangelands of the world dwarf the croplands in size; and most croplands support annual plants with lesser root volume and depth than the perennial plants of healthy rangelands. Root volume and depth is crucial to both carbon and water storage in soils.

The diaries of early explorers in Africa and the Americas record vast herds, which in all likelihood were but remnants of earlier much larger numbers. In the early 1800s, for instance, some 17,000 antelope were shot in a one-day hunt provided for the Prince of Wales in South Africa. Records kept by early South African pioneers describe substantial wetlands, sponges and springs associated with the vast herds but which dried up rapidly as soon as the herds were killed off and their former role was replaced with fire”.

If his approach to animal husbandry was adopted, we would not have to give up eating meat. Natural management practices following nature’s evolutionary herding methods, which co-evolved between plants and animals when millions of buffalo / bison / antelope ranged the American / African / middle-eastern rangelands are his solution. In fact he argues in times gone by far greater numbers of herbivores producing methane existed without causing Climate Change.

Using modern management techniques that truly mimic natural herding phenomena mean  carbon will be sequestered in soils. For the earth’s soils to once more sequester carbon as it once did - it is essential to restore living soils. Small increases in soil organic matter amount to billions of tons of carbon stored safely. Conversely, small decreases in soil organic matter result in vast amounts of carbon released to the atmosphere.

Restoring soil organic matter and soil structure also increases rates of water retention. Excessive soil exposure throughout most of the year leads to soil degradation and further exacerbated by industrial agricultural use of chemicals and pesticides.

The new agriculture is close to organic practices and more. It will have to allow natural systems to re-emerge with poly-culture complexity extending beyond plants to include animals particularly herbivores. This strategy has great appeal for Australia, Africa, Middle East and the US where large herbivores have ranged over grasslands.

Some Soil carbon scientists believe the entire legacy or carbon load could be absorbed in the world’s croplands if properly managed, which would mean the end of human-caused Climate Change as a problem. It is estimated that 24 billion tons of soil are eroded annually.

What to eat - Local food for less food miles, organic and less meat

Written by Karla Bell on Friday, 14 November 2008

British Academic, Tim Lang, on World Food Day, adviser to the UK Government on food security and tackling obesity, said one of the key ways Britain can help tackle Climate Change is through food policy. Lang, says, “not only should we buy local produce, but “we must cut down on eating animals and dairy foodstuffs to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases produced in rearing livestock”.

The popular wisdom on food and agricultural contributions to Climate Change has been espoused in terms of Food Miles, a phrase coined by Professor Lang. He has added two other parts to the ‘buy local’ movement solution to agricultural emissions that is buying organic to reduce pesticides and chemicals for human health reasons and to consume less meat as the conventional view is that herbivores produce large quantities of methane emissions contributing to Climate Change.  See main ghgblog.com for a contrary view by Dr Allen Savoury.

(more…)

International Energy Agency (IEA) says we must stop 6C of warming

Written by Karla Bell on Thursday, 13 November 2008

If you wake up today and look at the global crises in our lives and read the paper online or in hand, it just got a whole lot worse. The World Energy Outlook is calling for a global energy revolution to avert 6C degree of warming. The International Energy Agency (IEA) says global temperatures are on course to rise by 6C unless radical changes are adopted in the way the world produces energy.

Mark Lynas warned of the catastrophe that would befall us if we went to 6 C of warming in his book titled, Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet (Paperback). Mark Lynas writes an excellent blog also.

In an article summarizing his position in the London Sunday Times on the 15th of March 2007, Mark Lynas describes what happens to the earth with every one degree of temperature increase from 1 to 6 degrees. Six degrees does not sound much, it takes average global temperatures up from 15 to 21 degrees C, but it is hotter than the age of the dinosaurs. The earth is uninhabitable by humans. If the IEA is publishing dire warnings consistent with Lynas’s projections we need to move fast.

Lynas said, “If global warming continues at the current rate, we could be facing extinction. So what exactly is going to happen as the Earth heats up? Here is a degree-by-degree guide.

1 degree centigrade increase

Ice-free seas absorbs more heat and accelerates global warming as ice reflects heat; fresh water lost from a third of the world’s surface; low-lying coastlines flooded

2 degree centigrade increase

Europeans dying of heatstroke; forests ravaged by fire; stressed plants beginning to emit carbon rather than absorbing it; a third of all species face extinction

3 degrees centigrade increase

Carbon released from vegetation and soils speeds global warming; death of the Amazon rainforest; super-hurricanes hit coastal cities; starvation in Africa

4 degrees centigrade increase

Runaway thaw of permafrost makes global warming unstoppable; much of Britain made uninhabitable by severe flooding; Mediterranean region abandoned

5 degrees centigrade increase

Methane from ocean floor accelerates global warming; ice gone from both poles; humans migrate in search of food and try vainly to live like animals off the land

6 degrees centigrade increase

Life on Earth ends with apocalyptic storms, flash floods, hydrogen sulphide gas and methane fireballs racing across the globe with the power of atomic bombs; only fungi survive

Chance of avoiding six degrees of global warming: zero if the rise passes five degrees, by which time all feedbacks will be running out of control.

To avoid this catastrophe, in its 2008 World Energy Outlook, the IEA said that if present trends continued greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of coal oil and gas would be driven up inexorably putting the world on track for a doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by the end of the century. The IEA said that to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent - which would limit the  temperature increase to a more manageable 2C and prevent a runaway greenhouse effect, a drastic drop in all emissions would be necessary from 2020 onwards.

Secretary of Energy - Republicans Gov Schwarzenegger or Jim Woolsey

Written by Karla Bell on Wednesday, 5 November 2008

Congratulations to President Elect Barack Obama and his campaign team, excellent job! Now, we need to look at the team going forward. Who will be in his line-up is of great interest.

Jim Wolfensohn, ex-director of the World Bank, made a comment yesterday that the most important thing, President Elect, Barack Obama needed to do was to appoint a b-partisan and seriously competent team to deal with energy security, climate change and the economy. The cabinet position of Secretary of Energy is to my mind the most important responsibility in the cabinet as it impacts on policy in all three areas.

Barack Obama as he said he would do is reaching across the aisle to the Republicans on Energy, a wise move and two possible names are of interest for Secretary of Energy, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and adviser James Woolsey to the McCain Campaign.

Governor Schwarzenegger passed the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) and his comments a month ago, “We’re sending a strong message to our federal governments that states and provinces are moving forward in the absence of federal action, and we’re setting the stage for national programs that are just as aggressive”, signals perhaps the extent of this bi-partisan approach that was being hatched behind the scenes.(www.ghgblog.com)

If Arnold Schwarzenegger was appointed, the WCI would most likely influence the blueprint for Federal action on a Cap and Trade Emissions Trading Scheme. However, during the campaign a bidding war emerged on US Climate Change legislation such that the Democrats and Republican positions were far stronger than any legislation in the world including California and Europe. If either campaign position was adopted the US would truly be leading the world in the post 2012 Kyoto world.

If James Woolsey, was appointed the Republican position on the proposed US Cap and Trade legislation could become the new democratic position, which is a very acceptable position with a Cap of 60% on greenhouse gases. The Woolsey plan anticipated getting legislation through the Senate, taking account of influential Republican coal states like Virginia and includes initiatives to appease coal -fired power generation by way of allowing more carbon capture, nuclear energy and 15% domestic offsets, which would mean energy efficiency was included and an allowance for agricultural offsets to create jobs in rural farming.

The Woolsey position was very practical as it allowed for gradual staging of the auctioning of permits.Either way both Republicans, Arnold Schwarzenegger or James Woolsey would be very interesting candidates to the position of Secretary of Energy.

Other names for Secretary of Energy include lobbyist Philip Sharp, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana and Senator Jeff Bingaman, the current chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Further names include: Jason Grumet, Elgie Holstein, Robert, Sussman, Todd Atkinson and Heather Zichai.

See the Hill at www.thehill.com

California Building Standards Commission adopts Voluntary Green Standards

Written by Karla Bell on Monday, 3 November 2008

Written by Aris Evia and David Heckadon, both Leed accredited legal professionals from Gordon & Rees LLP

On July 17, 2008, the State of California Building Standards Commission (”Commission”) adopted the California Green Building Standards Code (”Green Building Regulations“) to apply to all new construction state-wide. Prior to California’s adoption of its Green Building Regulations, the standard for green and sustainable buildings in California and across the nation was and is still set by the U.S. Green Building Council (”USGBC”) through its Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (”LEED®”) levels of building certification. According to the USGBC, buildings nationwide account for 70% of electricity consumption, 39% of energy usage, 12% of potable water consumption, 40% of raw materials usage, 30% of waste output and produce 39% of associated greenhouse gases (”GHGs”) like chlorofluorocarbons (”CFCs”), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (”HCFCs”), and carbon dioxide (”CO2″).

The LEED® standards for rating new construction, existing buildings and commercial interiors are, from highest to lowest: platinum, gold, silver and certified. The LEED® rating system is based on the achievement of a certain number of credits, or points, towards LEED® certification: the higher the points, the more prestigious the rating. California’s Green Building Regulations are the approximate equivalent of achieving LEED® silver rating for new construction. The LEED® ratings will still remain the most applicable standard for nationwide market transformation in construction of both office buildings and homes, because they encourage and accelerate global adoption of sustainable green building and development practices through the creation and implementation of universally understood and accepted tools and performance criteria. However, California’s Green Building Regulations are just another example of California leading the charge on green and sustainable construction.

California’s Green Building Regulations are an important piece of the state’s ambitious goal to reduce the state’s CFCs, HCFCs, CO2 and other GHG emissions by 30% by 2020 as required by Assembly Bill (”AB”) 32, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006, authored by then Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D - Los Angeles). Last October 2007, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 1058, authored by Assembly Members John Laird (D - Santa Cruz / Monterey) and Ted Lieu (D - El Segundo), which would have established green building construction best practices and made them an official statutory part of the California Public Resources Code. The Governor’s veto message to the Legislature stated that he supports green construction standards and shares the goals of AB 1058, but believes that building standards should not be in the state’s statutes, but instead set by the Commission, presumably because the Governor desires a more phased approach to green building regulation and to inject more public participation into the lawmaking process.

California’s Green Building Regulations, which are 60 pages long, do not take effect until July 1, 2009. These standards will remain voluntary until the Commission completes its work on mandatory regulations which it hopes to have in place by late 2010 and early 2011. The highlights of the Green Building Regulations are set forth in the following goals:

  • 15% reduction in overall energy use for all new construction by employing such strategies as solar energy, Energy Star-certified appliances, highly-reflective roofs, and elevators and escalators that move only when passengers are present;
  • 20% reduction in water use for all new construction through low-flow toilets, waterless urinals and dual plumbing for potable and graywater;
  • 50% reduction in water use for landscaping by utilizing such approaches as native plants, drip irrigation systems, and bioswales; and
  • Use of environmentally sensitive materials like eco-friendly flooring, carpeting, paint, coatings, thermal insulation, acoustical wall and ceiling panels, and other recycled building materials.

The Green Building Regulations also identify various site improvements, i.e., parking for hybrid vehicles and improved and comprehensive storm water plans. Importantly, the Green Building Regulations do not specify how to make the reductions, but instead, suggest a variety of green and sustainable construction practices. In practice, a LEED® Accredited Professional (”AP”) may be in the best position to advise construction companies as to green and sustainable construction practices, because a LEED® AP has demonstrated a thorough understanding of green building practices and principles and is a building professional with the knowledge and skills to successfully steward the LEED® certification process.

The Green Building Regulations only set a floor, not a ceiling, and do not prevent municipalities, such as cities and counties, from enacting more stringent standards than the state. For example, San Francisco’s recent Green Building Ordinance is the approximate equivalent of achieving LEED® gold certification. Also, in April 2008, the City of Los Angeles became the largest U.S. city to enact mandatory green building standards for private development. The City of Los Angeles’ mandatory green building standards program applies generally to new development and remodels of non-residential development over 50,000 square feet, or 50 residential units, and requires compliance with the criteria for a LEED® Certified rating.

The most common argument against green and sustainable building practices are the upfront costs of implementing such measures and using such materials. However, supporters of green building respond that although a building may cost more to build on the front end, the sustainable building will perform better, i.e., consume less energy, be more water-use efficient, etc., thus leading to a greater return on investment (”ROI”) and a higher net operating income (”NOI”) associated with the building.

Another major issue with green building initiatives is that they inject yet another layer of risk into construction projects, and raise new issues for developers, builders, and design professionals. Perhaps the most obvious and immediate issue is whether California’s Green Building Regulations will elevate the standard of care for an architect or an engineer. A corollary of this issue is whether developers, builders and design professionals will expose themselves to more risk when they promise to deliver high-performance green buildings. From a contractual point of view, developers, builders and design professionals are now faced with the issue of whether to include and incorporate language into their contracts to require them to design and construct a sustainable building. Indeed, although green and sustainable building practices are an easy rallying point and have made important strides in recent times, the green building movement has raised the stakes and created new and still developing issues that the construction and real estate industries must now face.