By Harvey Bell
The terms ‘climate change’, ‘emissions trading scheme’, ‘greenhouse gases (GHG)’, ‘pre-1990 forests’, ‘global warming potential (GWP)’, make most people’s eyes glaze over. I understand why. They are the jargon for what is probably the most complex subject ever considered for consensus by the world’s governments.
The subject is so complex that it is impossible for any one person to fully understand. Those of us involved ask ourselves on a daily basis: “How the hell did we ever get caught up in this?” Having an understanding of the basics makes it no easier trying to explain it. However I will try to provide an overview and put it in context.
The genesis of the issue is predicated on the theory that a number of gases emitted from human activity [carbon dioxide (CO2) is a major contributor] are adding to a build-up in the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. This is reckoned to be potentially catastrophic for the planet. “Politically proven science” was how I heard it described recently.
There are a number of players involved in the mix. There are the scientists who have brought the issue to our attention. There are then the technocrats, bureaucrats and politicians who under the auspices of the United Nations have devised a response framework to the now orthodox science aimed at dealing with the problem. The rulebook, by which we are currently governed, from 2008 to 2012, is referred to as the Kyoto Protocol (because it was agreed to in Kyoto, Japan). The next generation of rules were to have been agreed in Copenhagen this December but it is now accepted that the best that will be agreed is to have another meeting or series of meetings. There are to be 20,000 attendees in the Danish capital.
And finally we have the bankers and financial gurus, fresh from presiding over the global financial meltdown, busy working out how to establish a market for tradable emissions rights (remember securitised sub-prime mortgages?) and getting a clip of the ticket every time someone passes ‘Go’. ‘The market’ includes price setting and trading mechanisms but has no real focus on minimising GHG emissions.
The fact that the global economy has factored in oil prices going from $US16 per barrel in the 1970s to a recent high point of $US160 does not bode well for emissions trading schemes (no two countries have the same rules!) making much difference to emissions behaviour. In the end consumers pay, no matter what the idealists or the politicians might try to get you to believe for their own reasons.
CO2 emissions from living plants occur by virtue of the photosynthesis process (absorbing CO2 during the day, releasing oxygen and the opposite in the dark). Besides the emissions from industrial processes, the decomposition of organic matter and the burning of fossil fuels (mainly oil, petrol, diesel, LPG, coal) are both major sources of CO2 into the atmosphere. There are also other gases whose GWP is equivalent to many times (23 to 23,000) that of CO2. The most significant for NZ is the methane emissions from the digestive systems (via burping) of farmed animals. This is currently put at 23 times the GWP of CO2, meaning one kg of methane of the equivalent of 23 kgs of CO2.
On the other side of the equation is the sequestration of carbon in plants, particularly trees. Around 25% of a tree is organic carbon with one kilogram of carbon requiring the absorption of 3.67kg of CO2. Growing trees is therefore a way of mitigating GHG emissions.
New forest plantations are being touted as a major business opportunity for NZ, particularly for Mäori land, much of which is not suitable for pastoral farming. The seductive factor is that a new Pinus Radiata forest, for example, will add an average of ten tonnes of carbon per hectare per year (that is 36.7 tonnes of CO2) over a rotation (30 years). At the current international price of around $28 per tonne, this is nearly $1030 per hectare annually. The sting in the tail of this ‘opportunity’ is that under the current rules, all the sequestered carbon you sell has to be re-purchased to cover the deemed emissions from harvesting the trees.
If all this sounds highly complicated and you think incapable of delivering on its stated objective of curtailing the emission of GHG’s, congratulations, you are starting to understand the subject.
Helen Clark’s government introduced the first Bill to set up an emissions trading scheme last year that was eventually enacted in September. That legislation effectively nationalised all the carbon sequestered in exotic trees planted before 1 January 2008. In the case of land forested prior to 1 January 1990, all its future sequestered carbon was also ‘nationalised’. There is no formal recognition of sequestered carbon in native trees.
FoMA has been advocating on behalf of its members since the legislative responses to climate change issues first started. It has always been acknowledged that in the interests of future generations that we as Mäori must play our proportionate part in the response to global warming. As things stand at this time we are being asked to contribute four times what everyone else is in relation to the nationalised carbon. That is destined to have huge impact on the future of the Mäori land-based economy.
Having said this, FoMA is still trying to get its view listened to by the government to ensure that the framework of the emissions trading scheme is equitable to both Mäori in general and individual land owning Mäori in particular. It has been the only voice consistently advocating a pan-Mäori view.
There would seem to be no right answers in responding to the issue of global warming but the extreme suggestions have the ability to impact very seriously on us in NZ. One climate change expert recently said that the production of meat was unsustainable because of its GHG emissions. Biofuels have been encouraged by tax incentives in the United States but this has sent the price of grains sky high. In many cases, the GHG emissions from growing and processing biofuels are greater than the reduced emissions from the using such fuels.
My overall message to conclude is not to invest in any climate change related scheme until you have done an extensive amount of research and taken expert advice. Like any new opportunity, there are plenty of people peddling extremely dubious propositions that will end in tears.
Don’t let them be yours!
Loading...
