Tag Archives: carbon-markets
Bioenergy With CCS Can ‘Reverse’ Global Warming
11 July 2013 By Edd Gent Global warming could be reversed by using bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, according to Swedish researchers Researchers have claimed bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) could allow the world to reverse global warming. The team, from Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, say the technology can reverse the global warming trend and push temperatures back below the global target of 2°C above pre-industrial levels, even if current policies fail and the world initially overshoots this target. In a paper published in journal Environmental Research Letters today, the researchers show that if BECCS is implemented on a large-scale along with other renewable energy sources, temperature increases can be as low as 1.5°C by 2150. Co-author of the study, Professor Christian Azar, said: “What we demonstrate in our paper is that even if we fail to keep temperature increases below 2°C, then we can reverse the warming trend and push temperatures back below the 2°C target by 2150. “To do so requires both large-scale use of BECCS and reducing other emissions to near-zero levels using other renewables, mainly solar energy, or nuclear power.” BECCS is a greenhouse gas mitigation technology based on bioenergy that produces fuel for power plants or transportation while simultaneously removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Trees and crops give off carbon dioxide when they are burnt as fuel, but also act as a carbon sink as they grow beforehand, absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. These two processes cancel each other out, resulting in net zero emissions of carbon dioxide. When combined with carbon capture and storage – techniques that aim to pull carbon dioxide out of the flue gases from power plants and redirect it into geological storage locations – the overall carbon dioxide emissions are negative. If applied on a global scale, this could help to reverse global warming. In their study, the researchers developed an integrated global energy system and climate model that enabled them to assess the most cost-effective way forward for a given energy demand scenario and temperature target. They found that stringent temperature targets can be met at significantly lower costs if BECCS is implemented 30 to 50 years from now, although this may cause a temporary overshoot of the 2°C target. “The most policy relevant implication of our study is that even if current political gridlock causes global warming in excess of 2°C, we can reverse the temperature trend and reach targets later. This means that 2°C targets or even more ambitious targets can remain on the table in international climate negotiations,” Azar said. But, the authors caution against interpreting their study as an argument for delaying emission reductions in the near-term. Azar said: “BECCS can only reverse global warming if we have net negative emissions from the entire global energy system. This means that all other CO2 emissions need to be reduced to nearly zero. “Also, temperatures can only be reduced by about 0.6°C per century, which is too slow to act as an ’emergency brake’ if climate damages turn out to be too high. The more we reduce emissions now, the more ambitious targets we can achieve in the long term, even with BECCS. ” Continue reading
The Real Politics Behind A Floating Price On Carbon
Discussion has been locked in fact-free debate for so long it’s easy to forget reducing emissions is the point of the exercise Follow Lenore Taylor BETA Lenore Taylor guardian.co.uk , Sunday 14 July 2013 A protester holds a placard during a rally in Sydney against Julia Gillard’s ‘carbon tax’. Photograph: Greg Wood/AFP/Getty Starting a “floating” carbon price one year early is not such a big deal, really. The fact that every political party is screaming about it just proves how twisted the politics of this issue has become. For Kevin Rudd , it’s a way to reboot a debate Labor has been comprehensively losing, and provide businesses and households with some very short term cost relief. The $3 billion or more the government now has to find in budget savings is the same amount business won’t have to pay for carbon permits next year. And that gets passed through to households in the form of savings of $210 a year for a sole parent on benefits, $300 to $400 a year for average couples with children and $180 a year for an aged pensioner couple, according to helpfully provided Treasury modelling. But it’s a price reduction that would have happened when the system moved into line with international prices one year later anyway. The real impact Labor is hoping for is political. For the Greens it’s an opportunity for product differentiation ahead of an election that’s looking very difficult for the minor party. But Christine Milne ‘s argument that Australia’s economic transformation will be somehow fundamentally interrupted by allowing the price to drop to international levels just one year earlier than planned doesn’t make sense. And for Tony Abbott it turns back against him his own successful blurring of the difference between a carbon tax (which Julia Gillard promised not to have) and a floating price emissions trading scheme (which has always been Labor’s policy in one way or another, and until Abbott became leader was the Coalition ‘s policy as well). A one year shift in the start of the floating price could never have resulted in front page headlines proclaiming “carbon tax to go” if it hadn’t been for Abbott’s own hard work decrying the fixed price “tax” for the last three years. For their very different political reasons both Abbott and Milne are labelling the decision a “fraud” and a “con”. But, putting the politics aside, we actually don’t yet have the most important pieces of information to make that judgement. What we really need to know is whether the government intends to keep the independent Climate Change Authority and listen to its advice about how hard we should be cutting our greenhouse gas emissions. The domestic discussion has been locked in this senseless, fact-free headbutt of a debate about “axing the tax” for so long, it’s been easy to forget that reducing emissions – probably by more than the minimum 5% by 2020 agreed by both major parties – is the point of the exercise. The “tax”, the trading scheme and even the Coalition’s “Direct Action” are all just different means to get there. If bringing forward a floating price means we can do more, while imposing lower costs on the domestic economy because the international price is lower than we thought it was going to be, surely that’s a good thing. And if Tony Abbott really thinks he has found a cheaper way to make deep, long term cuts to Australia’s emissions than can be achieved by participating in an international market, now would be the time to finally unveil the detail of his Direct Action policy to try to prove it. If Labor is keeping the climate authority and leaving open the possibility of tougher targets – by far the most important change negotiated by Milne in the deal with Julia Gillard compared with Labor’s first emissions trading scheme – are the Greens really going to stand in the way? Properly assessing Australia’s share of the global effort to slow climate change, and then figuring out how we most efficiently do it – that is a really big deal. Continue reading
Scrapping Of Carbon Tax Threatens Carbon Farming
ABC Rural By Caitlyn Gribbin Updated Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:25pm AEST PHOTO: Henbury Station in Central Australia, site of a failed attempt to establish the world’s biggest carbon farm. (ABC: Caddie Brain) AUDIO: Fears over future of carbon farming (ABC Rural) MAP: Sydney 2000 Research and lobby group, the Australian Farm Institute, says carbon farming won’t be profitable for years, if an emissions trading scheme is fast tracked. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will scrap the carbon tax and move to an emissions trading scheme next year – one year earlier than originally planned. The fixed carbon price of $24.15 a tonne will be removed in favour of a floating price, thought to be between $6 and $10 a tonne. Mick Keogh, from the Australian Farm Institute, says that price is too low for farmers to make profits from the Carbon Farming Initiative, a scheme where farmers earned carbon credits and sell to people and businesses wanting to offset their emissions. “If you’re in the market to sell carbon credits, you’re now looking at the potential next year that those credits will be worth $6 a tonne, rather than the $24.15 a tonne,” he said. “That obviously has a big impact on the potential profitability of a project you might be looking to undertake. “It would be very limited numbers of projects that would likely to be viable.” Farmers say the carbon tax has significantly pushed up their bills, especially electricity. Australian Dairy Farmers president Noel Campbell says a lower carbon price is a win for agriculture. “It’s positive compared to where we have been, certainly it will make a difference,” Mr Campbell said. “But still we will need to make sure that with whatever situation we’ve got, we’re in a competitive situation with the people that we trade against.” Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says the Prime Minister has not truly abolished the carbon tax, but is merely changing its name. The Greens leader Christine Milne says the decision to scrap the carbon tax is “cowardly”. The Australian Industry Group says Mr Rudd’s move is positive and will cut costs for businesses once the floating price begins next July. Continue reading
