As usual, they never explain how putting a price on ag emissions will cut the emissions, unless they expect a lot of farmers to go broke or at least cut the size of their herds.
Mick
This is the stuff that causes people to ignore the whole CC thing.
A cow eats grass, it digests the grass, farts, burps and poops while it makes milk or beef.
In the meantime, the poop fertilizes the grass, the farts are CO2, the grass also absorbs this so that it can grow again
It is basically, a closed cycle IMO
There used to be billions of herbivores before humans starting building houses etc, I think there would be less animals now than there was then so I don't see how they are part of the problem.
I watched a non-scientific opinion piece on sequestration of CO2 recently that surmised that Australian is already net zero due to our size and the amount of CO2 absorbed by the land and our sea compared to emissions. Not sure if a peer reviewed study has been done on this, but there should be. Perhaps Australia is already producing carbon credits and we can keep the lights on?
Ah you guys are forgetting the fact that because we export coal , oil. gas and meat etc, we export emissions, which are included in our output.
And its not the amount we emit, its the amount per capita.
Thats the way they demonise OZ, but let of China scott free.
Mick
An absurd action, which can only have nefarious goals IMO.Yep, and I read somewhere recently that we're not accounting for our methane emissions correctly. NZ is going to start including them shortly which is going to significantly affect them. Maybe they'll catch the farts with little plastic bags tied to the sheep.
Would it be cynical of me to suspect it is double countedIt's an interesting one the issue of coal, oil, gas we export. We don't count that as our emissions do we? Surely the country that burns the fuel is the emitter and has to account for it?
From Climate analyticst. We don't count that as our emissions do we? Surely the country that burns the fuel is the emitter and has to account for it
The folks who do the demanding are the same ones who put out and quote the statistics.When emissions from Australia’s current coal, oil and gas exports (3.6% of global total) are added to domestic emissions (1.4% of global total), Australia’s contribution to the global climate pollution footprint is already about 5%. That’s equivalent to the total greenhouse gas emissions of Russia, world’s fifth biggest carbon dioxide emitter.
Full report: Evaluating the significance of Australia’s global fossil fuel carbon footprint
Australia is the world’s top exporter of thermal and metallurgical coal, accounting for about 29% of global coal trade in 2016, and will soon be the world’s largest natural gas (LNG) exporter. As a consequence, Australia’s global carbon footprint is very significant, with exported fossil fuel emissions currently representing around 3.6% of global emissions. In 2017, Australian coal and gas exports produced around 2.9% and 0.6% of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion respectively.
From Climate analytics
The folks who do the demanding are the same ones who put out and quote the statistics.
Mick
So, as @wayneL intimated, surely it's not double counted then and the country actually burning the fuel doesn't include it. I think there should at least be some shared responsibility there, but my gut actually says they emitter should account for it. Who makes the rules on this, some UN body?
IMNTBCHO, the amount of net CO2 is beside the point (and largely irrelevant). There is a larger political and financial game in play.I'd really like to know exactly how we account for our CO2 emissions and how much we actually absorb. There seems to be some conflicting information about.
Not sure what sort of scientist Bill is, and he may have an agenda, like most other scientists I guess.
Renowned scientist says Australia could already be at “net-zero”
Eric Barker, 16/05/2022
A WELL-KNOWN Queensland scientist says there is emerging evidence that Australia has already reached its goal of net-zero CO2 emissions and would require little effort to maintain it beyond 2050.
Dr Bill Burrows is a former senior principal scientist with the Queensland Department of Primary Industries (now Department of Agriculture) and served the State Government for more than 40 years. He has long been known as an expert in vegetation management.
Lately, he has been studying the Federal Government’s target of reaching ‘net-zero emissions by 2050’. He says it is likely the government has already reached that goal when it changed its wording about climate targets about 18-months-ago.
“In December 2020 Australia’s Department of Industry, Science, Energy & Resources advised an Inquiry on two Climate Change Bills instigated by the House Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy that ‘for the Paris Agreement (PA) all net emissions from all lands (in Australia) will be accounted for – without restriction – using the independent monitoring systems of the national inventory’,” Dr Burrows said in a recent report.
“By way of contrast, for the Kyoto Protocol only about 1pc of Australia’s land mass was actually taken into account in determining net emissions.”
Earlier this month, a group of scientists in Tasmania discovered that the state was already carbon negative through a significant drop in native forest logging. Dr Burrows said if all of Australia’s rangelands were included in the accounting, the entire country would show similar results to Tasmania.
“Australia is the 6th largest nation in area in the world (and in the main has a land mass covered by CO2 absorbing perennial vegetation), yet it has far fewer people living in it than live in a single world ‘super’ city (e.g. Tokyo),” Dr Burrows said.
Detailed report here:
Australia is already a net zero CO2-e emitter – thanks to our forests and rangelands
IMNTBCHO, the amount of net CO2 is beside the point (and largely irrelevant). There is a larger political and financial game in play.
Apparently France includes their total land area as a sink.
So just like that , when the European way of life looks like it might become a little uncomfortable, just rewrites the definition to fix things.The European parliament has backed plans to label gas and nuclear energy as “green”, rejecting appeals from prominent Ukrainians and climate activists that the proposals are a gift to Vladimir Putin.
One senior MEP said the vote was a “dark day for the climate”, while experts said the EU had set a dangerous precedent for countries to follow.
The row began late last year with the leak of long-awaited details on the EU’s green investment guidebook, intended to help investors channel billions to the clean power transition.
The European Commission decided some gas and nuclear projects could be included in the EU taxonomy of environmentally sustainable economic activities, subject to certain conditions.
Under the plans, gas can be classed as a sustainable investment if “the same energy capacity cannot be generated with renewable sources” and plans are in place to switch to renewables or “low-carbon gases”. Nuclear power can be called green if a project promises to deal with radioactive waste.
According to The Guardian, the Eu have voted to treat both Nuclar power and Gas as renewable.
So just like that , when the European way of life looks like it might become a little uncomfortable, just rewrites the definition to fix things.
I wonder if Oz will adopt the same rules, or even better, take the next step and say that Coal can be added to the new renewable list.
Mick
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?