Biosequestration
At the recent BCCAN steering committee meeting, it was discussed that we need to become better informed on the issues surrounding biosequestration as a means of becoming carbon "neutral" in particular but the other mechanisms involved in the carbon trading scenario.
As there is increasing interest amongst individuals, companies, organisations and governement bodies in using these instruments, we decided we need to be better informed if we are going to become more fully engaged in this debate.
The some of the main issues locally around biosequestration are tree plantings, the threat to biodiversity and existing tree cover as a carbon sink.
A recent ANU report stated that the mature eucalypt forrest down the east coast of Australia, embodies approximately 660 tonnes of CO2 per hectare.
The IPCC had previously published a figure of 217 tonnes of CO2.
World wide, approximately 6.2 billion tonnes of CO2 is absorbed in existing carbon sinks (primarily plants, soil and oceans), leaving 4.1 billion tonnes being added each year ( of course this is currently accelerating), but again taking this static figure for the purposes of calculations, and the 660tonnes per hectare from the ANU report, 6,800,000 hectares must be planted each year.
Tasmania is approximately 6.8 million hectares and by co-incidence, we find that we must plant, world wide, one Tasmania of forests each year and make sure those forests survive in perpetuity. While of course no further clearing of forests occur.
The desire by companies to be prepared for carbon offsets has seen a mini-land rush in this region in preparation for tree plantings. There is no shortage of companies prepared to do the plantings but there are no guarentees of maintaining bio-diversity on these properties nor long term survival of the plantings. To the company who gets credit per tree and the company likewise with little if any accountability, the system has many problems.
At present the Garnaut review is positive about tree planting as a biosequestration mechanism and promotes the economics driving that, but at the same time, farmers who maintain established tree cover on their properties and show stewardship for the carbon they preserve, get no economic benefit. Who could blame them if they clear land and make new monocultural plantations.
Before directing you to some reading matter so that you may come to your own conclusion, I would also like to posit the idea that further undermines this market driven approach, the concept of paying for spilling the carbon into the atmosphere does in no way take that carbon out of the atmosphere. It appeals to simplistic mathematics, but the cummulative effect of increased emissions and non-catchup plantings will always leave a net balance of emissions and the financial incentive to polluters to keep on buying carbon credits.
ABC Background Briefing - Greenwashing
Greenwashing
Total Environment Centre submission to the Garnaut Review
TEC Submission
A humorous look at buying indulgences for already committed sins
Climate Neutral"
Climate Positive analysis
Climate Positive
Canopy Australia - one of the tree planting companies
Canopy Australia
Garnaut Review
Draft Report
Presentation by Bioenergy Australia promoting fast rotation of tree plantings for energy production and at the same time tying up significant amounts of carbon.
Presentation
Chief Scientist (Dr. Jim Peacock)to the Federal Government promoting tree planting.(2007)
Carbon Trade Watch in particular their downloadable report "The Carbon Neutral Myth"
Carbon Trade Watch Home Page