Archives for September 2007

This blog’s fraternity of AGW denialists (climate realists) would be dismayed to learn that their good friend Al Gore was in Sydney yesterday to open the Financial and Energy Exchange (FEX). Another good friend, Bob Carr introduces the “big man” here.

Their web site states: “FEX Climate Pty Ltd is the carbon and environmental arm of Financial and Energy Exchange Ltd a new platform for trading sustainability and cleantech stocks, financial, energy, carbon and environmental commodities and derivatives. The Financial and Energy Exchange (FEX) is supported by significant international investment and global partners including sharing its headquarters at 5 Bridge Street in Sydney with business news broadcaster CNBC. Internationally renowned derivatives trader, Brian Price, is the founder and CEO of FEX. FEX Climate has been built from the ground up a dedicated group, lead by CEO Fiona Waterhouse, who believes the market has an important role to play in directing investment towards businesses which use and produce sustainable technologies, products and services.”

But the real action was happening quietly up in the grazing paddocks of central Queensland. Bypassing the political debate over recent vegetation legislation and scientific researchers dreaming of a rural carbon market, Terry McCosker has established the CarbonLink company , a sister company, to the well known grazing consultancy, Resource Consulting Services (RCS) . RCS being a big advocate of the somewhat controversial cell grazing technology.

Carbonlink (CL) has developed enough credentials to be part of FEX. CL can estimate soil carbon reserves and their improvement through better grazing management. The company acts as an aggregator combining carbon on offer from various graziers, into packages large enough to be of interest to European or US emitters for a sale through the FEX. In a lead from private enterprise FEX seems to also have bypassed the government debate on possible trading systems.

Despite the Greenhouse Office and Minister McGauran being bearish over the prospects for sequestering carbon in Australian soils, McCosker is upbeat saying that grazing systems have plenty of capability compared to cropping lands, and that there are secondary improvements in pasture production, soil structure, and improved pasture quality resulting in less methane emission from grazing cattle.

CL hopes to have a 100,000 tonnes of CO2 for sale on FEX by Christmas.

CL press release says ” CL is in the process of verifying its first packages of soil carbon from several properties in eastern Australia.”

This carbon is expected to be available for trading in the coming months.

“When people think carbon they usually think trees,” according to CL chief executive, and soil and agribusiness consultant Rod Rush.”

“But in reality 75pc of carbon in and on the earth’s land mass is in the soil. We have a tremendous opportunity to utilise soil’s ability to absorb additional carbon through the right land management practices.”

“There is good evidence to suggest that the practice of cell grazing will facilitate soil carbon sequestration.”

“It is an added bonus of this managed pasture process under which livestock come on and off the pasture in a controlled fashion, with the pasture grazed for short periods, spelled while root reserves rebuild, regrow and are then grazed again.”

“Producers who have made good land use decisions in the past and those who choose to adopt these practices in the future will capitalise on that because soil carbon is poised to become a tradeable resource.”

“The good managers are running their farms in a manner that maximises root deposition in their soils and hence fixes much more soil carbon than is held in soils grazed traditionally.”

“Soil carbon can be measured by soil sampling and analysis and then traded as carbon credits,” he said.
“The bigger the active root matter of pasture, the more carbon is fixed.”

“The great thing is that cell grazing, unlike tree planting as a carbon-fixing option, does not lock up land and make it non-productive.”

“We are still verifying our processes, but CL plans to aggregate carbon, sequestered by groups of producers who commit to grazing management practices, that over the subsequent 10 years will sequester and maintain the resource.”

“For example, a 1pc increase in organic matter over a 10-year period may capture about 50 tonnes of CO2 that is worth about $1,000/ha gross before costs, at current retail prices.”

“There will be a proving period for each producer about how much CO2/hectare is being sequestered, with soils analysed in the first year of a commitment and then measured again in, for example, the 5th and 10th years to calculate any gains. ”

You can listen to McCosker advocate the scheme.

CL is the second carbon accreditation scheme to be launched in Australia over the last year – with Christine Jones launching Western Australia’s Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme (ASCAS) in March 2007.

Of course innovative graziers like Alan Lauder have been advocating carbon grazing incorporating saltbush as a philosophy for land management for over a decade but it’s McCosker who’s trying to break into the big international trading markets.

Industry commentary on rural carbon trading is available here and if you’re really keen rock up to the big carbon farming expo at Mudgee in November 2007. (IPA and denialists apply hard hats before entering these web sites)

So Queensland Country Life ran today with “CARBON: Why there’s real money in dirt”

OK are “dirty” greenhouse deals in dirt the way to go. It’s a long term commitment. Many decades. Does it add up? Are there side effects? Will global warming increase microbial activity and work against the sequestration? Can you realistically account for something you can’t see? How do emitters know what they’ve really got? Do you believe the sampling and science. Has Steve McIntyre audited the system personally? (Or has Hansen adjusted it?)

But it’s innovative. It’s not whinging. Don’t have to put up with touchy forestry types. It has positive land management benefits. It gets a new income stream into remote areas and extensive grazing. It’s free enterprise. And it does unify the city and bush. Needs good science input. It’s Australian high tech low tech hybrid !! Many things I’m passionate about. Oh yea – and it might help with CO2 sequestration too. What’s McCosker up to next – surely this isn’t just the limit – Aaron Edmonds must be out there somewhere.

What do you think: is there money in dirt or is it a dirty deal?

Extracts from the UK Telegraph article: Lorry driver in challenge to Gore school film

A lorry driver is taking the Government to court over a film that he believes is biased and shouldn’t be shown to children in schools

Since ministers regarded the debate as well and truly over, they were “delighted” to send school children a polemic that took as its central thesis the argument that climate change – the increase in global temperatures over the past 50 years – was mainly the result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

This is indeed the view of the IPCC, and most of the world’s climate scientists. But other people disagree.

One of them is Stewart Dimmock, 45, a lorry driver and school governor from Kent. His sons, aged 11 and 14, attend a secondary school in Dover which has presumably received a copy of Mr Gore’s film.

“I care about the environment as much as the next man,” says Mr Dimmock. “However, I am determined to prevent my children from being subjected to political spin in the classroom.”

You might think there ought to be a law against this – and there is. Section 406(1)(b) of the Education Act 1996 says that local education authorities, school governing bodies and head teachers “shall forbid… the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school”.

Mr Dimmock’s lawyers are trying to prevent the film being shown in schools. At this stage, they are asking for permission to challenge the Schools Secretary’s decision to distribute it. This was refused in July after a written application. But if permission is granted at an oral hearing next Thursday, the judge is expected to consider the merits of Mr Dimmock’s application for judicial review straight away.

“Gore has gone on record as saying he believes it is appropriate to over-represent the facts to get his message across,” says Mr Day. “One of the very clear inferences from the Gore film is that areas such as Bangladesh will be under water by the end of the century. He is talking about sea levels rising by 20 feet.”

But this is not backed up by the IPCC, the solicitor says. Their view is that sea levels will rise by 1.3 feet over the next 100 years. A rise of 20ft would require rising temperatures to continue for millennia.

Michael Sparkes, also from the law firm Malletts, adds that Mr Gore’s central premise – that carbon dioxide emissions are causing the recently observed global warming – is taken by the film as proved.

“There is no discussion of the fact that the climate is changing naturally all the time, whether warming or cooling,” he said.

Mr Dimmock’s lawyers will therefore argue that distributing this film to schools is either unlawful under section 406 of the 1996 Act or unlawful because it does not offer the balance required by section 407.

There is a 48-page guidance note.

The current version of this note acknowledges that “teachers have a duty to give a balanced presentation of political issues and to avoid political indoctrination”.

It advises teachers to divide the film into three strands:

Areas where there is undisputed scientific consensus, such as the clear evidence that global temperatures are rising;

Areas where there is a “strong scientific consensus but where a small minority of scientists do not agree”, for example that gas emissions from human activity are the main cause of climate change. “When dealing with such issues teachers may wish to refer to alternative views but make it clear that they do not accord with the weight of scientific opinion,” the Government says; and

Areas where there is political debate, such as how we should respond to climate change. “When addressing these areas, teachers must take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that pupils are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.”

The Schools Department says: “The law does not prevent teachers or schools from showing material which includes expressions of political opinion. But it does require that, when such material is shown, the opinion is presented in a balanced way.”

Mr Day says his client is not satisfied with this. “You have a fundamentally flawed film, scientifically and politically, where the onus is being placed on teachers to draw the thorns and to remedy the defects,” he says. “Is that fair on teachers?”

Whether the written guidance is enough to balance the impact of Mr Gore’s undoubtedly political views will no doubt be at the heart of next week’s hearing. But is the debate over the science of climate change “well and truly over”? Not a chance.

Anne Thompson
NBC Nightly News

Dear Anne,

The NBC Nightly News segment tonight was a classic case of skewed reporting. Why did you not mention that Greenland temps were highest in 1941 or that the 30’s and 40’s were the warmest decades according to multiple peer reviewed studies? Why did you not mention that the rate of warming was twice as fast in the early part of 20th century (long before man-made CO2 could have been responsible?)

Why do you only interview one activist scientist who is an advisor to Gore? There are many ice and sea level experts you could have contacted (many listed in below Senate report)

Why did you do a Greenland ice story by relying on the last 15 years of temperature data?

Please read below and plan on a follow up segment that actually educates the viewers, not one that cherry picks the last 15 years and shows scary maps of flooding.

The segment shown tonight on NBC News is just the standard boiler plate alarmist nonsense. You will probably win many journalism awards with this, (such is the sad state of much of environmental reporting today) but the viewers are being woefully misinformed.

All I am asking is that you simply spend 8 minutes reading up on actual peer-reviewed literature about Greenland. If you had spent those 8 minutes you could have avoided this alarmist and myopic segment tonight.

Can you please address these issues on air and redeem your reporting on global warming? If not, at least try to read up more on global warming in general. You are the chief NBC reporter that covers this issue, the least viewers can expect is a Greenland report that relies on more that the last 15 years of temperature data and one advisor to Gore.

You still need to redeem your reporting from your segment in August about how “denialists” are somehow “well funded.”

NBC News should be doing actual reporting, not just parroting talking points of left-wing green groups like Union of Concerned Scientists.

Please make an effort to improve the level of this climate reporting.

Sincerely,

Marc Morano

More here.

Another one from Marc Morano:

Leonardo Di Caprio talks to USA Weekend Magazine.

Leonardo DiCaprio lives in a “green” house, eats organic food and drinks filtered water instead of bottled. Now he has made an eco-documentary, The 11th Hour, a 91-minute film that he produced and narrated. It opens in the next few weeks around the country. DiCaprio, 32, talks with us about how we affect the Earth and what we can do to change course.

Excerpt: Q: Can the members of this generation become activists, or are they too consumed with entertainment and purchasing power?

“It has to start with things like this documentary. We need to get kids young. That’s where it started with me. I can remember watching documentaries in which I learned about mass extinctions of species in rain forests. That emotionally engaged me as a young kid, and I said to myself, ‘When I grow up, I’d love to make a difference in this field.’

More brainwashing for children?

It was reported on BBC Radio 2 News today that the UK’s Martin Parry, co-chair of the IPCC’s working group II on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, has stated that the EU has ‘little chance’ of limiting global temperatures to a rise of 2C, due to the fact that global CO2 emissions are rising as though the Kyoto Protocol ‘never happened.’ He claims this means that millions more people are at risk from flood, drought and famine, although he acknowledges the difficulties with accurate prediction of future climate change.