Are You Ready for the EPA, January 2010, GHG Reporting Requirements?

Posted on 14. Dec, 2009 by john-wilkerson in Business Sustainability

Read more: http://greeneconomypost.com/epa-january-ghg-reporting-requirements-6973.htm#ixzz0bC151B9i

Companies with facilities emitting or products related to GHGs may consider taking the following initial steps to evaluate appropriate measures related to the first time ever requirement that they begin monitoring their emissions of GHGs.

by John Wilkerson, Author of The North American Sourcing Manager’s Green Supply Chain Measurement Guide

On January 1, 2010, many manufacturing facilities, facilities emitting greenhouse gases, GHG, and suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial GHGs will, for the first time, be required to begin monitoring their emissions of GHGs. By March 31, 2011, these companies (more than 10,000 U.S. facilities) must submit the first annual report to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the emissions data collected during the prior year.

With the goal of understanding the origin of GHGs, EPA issued these fairly complicated and potentially expensive requirements in a final rule on September 22, 2009 pursuant to EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act to require reporting of GHG emissions (codified at 40 C.F.R. pts. 86, 87, 89, 90, 94, 98, 1033, 1039, 1042, 1045, 1048, 1051, 1054, and 1065).

One can view the rule and related analysis and information from EPA at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.
Companies with facilities emitting or products related to GHGs may consider taking the following initial steps to evaluate appropriate measures related to the Rule.

Step 1-Determine If the Rule Applies to the Enterprise

The GHG Rule applies to a variety of categories of industries and types of facilities; however, in certain categories if the facilities do not emit more than a threshold amount they are exempt from the monitoring and reporting requirements.

Facilities Emitting GHGs:

Certain industrial facilities (17 different types2) must report GHG emissions regardless of the level that such facilities emit by facility.

Other specific facilities 3 and those not identified in the rule will only be required to report emissions if they emit in excess of 25,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) annually from all stationary fuel combustion devices. It is specifically noted in the rule that any CO2 emitted from the combustion of biogenic fuels is excluded from the applicability calculations for this category (however biomass-related emissions must be included in any report generated by a facility subject to the GHG rule and should be independently identified).

Step 2-Evaluate Monitoring and Reporting Readiness

Corporations, enterprises, and companies subject to the reporting rule should investigate and plan for mandatory monitoring in the upcoming weeks. The GHG rule does provide for the use of “best available” monitoring methods for the first quarter of 2010 and establishes an extension request process should facilities require additional time for purchasing and / or installing monitoring equipment.

Procedures for evaluating data and preparing reports may be subject to mid and long term interpretation. Work procedures should be documented and reevaluated for compliance on a repetitive basis. Lastly, collected data and complied records should be retained for at least three years or longer, depending on company records retention policy.

Note, U.S. Federal stimulus funding eligibility (monitoring equipment purchase) should be integrated into the program decision making process. It has been reported that EPA has millions of dollars to support this national initiative.

Step 3-Understand Public Disclose Realities

In today’s environment, all companies are cautious when it comes to external reporting and protecting the brand. GHG reporting should not be an exception. The enterprise should carefully consider its reporting and communication strategy. Reporting policy and downstream implications should be measured before public GHG data dissemination.

Read more: http://greeneconomypost.com/epa-january-ghg-reporting-requirements-6973.htm#ixzz0bC0q6WWT

Economists Warn of a Climate Trade War

In the wake of the failed climate change summit in Copenhagen, countries are talking about imposing carbon tariffs on imports. Bad idea, say trade experts

By Markus Becker and Christoph Seidler

John Kerry was on a roll. At the Copenhagen climate summit, the former US presidential candidate delivered a fiery speech that was mostly directed at China. If the US has to accept binding targets for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, then Beijing must do the same, Kerry told his audience. Workers in the US should not "lose their jobs to India and China because those countries are not participating in a way that is measurable, reportable and verifiable," he said.

This was an expression of the old fear in industrialized countries that aggressive action on climate change could lead to local economic disadvantages. Environmentalist politicians and academics have long been calling for the establishment of a global emissions trade. It is a simple and captivating idea for many: Each state gets a certain amount of CO2 allowances. Those who want to emit more must buy emissions rights from other countries that emit less CO2. Ideally, poorer countries would automatically make money, and rich countries would at the same time have a financial incentive to reduce their CO2 emissions.

However, such a system would only work if all states participated—and industrialized countries for years have feared that just won't happen. In particular, large emerging economies like China and India could blow off climate protection and give their businesses competitive advantages in the global market. The failure to reach an international climate change agreement in Copenhagen has done little to dampen such worries.

Kerry and Sarkozy Threaten China and India

Now, Western politicians are getting more open with threats to make the most CO2-intensive imports more expensive—with the help of punitive tariffs. If the West protects the environment, Senator Kerry said in Copenhagen, then climate sinners will not "dump high carbon intensity products into our markets." Kerry's thinly veiled threat: In this case, "I speak for the United States." According to a report in the New York Times, the Americans even tried to accommodate the possibility of unilateral penalties in the final document out of Copenhagen, but without success.

Yet such sentiments in Europe are getting louder, particularly in Paris. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has repeatedly called for EU punitive tariffs on products from big emitters, should no agreement come from Copenhagen. Now that this has occurred, the question is how serious Sarkozy is about the issue. He had said that the French were working together with Germany on such plans. A German government spokesperson said Berlin was examining ways in which locational disadvantages for business could be prevented.

The response sound reserved, but was still much more positive than earlier statements made by government officials in Germany. Previously, the Germans had always categorically rejected Sarkozy's punitive tariff idea. Even in July, Matthias Machnig, then a state secretary in the Environment Ministry, described Sarkozy's proposals as "eco-imperialism."

China Will Remain the Workbench of the World

Experts, however, warn strongly against eco-punitive tariffs. Ottmar Edenhofer, environmental economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), sees them as more of a threat than a realistic option. Measured by the carbon dioxide emissions incurred in the production of goods, China is undisputedly the world's largest emitter of CO2. Punitive duties would hardly change that. "An adjustment of tariffs would likely never be high enough to substantially alter the demand in the West for goods from China," says Edenhofer. "China will remain the workbench of the world."

Punitive tariffs would therefore have almost no environmental impact, but would come with enormous risks. On one hand, the decrease in imports from China would likely weaken the US economy. "In addition, the Chinese could respond with counter-measures, of course," says Edenhofer. China could—in theory—squander US Treasury securities and make the country's economy vulnerable.

Such a conflict would hardly be in the interests of either of these big global powers, since their economies are so closely intertwined. For example, China is currently financing the US twin deficits of a giant budget hole and a gap in the current accounting—the result of the United States importing far more goods and services than it exports. China, however, has a huge trade surplus. "Cooperation between the US and China is the only way," says Edenhofer. "A trade war is the last thing they need at the moment."

The climate summit in Copenhagen has shown, Edenhofer says, that the world still has to find its new geopolitical balance. "China steered away from the concert of the developing countries and presented itself in Copenhagen as a confident, cool negotiating world power," says the economist. Beijing has proven that it can derail a global agreement on climate protection. According to Edenhofer, "the showdown between the US and China has only just begun."

Legal Obstacles to Climate Tariff

Added to the economic risks of punitive tariffs are the legal problems. Environmentalists often complain that the World Trade Organization (WTO) has disqualified ecological tariffs as unjustified obstacles to trade. This is mainly due to an iron-clad principle of international trade law: equal treatment. "Identical goods must be treated equally," Christian Tietje, international law expert from the University of Halle, told SPIEGEL ONLINE.

It is irrelevant whether a cell phone was produced in an environmentally friendly, but more expensive manner in Germany—or in a less ecological and less expensive manner in China. This also applies to climate protection. The lawyer says that solving the problem with extra taxes is "highly problematic in terms of international trade law."

A classic WTO dispute case from the 1990s shows just how high the barriers to trade tariffs in the name of environmental protection can be. The United States had imposed an import ban on shrimp from countries that were not concerned enough about protecting sea turtles. The basis for this was an American nature conservation law called the Endangered Species Act.

The Americans argued that the animals could be protected only through the use of certain nets with special exits for the turtles. Fishing fleets that did not use these should therefore be subject to the boycott. India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand brought a complaint to the WTO—and initially won.

A WTO court declared that the US measures were not justified—after all, the US had not made enough of an effort to conclude agreements to protect the turtles with the states concerned. The WTO would only have allowed a boycott only after serious and appropriate negotiations had been held and had failed.

Wiggle Room in Trade Law

In the case of climate change, Tietje argues that this situation has not yet been reached—despite the debacle at the Copenhagen summit. "The serious efforts have not yet completely failed," he says. There is, after all, a final document and the timetable for further negotiations. They will begin in 2010 at the ministerial level in Bonn, and later go back to the heads of state and government in Mexico.

Some international lawyers, however, see a window of opportunity with targeted interventions in the world trading system to bring the worst polluters to reason—or at least bring them back to the negotiating table. When it comes to a few particularly environmentally damaging products such as steel, it is possible to imagine punitive tarrifs, says Thomas Cottier, head of the World Trade Institute in Berne. "Legally speaking, this is possible," he says. That would mean tariffs would be reduced, for example, for environmentally-friendly-produced goods.

"We are coming into a phase, where individual countries can try it out, and see how far they can or want to go," Cottier told SPIEGEL ONLINE. Wiggle room in trade law is not as tight as it is often claimed. The use of such measures is "more a political question."

It is clear, however, that the possible environmental penalties would be directed mainly against developing countries. This is not unproblematic. The industrialized world must now ask itself the fundamental question of what products they want to continue to produce abroad—where the price of labor may be low, but the price the environment pays is often too high.

Provided by Spiegel Online—Read the latest from Europe's largest newsmagazine

TD Environment and BMO

Tara Perkins and Shawn McCarthy

TORONTO and OTTAWA — From Monday's Globe and Mail Published on Monday, Nov. 23, 2009 12:00AM EST Last updated on Tuesday, Nov. 24, 2009 3:25AM EST

A first-of-its-kind voluntary emissions reduction fund for large Canadian corporations is getting off the ground after securing Bank of Montreal and Toronto-Dominion Bank as initial investors.
The fund, which is being launched by Greening Greater Toronto, will buy carbon offset credits from green projects around the country and pass those credits on to the companies that invest in it.

Its managers and backers say they think the project will contribute to the development of an environmental finance sector in Canada, as lawyers, accountants, fund managers and bankers wrap their heads around the dollar side of carbon credits.

The fund is for voluntary investors in the sense that it's aimed at companies that are not required by regulations to reduce their carbon emissions.

"It's not impossible for an industrial emitter to invest in this, but most industrial emitters figure that they've got carbon emission regulations coming at them, and - while we have a couple discussions under way - we don't think that's going to be a big area for us," said Gerry Rocchi, the CEO of Green Power Action, which was chosen to manage the fund. "They're waiting to see what the regulations look like."

How the fund works
Investors in the fund are looking for carbon credits to offset their own environmental foot print.
They invest their money in the fund, which then invests it in green projects in return for the credits that those projects produce.
For example, if the fund invests in a solar project that produces X credits, then the fund's investors apply those credits to their own emissions.
The goal for the investors is to become carbon neutral, rather than to earn money.

TD has committed $3-million of capital over 5 years, while Bank of Montreal has committed $10-million. Both banks have stated voluntary plans to become carbon neutral, with BMO chief executive officer Bill Downe having committed to make his bank's operations carbon neutral around the world by 2010.

"Our goal, realistically, is that we'd like to see this fund reach $50-million in capital," said Mr. Rocchi, who was the CEO of Barclays Global Investors Canada from 1997 to 2004. "We think it can do a lot more than that, we think there are lots of projects it can fund, but it would be a great success to get to that level."

The carbon offset market is just developing. "You'll see in the so-called compliance space, when the carbon regulations start, the numbers will be much higher," Mr. Rocchi said. "Eventually, there will be funds like this for individuals."

Several companies have launched carbon funds in the past, but Ottawa's delay in regulating emissions has driven them out of business.

However, Western Canada is seeing a growing market for offsets - credits generated by emission reduction projects. In Alberta, the only province to impose regulations on industry, companies can purchase offsets to meet their regulatory emission limits. The British Columbia government is sponsoring the B.C. Carbon Trust, which buys credits from projects for the purpose of reducing the provincial government's own carbon footprint.

But across North America, the voluntary market has been hammered by regulatory delays and the recession.

Several Canadian firms, including Potash Corp., Domtar Corp. and Manitoba Hydro, have joined the Chicago Climate Exchange, a voluntary market that allows companies to buy and sell offset credits. Carbon credits that were selling for $8 a ton a year ago on the Chicago Exchange are now fetching a price of 35 cents per ton.

Typically, industrial companies have traded carbon credits as a way of gaining experience in the market, to prepare themselves for the day that they face regulation. Increasingly, banks and retailers are wading into the voluntary market as they seek to reduce their carbon footprint and demonstrate good corporate citizenship. (Emission caps are expected to impose limits only on major emitters, such as power plants, chemical factories and oil sands upgraders.)

Environment Minister Jim Prentice released broad guidelines for Canada's offset market that will be part of a national cap-and-trade system, primarily projects that reduce emissions in forestry and agricultural practices, as well as municipal waste handling. Under the federal plan - as in Alberta and B.C. - project originators will have to meet standards and be certified to have their offsets accepted.

Mr. Prentice says Ottawa won't release final regulations on the cap-and-trade program until the United States has decided how it will proceed. The U.S. Senate is currently studying a climate bill, similar to one passed by the House of Representatives, but the Senate is not expected to vote on the highly controversial legislation until well into the new year.

The fund being backed by TD and Bank of Montreal has been structured as a limited partnership for tax purposes, and so it's only being sold to domestic companies.

Unlike most investment funds, the companies that put their money in it won't see a net asset value or rate of return. Rather, their money will be used to fund projects that will deliver them with carbon offset credits. "We are trying to deliver them a steady stream of credits, the same amount each year," Mr. Rocchi said.

Projects could be anything from putting new windows or heating systems into the schools within a particular school board to landfill gas firing.

The fund is currently in negotiations with a number of projects and intends to begin buying credits within a month.

"The types of credits we're buying, some of them will comply in the [regulation-based] compliance system, and some of them won't," Mr. Rocchi said. "They're high-quality credits, at least as high quality as what will be in the federal system, but as a small project they may not want to bother going through all the registration steps as an example."

Karen Clarke-Whistler, TD's chief environmental officer, said that the implementation of the fund should help in the broader development of Canada's carbon offsets market because the regulatory framework is still only in draft form.

"While we certainly don't have carbon regulation yet, at the federal level we do see that we have a lot of reason to be preparing for it," she said.

"Part of what we're collectively building here is the infrastructure and the backbone for the green economy," Mr. Rocchi said.

CO2 Australia Limited

Jumat, 27 November 2009

CO2 Australia Limited

CO2 Australia Limited (CO2 Australia) is Australia's largest provider of dedicated carbon sink plantings, established and managed for intended registration under formal emissions reduction schemes. It is the main operating entity of CO2 Group Limited (CO2 Group), which is a public company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). Dedicated forest carbon sink plantings provide a cost effective way to build a Carbon Bank for the future, allowing organisations to meet emissions management or environmental obligations. CO2 Australia manages over 12,500 hectares of carbon plantings across New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. A fully accredited provider of carbon permits, CO2 Australia became the first reforestation company to be accredited under the NSW Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme (GGAS) in 2004. CO2 Australia is the provider of choice for organisations seeking to manage their greenhouse gas emissions profile, including under the Federal Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). Credits under this scheme are fully auditable. CO2 Australia works closely with the farming community across the Australian wheatbelt to integrate the mallee environmental plantings into existing farming and grazing systems. For a property to be considered suitable for use by CO2 Australia is must comply with the Kyoto Protocol, cleared of forest prior to 31 December 1989. Eligible forestry includes freehold land that receives a minimum of 350 millimeters average rainfall per annum that also provides over 50 hectares for mallee plantings. CO2 Australia Carbon Sequestration Program™ Carbon sequestration is the process whereby trees absorb carbon dioxide in the roots, trunk, branches, twigs, bark and leaves as they grow and release oxygen back into the atmosphere. CO2 Australia makes arrangements to protect the trees for at least 100 years. The CO2 Australia Carbon Sequestration Program™ improves biodiversity and reduces the risk of soil erosion and salinity. The program involves establishing long-term (great than 100 years) plantings of mallee eucalypts for the purpose of generating carbon permits, at a commercial scale unsurpassed in the industry. CO2 Australia has conducted extensive research and development on the performance of the native mallee eucalypt trees used in carbon plantings. The mallees are long lived, drought tolerant, can survive intense fires and develops an extensive root system, allowing for a large, protected, underground carbon store. Through selective breeding, CO2 Australia has produced high performing seed lines, developed to have rapid rates of growth and carbon sequestration. Company Background In 2004, CO2 became the first reforestation company to be accredited under the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme (GGAS). From 2004 to 2005, CO2 Australia became a supplier of carbon credits for Origin Energy and Country Energy, and established forest carbon sinks for Eraring Energy in Australia. CO2 Australia entered a joint venture with Macquarie Bank Limited to establish and manage a forest carbon sink in 2006. During the same year, CO2 was engaged by the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment to undertake plantings. CO2 Group also became the first Australian Associate Member and a listed Offset Provider under the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). CCX operates North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide. In 2007, CO2 Australia became the first reforestation company to become an accredited abatement provider under the Australian Government’s Greenhouse Friendly™ program. In the following year, CO2 Australia announced projects for INPEX/Total Browse JV, Newmont Mining Corporation and Rip Curl. CO2 Australia also has contracts to establish and manage forest carbon sinks on behalf of Qantas Airways, Woodside Energy, the City of Sydney, EDS Australia and the Big Day Out. CO2 Group Limited CO2 Group Limited is a public company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX). The company specialises in the commercialisation of business opportunities within the environmental services sector. The formation of CO2 Australia, a Socially Responsible Investment Company, is CO2 Group’s first major initiative.

Kyoto's failings Copenhagen's challenge

Climate change is result of inability to see, acknowledge and act on how things in world connect

BY AVRIM LAZAR, SPECIAL TO THE SUNNOVEMBER 26, 2009

In just a few weeks, world leaders will gather in Copenhagen to address climate change. Twelve years ago in Kyoto the lurking question was whether there was really a need for global action on climate change. Parties reached a deal there that put us on the right path, but we all knew it was deeply flawed. Our mission now, as we start the Copenhagen process, is to avoid the mistakes made in Kyoto.

This time there is no question about the need to act. And this time, the bar needs to be set higher. Simply achieving a "deal" can no longer be the reference point. Instead the reference point has to be a solution that actually works in mitigating the climate change threat. The test for the next deal has to be its effectiveness.

I joined the Forest Products Association of Canada in 2002 after 25 years in the public service and after leading, for Environment Canada, the development of our government's policy position for Kyoto. That effort, and my subsequent work with Canadian forest industry leaders on achieving the Kyoto targets, (in fact we surpassed them 10 times over), has forced me to spend a lot of time thinking about what we all need to do better in Copenhagen.

The bottom line is simple: You cannot address climate change with the kind of thinking that created it. Climate change is the result of our failure to see, acknowledge, and act on how things in this world are connected to each other: how our actions impact the environment; how the world is not divided into polluters and innocents, and how there is no safe haven from global environmental issues. We like to think in safe, comfortable slices but the world works as a system.

Much of where Kyoto failed was the result of this type of thinking -- focusing on the separate pieces of the puzzle rather than on their interconnectedness.

So looking toward the Copenhagen process, this is what we need:

1. Cumulative global targets and actions that are ambitious enough to seriously impact the climate. Gestures, pilot projects and half measures have been defended in the past as ways to get things going, and they have. But people need to believe that we are doing something effective if they are to buy into the cost of making real change.

2. Far less emphasis on offsetting emissions and far more emphasis on the deep retooling needed to reduce them. We can't hide the greenhouse gases under the bed -- we need to stop emitting them. Of course, offsets help in the short run but they distract us from the real work of retooling our industries and infrastructure.

3. Controls and counting regimes that are based on total carbon footprint. The use of massive amounts of fossil fuel to support the production and use of bio-fuel in the U.S. is one example of what happens when you don't measure total carbon footprint.

Also, the movement of production from one country to another may allow one country to claim a reduction in emissions, but that doesn't help the climate.

4. Better integration of other environmental imperatives into the climate program. Biodiversity, air and water quality are severely impacted by climate change and in need of protection. Sacrificing them for carbon reasons is to repeat the mistakes of the past.

5. A far more robust acknowledgment that we need to live within nature's cycles rather than trying to reverse-engineer our way out of nature's imperatives.

6. A willingness to deny access to global markets to those who choose to ignore their environmental responsibilities. For example, banning products that caused deforestation or that came from illegally logged forests.

In Canada, the forestry sector realized years ago that it must transform itself to meet the challenges of climate change.

During the past decade, our forest industry -- the world's largest exporter of forest products -- has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions from its mills by 60 per cent, removing eight million tonnes from the atmosphere.

By retooling our plants and mills and switching from fossil fuels to renewable fuels, we have learned to live within our natural forests, to do business while preserving biodiversity.

Over the past few years, our industry has seen at close range the dangers of climate change.

Warmer winters have allowed pine beetles normally killed by the cold to multiply. The destruction they have left in Canadian forests has resulted in 25,000 families in this country losing their livelihood.

This is just one problem, in one industry, in one nation. And it is just one reason why we in the forest industry have realized that climate change is not an abstract threat for the future, but today's reality.

We have made much progress but the challenges remain daunting. That is why we are going further in addressing our total carbon footprint by committing to becoming carbon neutral from cradle (the forest), to grave (recycling), without purchasing carbon offsets.

With 300 communities across this country relying on the forest industry and one in 25 Canadians working directly and indirectly in the forestry sector, we realize action on climate change is crucial.

Kyoto accommodated the skeptics, we need Copenhagen to empower the believers.

- - -

Avrim Lazar is the President and CEO of the Forest Products Association of Canada

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Importance of methane and nitrous oxide for Europe’s terrestrial greenhouse-gas balance

Away from Climategate and back to science, here’s something interesting fingering land use as an issue. This is from the Max Planck Society.

A new calculation of Europe’s greenhouse gas balance shows that emissions of methane and nitrous oxide tip the balance and eliminate Europe’s terrestrial sink of greenhouse-gases.

Fig.1: In order to compute whether European landscapes store or release greenhouse gases, climatologists have for the first time also considered methane and nitrogen oxide emissions from livestock farming and intensive agriculture. The bottom line is that forests, grasslands and agriculture fields, particularly in central Europe, freely release greenhouse gas (in carbon dioxide equivalents / red colouring in diagram). In this way they balance out the effect which Russian forests have as a source of carbon dioxide storage (blue colouring), almost completely. Click for larger image.

Of all global carbon dioxide emissions, less than half accumulate in the atmosphere where it contributes to global warming. The remainder is hidden away in oceans and terrestrial ecosystems such as forests, grasslands and peat-lands. Stimulating this “free service” of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems is considered one of the main, immediately available ways of reducing climate change. However, new greenhouse gas bookkeeping has revealed that for the European continent this service isn’t free after all. These findings are presented in the most recent edition of Nature Geoscience (Advanced Online Publication, November 22, 2009).

Researchers from 17 European countries cooperating in the EU-Integrated Project CarboEurope, led by Detlef Schulze, of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany have compiled the first comprehensive greenhouse gas balance of Europe. They made two independent estimates: one based on what the atmosphere sees and one based on what terrestrial ecosystems see.

The new bookkeeping effort confirmed the existence of a strong carbon sink of -305 Million tonnes of carbon per year in European forests and grasslands. A sink of this magnitude could offset 19% of the emission from fossil fuel burning. However, agricultural land and drained peat-land are emitting CO₂, which cancels part of this sink. The resulting net CO₂ sink of the European continent is 274 Million tonnes of carbon per year – only 15% of the emissions from fossil fuel burning. But this balance is still incomplete, because all European ecosystems are managed and as a by-product of land management other powerful greenhouse gases are released – for example nitrous oxide from fertilizers applied to grassland and crops, and methane from ruminants and from peat-lands. These previously neglected emissions of greenhouse gases from land-use cancel out almost the entire carbon sink, leaving the landscape offsetting only some 2% of the CO₂ emissions from households, transport and industry.

Compared to Europe as a whole, the situation is even worse for the 25 states of the European Union. Here, although forests and grasslands can compensate for 13% of the CO₂ emitted by fossil fuel burning, emission of powerful greenhouse gases from agricultural emissions and peat mining reduces the effectiveness of the land surface sink to 111 Million tonnes of carbon per year, which is only 11% of the CO₂ emitted by fossil fuels. However, since the emissions of methane and nitrous oxide are relatively higher in the European Union the land surface emerges as a greenhouse gas source of 34 Million tonnes of carbon per year. This effectively increases the emissions from fossil fuel burning by another 3%.

Prof Schulze said “These findings show that if the European landscape is to contribute to mitigating global warming, we need a new, different emphasis on land management. Methane and nitrous oxide are such powerful greenhouse gases; we must manage the landscape to decrease their emissions.”

Related links:

[1] Supplementary figures

Original work:

E. D. Schulze, S. Luyssaert, P. Ciais, A. Freibauer, I. A. Janssens et al., 2009
Importance of methane and nitrous oxide for Europe’s terrestrial greenhouse-gas balance
Nature Geoscience, November 22, 2009, DOI 10.1038/ngeo686 PDF (225 KB)

Mohawk's Environmental Calculator Now Computes Carbon Neutrality

Posted:

Mar 19, 2009 – 01:45 PM EST

Cohoes, NY - March 19, 2009 - The 2004 release of the Mohawk Fine Papers Inc. interactive Environmental Calculator was an instant hit with small businesses and major corporations around the globe. With a few taps on their keyboard, they were able to see how many trees would be preserved and how many pounds of greenhouse gases would be prevented by using papers with environmental attributes.

Upgrades to Mohawk's Environmental Calculator will allow customers to see the savings realized by offsetting direct thermal manufacturing emissions with Verified Emission Reduction credits (VERs). Combining the VER benefits with windpower savings, Mohawk becomes the first U.S. paper mill to offer carbon neutral calculations through its Environmental Calculator.

"Our revised on-line Environmental Calculator computes the additional benefits of supporting qualified greenhouse gas mitigation projects through the purchase of VERs. In 2007, Mohawk joined the U.S. EPA's Climate Leaders Program and, as a condition of membership, Mohawk counted the greenhouse gas emissions for which it has direct responsibility. That same year, Mohawk began to purchase VERs as offsets to those emissions," said Michelle Carpenter, Manager, Corporate Environmental Initiatives, Mohawk Fine Papers Inc.

This tool is easy to use, and can be downloaded directly to your desktop for instant access. Log on to www.mohawkpaper.com and click on "Environmental Calculator," input some basic paper information into the form and click "Calculate Savings."

Many companies today are calculating each project's environmental savings to promote their own awareness of, and efforts toward, sustainable practice. For example, if a company prints an annual report and uses 10,000 lbs. of paper, by using Beckett Cambric 100% PC White instead of a virgin sheet, that company would create an environmental savings equal to:

96 trees preserved for the future
277 lbs. water-borne waste not created
40,780 gallons wastewater flow saved
4,512 lbs. solid waste not generated
8,884 lbs. of greenhouse gases prevented
68,000,000 BTUs energy not consumed

Because this Mohawk paper selection is manufactured with wind-generated energy and also with carbon offsets, there is an additional environmental savings of:

11,000 lbs. greenhouse gas emissions not generated,which is equivalent to 12 barrels of fuel oil unused, or not driving 10,886 miles in an average car, or planting 748 trees

Use Mohawk's Environmental Calculator to see the environmental impact your project can make.

"Even in these tough times Mohawk remains committed to sustainability in the broadest sense of the word. Our efforts are comprehensive and woven into the fabric of our corporate culture and business practices. Energy and materials conservation initiatives go hand in hand with a broader effort to reduce our carbon intensity by helping to fund climate beneficial projects," said George Milner, Senior Vice President, Energy, Environmental and Government Affairs for Mohawk Fine Papers.

For more information about all of our programs, visit www.mohawkpaper.com or call 1-800 the mill.

About Mohawk
Recognized for its technical innovation and environmental focus, Mohawk Fine Papers Inc. is the largest manufacturer of premium printing, writing, and digital paper in North America. Signature grades include Strathmore(R), Beckett(R), Mohawk Superfine(TM), Via(R), BriteHue, Carnival, Synergy, Solutions, Nekoosa Linen, Mohawk Color Copy(R), and proprietary Inxwell(R) products, Navajo(R), and Options(R). Mohawk is also the exclusive marketer of Kromekote and Knightkote, premium coated brands manufactured by Smart Papers.

Mohawk engineers its papers to provide optimal performance for sheetfed, web, and digital printing. Uses for Mohawk papers include corporate reports, corporate identity systems, brochures, packaging, invitations and announcements. Mohawk Digital Papers are also used in on-demand photo books, personalized direct mail, and custom packaging. Mohawk offers reams and envelopes through its ecommerce site at Strathmore.com.

A certified Women-Owned Business Enterprise and leader in environmental stewardship, Mohawk is the first U.S. paper mill to offset 100% of its electricity with windpower renewable energy credits and the first U.S. premium paper mill to shift toward carbon neutral production. Also offered are recycled papers certified by Green Seal and papers certified to the Forest Stewardship Council's (FSC) standards by SmartWood, a program of the Rainforest Alliance. FSC certification ensures responsible use of forest resources.

(C)1996 Forest Stewardship Council A.C. SW-COC-000668

For more information, please contact:

Jane Monast Mohawk Fine Papers

Phone: 518-233-6732

Website: www.mohawkpaper.com

Pam Williams Williams and House

Phone: 860-675-4140

B.C. better start finding carbon credits at home BY MIRO CERNETIG, VANCOUVER SUN COLUMNISTNOVEMBER 26, 2009 9:21 AM

For the last year I’ve been on an admittedly geeky quest during my vacations. I have criss-crossed the planet, hunting down the million-dollar deals involving what many think will be a commodity as big, or bigger, than either oil or gold.

I’ve been carbon-credit hunting.

My exploration through the carbon world, which has turned into an hour-long film Carbon Hunters, took me from Mumbai to Washington, DC, from Manila to London, and a few places in between. It slowly dawned on me that this isn’t a crazy fad — it’s a multi-billion-dollar industry.

One of the revelatory moments happened right here in B.C., in Clayoquot Sound.

I was on the tiny island that is the home of Shawn Atleo, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations. As the grey sky emptied on the rain forest, Atleo told me something few people know.

A few years ago an oil company — energy companies have been some of the earliest players in the carbon credit game — approached him. They wanted the Ahousat First Nation to set aside a vast track of forestry.

The idea was this: The oil company was producing a huge carbon footprint in Alberta’s tarsands. The company wanted to be able to say it was preserving a rainforest, therefore sequestering carbon in trees, thus offsetting its carbon footprint and doing its bit to combat global warming.

Atleo refused the deal. But it was a first hint of the big business that carbon trading would become.

On Wednesday, we got an even bigger sign that carbon trading is emerging as one of the major businesses of the 21st Century. California’s Air Resources Board, which regards carbon and other greenhouse gases as a pollutant causing global warming, unveiled a carbon cap-and-trade program. It’s the first in the United States.

It will set carbon dioxide emission caps on more than 600 refineries, utilities and other greenhouse gas emitters. Polluters who don’t reduce their greenhouse gases will have to buy carbon credits, a trade that California expects to be worth between $2 billion to $4 billion a year in the state alone.

This has major implications for Canada and British Columbia. For one thing, B.C. is part of the Western Climate Initiative with California (as well as three other provinces and four western states). California’s cap-and-trade program will be integrated into that agency, which means that B.C. and other provinces will also be drawn into the California carbon credit trade, both as sellers and buyers of carbon credits.

But that’s just the start.

California’s cap-and-trade plan is regarded as the blue-print for a national cap-and-trade plan that U.S. President Barack Obama hopes to get through Congress next year. If that happens — and the odds are high it will — that will mean carbon trading will become a crucial part of all future U.S.-Canada trade relations.

For B.C. and Canada’s energy-intensive resource sectors, that poses the likelihood they will have to start buying credits, to offset their carbon footprints, to enter the U.S. market. Under the draft regulations, for example, California will regulate the carbon footprints of electricity importers.

What this means is B.C. and Canadian negotiators better start moving fast to define Canadian-sourced carbon credits.

Will Canada’s carbon credits include trees grown to sequester carbon? Can green power from run-of-river power projects create carbon credits? Or the carbon saved in trees by protecting Canada’s boreal forest?

If Canada doesn’t identify a supply of home-grown carbon credits, the U.S. will force it to buy those credits from others. That will mean billions of dollars leaving the country. In short, we’re likely to be soon facing a carbon tariff.

For Canadians, this is a bigger challenge than the softwood lumber wars. It’s as complex as the free trade deal.Probably even bigger, actually.

Richard Sandor, who runs the Chicago Climate Exchange and is seen as the “father of carbon trading,” predicts the global carbon credit market will soon be in the trillions of dollars annually. Bigger than gold or oil.

If he’s right, let’s hope the Canadian and provincial governments have their crack negotiators on this file in Washington and the United Nations, where cap-and-trade will be defined. If not, what many predict will be the Carbon Century could be very, very expensive for Canadians and their economy.

mcernetig@vancouversun.com

Miro Cernetig’s film, Carbon Hunters,

airs tonight at 8 p.m. on CBC

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Forest Carbon Core to Climate Change Deal

October 29, 2009

Chris Elliott, Forest Carbon Initiative , World Wildlife Fund

As the Copenhagen talks progress, negotiators must not miss the opportunity to ensure that forests become a vital part of the post-2012 climate change framework.

Efforts to mitigate dangerous climate change revolve around the overarching goal of holding the average increase in global temperatures to well below 2°C. With deforestation accounting for approximately 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, it is clear that any solution to the climate change problem must include a solution to deforestation. Yet, forests – valued for providing a range of environmental services – have thus far been entirely excluded from the global climate change regime.

Indeed, there are powerful economic and social drivers at the heart of deforestation. If we cannot ensure a way to sufficiently value standing trees over cut ones, we will not incentivize the behaviors and policies that will protect the world’s remaining forests.

REDD – “reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation” – offers a pathway for helping countries reverse deforestation. However, REDD was kept out of the Kyoto agreement — in part due to concerns about feasibility and scope of the policy as well as skepticism about how benefits would be shared with communities. But the years since Kyoto have allowed for national level pilot projects which show clearly that feasibility challenges can be overcome. For example, the science and technology of forest monitoring have advanced to the point that measuring deforestation at the national level is now an achievable goal in most of the developing world.

The Brazilian state of Acre has implemented a deforestation monitoring system that combines remote sensing data and property level monitoring as part of an ambitious REDD policy. With this information it is possible to accurately assess and monitor the forest resources and ensure their protection.

Beyond models of feasibility, the successful implementation of REDD will require coordination at both the national and international levels. Building the necessary infrastructure for operational capacity and financing this will require a phased approach. Early phases, which will be underpinned by public financing, will center on nation-level institution building and the development of technical capacity. Ultimately, global carbon compliance markets can play a significant role in compensating countries for verified emissions reductions achieved during later phases of REDD.

In fact, while a global market for forest carbon is years from being realized, the investment community has already taken notice. Professionals in the SRI, carbon trading and sustainability fields are thinking carefully about how to value forest carbon as an asset; how to project the potential size of the market; what rules and mechanisms can facilitate the most efficient market; and what country-level projects offer best practices.

Investors are also clear that while their market can provide an efficient means of developing a global market, their shared view is that public financing is vital to the start up phase of REDD. Without both the political support from key countries – U.S., EU, China, India and major forested nations – and key national legislative initiatives, REDD will remain a policy in name only.

It is critical that the final text of the post-2012 agreement include firm commitments from developed countries to provide financial and technical support to developing countries, especially for the early phases of REDD. This must be combined with a clear regulatory framework, which will guide the development of national level institutions and give the private sector the certainty it needs to play a constructive role forward in what many expect to be significant and vibrant part of the carbon markets. We cannot afford to miss this opportunity to ensure that standing forests are included in the post 2012 framework.

Chris Elliott is Lead for World Wildlife Fund’s Forest Carbon Initiative.