CAROL CHRISTIAN
Today staff
Giving Mother Nature a helping hand, seedlings planting began last Wednesday at ConocoPhillips’ Surmont site as the company gets underway with its Faster Forests program, an accelerated reclamation program set to become standard operating procedure.
Under current legislation, companies are only required to re-seed land reclaimed with a grass mix species, but it can take dozens of years before natural tree growth returns and the site is restored naturally. The Faster Forests program recovers the forest ecosystem more proactively.
“What we’re trying to do is simply accelerate the reclamation cycle,” explained Peter Zimmerman, manager of environment and stakeholder engagement for oilsands. “So rather than have a site that might take five or 10 years before you start to get little seedlings established and grow, we’re trying to do that right out of the gate.”
Lands to be planted this year are all delineation drilling well sites, all about a half hectare in size.
ConocoPhillips turned to Outland Resources, a cross-Canada company offering silviculture services — the branch of forestry dealing with the development and care of forests — to Alberta’s forest and oil industries.
They also retained Al-Pac to supply the trees: commercial stock, and mostly aspens for this inaugural planting, although ConocoPhillips is also awaiting delivery of white spruce.
“It’s in the future that we are wanting to move to using different kinds of species that would be more than just commercial timber species that could be used for habitat enhancement or might be of interest for traditional use by First Nations,” Zimmerman said.
Some 30 areas on the Surmont lease, a joint venture with Total about 35 kilometres south of Fort McMurray, have been identified for this program, partly because of the number of trees available. Some of the sites earmarked for planting this year by ConocoPhillips were disturbed a year or two ago, while others will be from this past year.
This planting is expected to last up to two weeks with two or three sites planted a day, depending on how far apart they are. This way, planters are taking advantage of optimal planting time in July.
“You pretty well have to plant (in) late June, July. You can plant in the fall and we might chose to do that on some sites that might have access issues, but I understand that the mortality of the trees in the fall is a little bit higher. You get better success if you do it in the spring.”
The technical foundation for this program was borne from a 10-year University of Alberta study being funded by ConocoPhillips with a number of other organizations. At the midway point last year, the university released a report with a number of recommendations to accelerate the reclamation period.
Zimmerman explained Faster Forests is important because there are two dimensions to surface disturbance: the area disturbed, and the length of time that disturbance remains on the ground.
“So we kind of think that in terms of hectare years: how many hectares are disturbed over what time period,” Zimmerman said.
“You can reduce your footprint in kind of two ways. You can try to shrink the area you that you’re using and we’re looking at ways to try do that,” he said, citing the possibility of such measures as smaller well pads and skinnier pipelines. “But you come up to a point that you can’t reduce that anymore.
“The other thing you can do is try to recover your disturbance quicker … and that is the aspect of Faster Forests that we’re really focusing on right now, so we’re trying to decrease the cycle time of the reclamation.”
cchristian@fortmcmurraytoday.com
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
MXenergy Reaches Carbon Neutrality Through Purchase of Forestry Offsets
STAMFORD, Conn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--MXenergy announced today that it has offset the greenhouse gas emissions associated with its national operations as part of the company’s ongoing commitment to reduce its environmental impact.
As part of its membership in the Chicago Climate Exchange, MXenergy has identified its annual carbon emissions of about 1,000 tonnes and has retired the same amount of emission reduction credits to make its national operations carbon neutral.
“MXenergy voluntarily offset the emissions associated with our multiple office spaces, air and road travel and other business operations as part of our company commitment to address climate change,” said MXenergy CEO Jeffrey Mayer. “We are committed to doing more than our share to fight global warming and encourage other businesses to come forward and do the same.”
MXenergy became a member of the Chicago Climate Exchange to take part in its voluntary cap-and-trade system offered to global businesses. As a member, MXenergy made a legally binding commitment to fully offset its emissions on an annual basis. After accounting and verifying its carbon footprint through CCX MXXenergy offsets the emissions.
MXenergy retired carbon offsets that were generated from CCX-registered afforestation projects in Illinois. MXenergy purchased and retired the offsets equal to its annual emissions from a project that plants hardwood and softwood trees on former cropland across more than 2,981 acres. Trees naturally sequester carbon dioxide through photosynthesis and the project was created with the sole purpose of creating a permanent solution for sequestering greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond addressing the emissions associated with business operations, MXenergy encourages its employees to reduce consumption of resources through smart energy and transportation management.
As a national supplier of natural gas and electricity with more than 500,000 customers across the nation, MXenergy is committed to working with customers on reducing their environmental impact. The company offers a program for customers to offset the emissions associated with their utility purchases. In 2007 MXenergy launched the Earth Friendly Partnership for customers to join the fight against global warming, enabling them to make their homes and businesses carbon-neutral by also purchasing CCX afforestation offsets Customers who join the partnership pay only a fraction of a penny more for power service, with MXenergy subsidizing the balance.
About MXenergy
MXenergy is one of the fastest-growing retail natural gas and electricity suppliers in North America, serving approximately 500,000 customers in 39 utility territories in the United States and Canada. Founded in 1999 to provide natural gas and electricity to consumers in deregulated energy markets, MXenergy helps residential customers and small business owners control their energy bills by providing both fixed and variable rate plans. MXenergy is committed to best practices in environmental conservation. MXenergy is a member of the Chicago Climate Exchange and an Energy Star Partner. More information can be found at www.mxenergy.com.
About Chicago Climate Exchange
Chicago Climate Exchange, Inc. is owned by Climate Exchange plc a publicly traded company listed on the AIM division of the London Stock Exchange (CLE.L). CCX, which began trading in 2003, is the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding, rules-based greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading system, as well as the world’s only global system for emissions trading based on all six greenhouse gases.
Contacts
MXenergyTodd Miller, 203-378-1152 ext. 149tmiller@cjpcom.co
As part of its membership in the Chicago Climate Exchange, MXenergy has identified its annual carbon emissions of about 1,000 tonnes and has retired the same amount of emission reduction credits to make its national operations carbon neutral.
“MXenergy voluntarily offset the emissions associated with our multiple office spaces, air and road travel and other business operations as part of our company commitment to address climate change,” said MXenergy CEO Jeffrey Mayer. “We are committed to doing more than our share to fight global warming and encourage other businesses to come forward and do the same.”
MXenergy became a member of the Chicago Climate Exchange to take part in its voluntary cap-and-trade system offered to global businesses. As a member, MXenergy made a legally binding commitment to fully offset its emissions on an annual basis. After accounting and verifying its carbon footprint through CCX MXXenergy offsets the emissions.
MXenergy retired carbon offsets that were generated from CCX-registered afforestation projects in Illinois. MXenergy purchased and retired the offsets equal to its annual emissions from a project that plants hardwood and softwood trees on former cropland across more than 2,981 acres. Trees naturally sequester carbon dioxide through photosynthesis and the project was created with the sole purpose of creating a permanent solution for sequestering greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond addressing the emissions associated with business operations, MXenergy encourages its employees to reduce consumption of resources through smart energy and transportation management.
As a national supplier of natural gas and electricity with more than 500,000 customers across the nation, MXenergy is committed to working with customers on reducing their environmental impact. The company offers a program for customers to offset the emissions associated with their utility purchases. In 2007 MXenergy launched the Earth Friendly Partnership for customers to join the fight against global warming, enabling them to make their homes and businesses carbon-neutral by also purchasing CCX afforestation offsets Customers who join the partnership pay only a fraction of a penny more for power service, with MXenergy subsidizing the balance.
About MXenergy
MXenergy is one of the fastest-growing retail natural gas and electricity suppliers in North America, serving approximately 500,000 customers in 39 utility territories in the United States and Canada. Founded in 1999 to provide natural gas and electricity to consumers in deregulated energy markets, MXenergy helps residential customers and small business owners control their energy bills by providing both fixed and variable rate plans. MXenergy is committed to best practices in environmental conservation. MXenergy is a member of the Chicago Climate Exchange and an Energy Star Partner. More information can be found at www.mxenergy.com.
About Chicago Climate Exchange
Chicago Climate Exchange, Inc. is owned by Climate Exchange plc a publicly traded company listed on the AIM division of the London Stock Exchange (CLE.L). CCX, which began trading in 2003, is the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding, rules-based greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading system, as well as the world’s only global system for emissions trading based on all six greenhouse gases.
Contacts
MXenergyTodd Miller, 203-378-1152 ext. 149tmiller@cjpcom.co
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Climate-change survey focuses responses from ag and forestryBy
COOKSON BEECHER
Capital Press
June 6, 2009
The results of a climate-change survey focusing on input from ag, forestry and other interests is now available online.The survey is the result of a climate-change questionnaire crafted in March by the U.S. House Agriculture Committee and sent to more than 400 ag- and forestry-related organizations.More than 200 organizations responded, with replies coming from a diverse group including commodity, conservation, forestry, research, energy, business and nonprofit interests as well as the public.The compilation of the survey results, which includes answers to 29 questions, runs to more than 2,500 pages.Among the responders were the American Nursery and Landscape Association, the Chicago Climate Exchange, the Association of Consulting Foresters of America, Defenders of Wildlife, the California Association of Wine Grape Growers, the California Farm Bureau, California Citrus Mutual, Cargill Inc., Oregon State University Extension Service, National Grain and Feed Association, National Meat Association, National Organic Coalition, Western United Dairymen, Western Growers and Washington state's Ecology and Natural Resources departments.According to a letter from House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-MN, that went along with the questionnaire, farmers, ranchers and forest landowners have been participating in agricultural programs that reduce carbon for years.The questionnaire's goal, he said, was to identify ways that these practices could be recognized and incorporated into climate-change legislation. The letter also pointed out that Congress is poised to consider a range of options to reduce greenhouse gasses. Two of the options are to mandate or authorize cap and trade programs or to impose a tax or fee on greenhouse emissions.But Peterson also told those who received the questionnaire that some of the proposed legislation would allow producers to receive emission allowances to generate carbon offsets that could be sold under a cap and trade program, and for that reason producers could benefit from a carbon-reduction program.In answering one the questionnaire's first questions, "Should agriculture and forestry sectors be covered under a carbon-reduction program?" Joel Nelson of Citrus Mutual summed up one of the industry's prevailing thoughts about this:"Citrus Mutual is conflicted as to the need for this type of program," he said. "The scientific community is split as to whether global warming and climate change is occurring, and if so, is our climate reverting back to what it once was less than a century ago? We profess to not know the answer to that question, but we acknowledge that some preparedness is warranted in case. For this reason we believe the committee should take small steps towards this effort because there is so much we don't know and because of unintended consequences."In a press release about the survey, Peterson said that the "tremendous response" to the questionnaire reveals the concerns and contributions that the organizations and individuals participating in the survey can offer in the discussion about climate change."The information we received from this survey will help us educate other members of Congress about the potential contribution and impact of climate change legislation on agriculture and rural communities," the congressman sai
Capital Press
June 6, 2009
The results of a climate-change survey focusing on input from ag, forestry and other interests is now available online.The survey is the result of a climate-change questionnaire crafted in March by the U.S. House Agriculture Committee and sent to more than 400 ag- and forestry-related organizations.More than 200 organizations responded, with replies coming from a diverse group including commodity, conservation, forestry, research, energy, business and nonprofit interests as well as the public.The compilation of the survey results, which includes answers to 29 questions, runs to more than 2,500 pages.Among the responders were the American Nursery and Landscape Association, the Chicago Climate Exchange, the Association of Consulting Foresters of America, Defenders of Wildlife, the California Association of Wine Grape Growers, the California Farm Bureau, California Citrus Mutual, Cargill Inc., Oregon State University Extension Service, National Grain and Feed Association, National Meat Association, National Organic Coalition, Western United Dairymen, Western Growers and Washington state's Ecology and Natural Resources departments.According to a letter from House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-MN, that went along with the questionnaire, farmers, ranchers and forest landowners have been participating in agricultural programs that reduce carbon for years.The questionnaire's goal, he said, was to identify ways that these practices could be recognized and incorporated into climate-change legislation. The letter also pointed out that Congress is poised to consider a range of options to reduce greenhouse gasses. Two of the options are to mandate or authorize cap and trade programs or to impose a tax or fee on greenhouse emissions.But Peterson also told those who received the questionnaire that some of the proposed legislation would allow producers to receive emission allowances to generate carbon offsets that could be sold under a cap and trade program, and for that reason producers could benefit from a carbon-reduction program.In answering one the questionnaire's first questions, "Should agriculture and forestry sectors be covered under a carbon-reduction program?" Joel Nelson of Citrus Mutual summed up one of the industry's prevailing thoughts about this:"Citrus Mutual is conflicted as to the need for this type of program," he said. "The scientific community is split as to whether global warming and climate change is occurring, and if so, is our climate reverting back to what it once was less than a century ago? We profess to not know the answer to that question, but we acknowledge that some preparedness is warranted in case. For this reason we believe the committee should take small steps towards this effort because there is so much we don't know and because of unintended consequences."In a press release about the survey, Peterson said that the "tremendous response" to the questionnaire reveals the concerns and contributions that the organizations and individuals participating in the survey can offer in the discussion about climate change."The information we received from this survey will help us educate other members of Congress about the potential contribution and impact of climate change legislation on agriculture and rural communities," the congressman sai
Vilsack calls for agriculture and forestry carbon credits
MCAFEE, Ky. — U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said he would push Congress to add carbon credits for agriculture and forestry to the climate bill now moving through the House, and to give his department authority to oversee those segments of the proposed “cap and trade” system, rather than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
“We will be advocating forcefully” for both provisions, Vilsack said at a community forum in central Kentucky cattle country.
He also said he agreed with House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., that calculations of the carbon footprint of ethanol should not include “indirect land use,” such as the conversion of forest land to agriculture when expansion of corn acreage for ethanol pushes production of other crops elsewhere, including other countries.
Not in agreement
That position is not in agreement with a recent finding by EPA, but Vilsack told reporters that EPA’s proposal is still “subject to peer review,” and he is confident that a final rule on the topic will find him and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in agreement.
Peterson said he and at least 26 other rural Democrats will oppose the Waxman-Markey climate bill unless EPA’s position on indirect land use is not reversed.
Vilsack said agriculture emits 7 percent to 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gases but could be as much as “25 percent of the solution” via farming practices that prevent carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere.
USDA is better suited
He said USDA is better suited than EPA to monitor those practices, since it has more than 2,000 offices and employees “in virtually every county in the country.”
During the forum, which lasted about an hour and a half, Vilsack touched on many issues facing his department.
Here’s a sampling.
Animal ID
Though he was on a cattle farm in the state that is the largest cattle producer east of the Mississippi River, Vilsack didn’t mention animal agriculture until asked about what is probably the hottest issue on his plate, the National Animal Identification System.
The system is voluntary and Vilsack said only about 30 percent of producers participate, so some in Congress are reluctant to keep funding it, but an effective system is needed to maintain foreign markets.
Some countries have temporarily blocked imports of U.S. beef after reports of animal diseases such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, commonly called “mad cow disease.”
Vilsack said, “I’m a little scared that if you do away with the program . . . you have a more difficult time convincing our trading partners that American beef is safe.”
Improve the system
Vilsack said the department’s current listening sessions on the issue may find “a creative way we can improve this system so more people can participate.”
He told reporters that a participation rate of 70 to 80 percent is needed to give confidence to foreign markets, but declined to put a time frame on that goal.
In a separate interview, he declined to say what circumstances should require the program to become mandatory “because people will read into that answer . . . that I’ve made a decision about how the animal identification system should work.”
Strong objections
The prospect of a mandatory system has brought strong objections from small farmers, who say its cost would be too much for them, but Vilsack said he had also “heard small producers say this is a good thing.”
He said the suggestion of subsidies for small farmers to join the system is “still up in the air,” awaiting conclusion of the listening sessions.
“I would hope that by the end of the summer we’ve got a clear idea of what will work.”
Dairy farmers in crisis
Dairy farmers are “in crisis,” Carolyn Orr of the Council of State Governments told Vilsack as she asked him when the system that controls their industry will start to be reformed.
“I don’t want to say that change is imminent, because this is a contentious issue,” Vilsack replied.
He said USDA has been “trying to stop the bleeding in dairy,” by putting 200 million pounds of nonfat dry milk into food programs and reinstating its export-assistance program for the industry.
The latter move was strongly criticized by 29 nations at the World Trade Organization.
Vilsack said he heard recently about a California dairyman who committed suicide, leaving seven children and a wife to keep their farm going.
“There’s a human cost to this that we sometimes don’t appreciate,” he said, after telling that story and one about calling the widow of an Iowa hog farmer who killed himself in 1999, soon after Vilsack became the state’s governor.
“We try to do all we can for these people,” he said with a touch of frustration. “I just don’t want to have to make another call like that.”
Conservation programs
To a questioner who voiced concern about proposed budget cuts in conservation programs, Vilsack said there wouldn’t be a cut in spending, because applications for payments always fall short of the appropriations.
In fact, he said, “I think you’re going to see a pretty significant increase.”
To another questioner, who asked for resumption of full funding for the Resource Conservation and Development Program, Vilsack said he knows from his experience as a governor, state senator and mayor that the program does good work, but “it’s just a question of who pays for it,” and who benefits from it.
States and localities get the benefit, he said, and the department must fund places to cut its budget to help reduce the federal deficit.
He said the current budget proposal was drafted in four weeks, as the administration began, and it did not have time to dig deeply for places to save money and spend it more efficiently.
The Department of Food?
Vilsack and his audience appeared to agree most about the need to educate people outside rural areas about their connections to agriculture.
“I think there’s going to be a real interest on the part of consumers to know their farmer,” he said.
The secretary said USDA is “often misunderstood,” and he is working with non-rural members of Congress to “rebrand the department.”
He said the planting of a “people’s garden” outside the huge USDA headquarters on Independence Avenue in Washington provides “a very graphic opportunity for people to understand” the department’s relationship to food.
“We take our food supply for granted,” he said. “I think we also take our water supply for granted. We can no longer do that.”
Begin at early age
He said public education should begin at an early age.
“The more we can get kids’ hands in the dirt, the better off we will be as a country,” and the better the decisions the political system makes about agriculture will be, he said.
Later in the day, Vilsack visited a food bank in Louisville.
(Al Cross is the director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky.)
“We will be advocating forcefully” for both provisions, Vilsack said at a community forum in central Kentucky cattle country.
He also said he agreed with House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., that calculations of the carbon footprint of ethanol should not include “indirect land use,” such as the conversion of forest land to agriculture when expansion of corn acreage for ethanol pushes production of other crops elsewhere, including other countries.
Not in agreement
That position is not in agreement with a recent finding by EPA, but Vilsack told reporters that EPA’s proposal is still “subject to peer review,” and he is confident that a final rule on the topic will find him and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in agreement.
Peterson said he and at least 26 other rural Democrats will oppose the Waxman-Markey climate bill unless EPA’s position on indirect land use is not reversed.
Vilsack said agriculture emits 7 percent to 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gases but could be as much as “25 percent of the solution” via farming practices that prevent carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere.
USDA is better suited
He said USDA is better suited than EPA to monitor those practices, since it has more than 2,000 offices and employees “in virtually every county in the country.”
During the forum, which lasted about an hour and a half, Vilsack touched on many issues facing his department.
Here’s a sampling.
Animal ID
Though he was on a cattle farm in the state that is the largest cattle producer east of the Mississippi River, Vilsack didn’t mention animal agriculture until asked about what is probably the hottest issue on his plate, the National Animal Identification System.
The system is voluntary and Vilsack said only about 30 percent of producers participate, so some in Congress are reluctant to keep funding it, but an effective system is needed to maintain foreign markets.
Some countries have temporarily blocked imports of U.S. beef after reports of animal diseases such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, commonly called “mad cow disease.”
Vilsack said, “I’m a little scared that if you do away with the program . . . you have a more difficult time convincing our trading partners that American beef is safe.”
Improve the system
Vilsack said the department’s current listening sessions on the issue may find “a creative way we can improve this system so more people can participate.”
He told reporters that a participation rate of 70 to 80 percent is needed to give confidence to foreign markets, but declined to put a time frame on that goal.
In a separate interview, he declined to say what circumstances should require the program to become mandatory “because people will read into that answer . . . that I’ve made a decision about how the animal identification system should work.”
Strong objections
The prospect of a mandatory system has brought strong objections from small farmers, who say its cost would be too much for them, but Vilsack said he had also “heard small producers say this is a good thing.”
He said the suggestion of subsidies for small farmers to join the system is “still up in the air,” awaiting conclusion of the listening sessions.
“I would hope that by the end of the summer we’ve got a clear idea of what will work.”
Dairy farmers in crisis
Dairy farmers are “in crisis,” Carolyn Orr of the Council of State Governments told Vilsack as she asked him when the system that controls their industry will start to be reformed.
“I don’t want to say that change is imminent, because this is a contentious issue,” Vilsack replied.
He said USDA has been “trying to stop the bleeding in dairy,” by putting 200 million pounds of nonfat dry milk into food programs and reinstating its export-assistance program for the industry.
The latter move was strongly criticized by 29 nations at the World Trade Organization.
Vilsack said he heard recently about a California dairyman who committed suicide, leaving seven children and a wife to keep their farm going.
“There’s a human cost to this that we sometimes don’t appreciate,” he said, after telling that story and one about calling the widow of an Iowa hog farmer who killed himself in 1999, soon after Vilsack became the state’s governor.
“We try to do all we can for these people,” he said with a touch of frustration. “I just don’t want to have to make another call like that.”
Conservation programs
To a questioner who voiced concern about proposed budget cuts in conservation programs, Vilsack said there wouldn’t be a cut in spending, because applications for payments always fall short of the appropriations.
In fact, he said, “I think you’re going to see a pretty significant increase.”
To another questioner, who asked for resumption of full funding for the Resource Conservation and Development Program, Vilsack said he knows from his experience as a governor, state senator and mayor that the program does good work, but “it’s just a question of who pays for it,” and who benefits from it.
States and localities get the benefit, he said, and the department must fund places to cut its budget to help reduce the federal deficit.
He said the current budget proposal was drafted in four weeks, as the administration began, and it did not have time to dig deeply for places to save money and spend it more efficiently.
The Department of Food?
Vilsack and his audience appeared to agree most about the need to educate people outside rural areas about their connections to agriculture.
“I think there’s going to be a real interest on the part of consumers to know their farmer,” he said.
The secretary said USDA is “often misunderstood,” and he is working with non-rural members of Congress to “rebrand the department.”
He said the planting of a “people’s garden” outside the huge USDA headquarters on Independence Avenue in Washington provides “a very graphic opportunity for people to understand” the department’s relationship to food.
“We take our food supply for granted,” he said. “I think we also take our water supply for granted. We can no longer do that.”
Begin at early age
He said public education should begin at an early age.
“The more we can get kids’ hands in the dirt, the better off we will be as a country,” and the better the decisions the political system makes about agriculture will be, he said.
Later in the day, Vilsack visited a food bank in Louisville.
(Al Cross is the director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues at the University of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky.)
Monday, June 1, 2009
Carbon credit scheme will draw organized crime: Interpol
Monday Jun 01, 2009
By The Edmonton Journal
Organized crime syndicates are eyeing the nascent forest carbon credit industry as a potentially lucrative new opportunity for fraud, an Interpol environmental crime official said on Friday.
Peter Younger, an environmental crimes specialist at the world's largest international police agency, was referring to a UN-backed scheme called "reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation." REDD aims to unlock potentially billions of dollars for developing countries that conserve and restore their forests. In return, they would earn carbon credits that can be sold for profit to developed nations that need to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
"If you are going to trade any commodity on the open market, you are creating a profit-and-loss situation. There will be fraudulent trading of carbon credits," he told Reuters in an interview at a forestry conference in Nusa Dua on the Indonesian island of Bali.
"In future, if you are running a factory and you desperately need credits to offset your emissions, there will be someone who can make that happen for you. Absolutely, organized crime will be involved."
Younger called on governments, multi-lateral bodies and NGOs to involve law enforcement agencies more in the development of REDD policies and in the fight against illegal logging and deforestation, which are responsible for about 20 per cent of mankind's greenhouse gas emissions.
"It struck me, as I sit here at this conference, as ironic that I am the only policeman here. You say you want to strike up partnerships to address illegal logging -- who with?" he said. "Consider resourcing law enforcement efforts and not just relying on NGOs and other nice people to do it for you."
Forests soak up vast amounts of carbon dioxide, and REDD aims to reward governments and local communities for every tonne of CO2 locked up by a forest over decades, equating to a potentially very large flow of cash globally for forest credits.
Local communities are supposed to earn a share of REDD credit sales to pay for better health, education and alternative livelihoods that entice them to protect rather than cut down surrounding forests. But revenue-sharing measures have yet to be worked out. Fraud could include claiming credits for forests that do not exist or were not protected, Younger said.
By The Edmonton Journal
Organized crime syndicates are eyeing the nascent forest carbon credit industry as a potentially lucrative new opportunity for fraud, an Interpol environmental crime official said on Friday.
Peter Younger, an environmental crimes specialist at the world's largest international police agency, was referring to a UN-backed scheme called "reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation." REDD aims to unlock potentially billions of dollars for developing countries that conserve and restore their forests. In return, they would earn carbon credits that can be sold for profit to developed nations that need to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
"If you are going to trade any commodity on the open market, you are creating a profit-and-loss situation. There will be fraudulent trading of carbon credits," he told Reuters in an interview at a forestry conference in Nusa Dua on the Indonesian island of Bali.
"In future, if you are running a factory and you desperately need credits to offset your emissions, there will be someone who can make that happen for you. Absolutely, organized crime will be involved."
Younger called on governments, multi-lateral bodies and NGOs to involve law enforcement agencies more in the development of REDD policies and in the fight against illegal logging and deforestation, which are responsible for about 20 per cent of mankind's greenhouse gas emissions.
"It struck me, as I sit here at this conference, as ironic that I am the only policeman here. You say you want to strike up partnerships to address illegal logging -- who with?" he said. "Consider resourcing law enforcement efforts and not just relying on NGOs and other nice people to do it for you."
Forests soak up vast amounts of carbon dioxide, and REDD aims to reward governments and local communities for every tonne of CO2 locked up by a forest over decades, equating to a potentially very large flow of cash globally for forest credits.
Local communities are supposed to earn a share of REDD credit sales to pay for better health, education and alternative livelihoods that entice them to protect rather than cut down surrounding forests. But revenue-sharing measures have yet to be worked out. Fraud could include claiming credits for forests that do not exist or were not protected, Younger said.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Forest offsets give EPA regulators some tough nuts to crack
If a tree grows in a forest, does it make an emissions offset? What happens if it burns down? Both the integrity and the cost of the legislation working its way through Congress that would put a cap on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions hang on questions like these.
Experts have for the most part applauded the rigorous criteria for offsets in the far-reaching climate and energy bill passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week.
But while the bill, proposed by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), lays out a game plan, U.S. EPA would have to answer these and many other questions. The task could be one of the more complicated ones the agency has faced.
"Offsets are really going to allow this bill to get passed," said Shanna Brownstein, a policy associate with the Climate Trust, a nonprofit offset provider. "But implementation is critical, because it could very easily compromise the environmental integrity of the entire program."
The reason is that offsets -- greenhouse gas emissions reductions that occur outside of the overall carbon cap -- can be bought as credits by regulated industries to lower their compliance costs. They could account for up to 2 billion tons of the planned emissions reductions every year.
Half would be sourced domestically and half abroad, although the most recent Waxman-Markey substitute allows that international credits could reach three-quarters of the total in the likely chance that the U.S.-based market falls short.
But, as some are quick to note, offsets are tricky business. The agency is tasked with setting provisions to verify and enforce those reductions, both in the United States and, even harder, abroad. EPA is also to determine what constitutes a "permanent" emission cut that is "additional," or wouldn't have otherwise occurred without a carbon price.
Some consider it an unattainable mandate. "It's impossible to ensure," said Environment America's federal global warming director, Emily Figdor. Others, most notably a number of major environmental groups and businesses that have signed onto the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, have backed offsets that come with rigorous standards.
For regulated industries, they are among the most important components of the bill. Without international offsets, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade program could nearly double in cost, EPA estimates.
And although several previous cap-and-trade bills outlined specific projects and sectors, such as forestry and agriculture, that would qualify as offsets, the Waxman-Markey substitute instead would give EPA, advised by an independent nine-member Offsets Integrity Advisory Board, authority to decide which will make the cut.
Much will hang on an advisory board
The latitude left to EPA is largely on purpose. Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that the move takes a lot of the politics out of the current offsets debate.
But sectors looking to participate in a potentially lucrative market are wrangling to get more specific language back into the bill (ClimateWire, May 20). Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio), for example, is working with Chairman Waxman to incorporate some certainty for the agricultural community in the offset market into the bill, according to his spokesman.
Others are happy about Congress' hands-off approach and for provisions requiring the agency periodically review its own rules. "The best aspect of the quality controls is that the bill leaves the technical decisions to the scientists," said Figdor.
The result, however, could be to push the political struggle down the chain to the selection and activities of the new advisory board, which the bill's language indicates could have substantial influence on EPA's decisions, said Michael Wara, a law professor at Stanford University.
"Everyone who is regulated or is selling offsets wants as much in as possible. This is the cost-control money, and these people are going to be the gatekeepers," he said.
Conservative regulations could control the supply
At minimum, EPA will have a delicate balancing act on its hands. It could take a conservative approach, limiting itself to projects that unambiguously meet the stringent criteria, but that would likely reduce the offset supply, especially early on in the program, several experts in offset projects and markets said.
One reason is the substantial gray area in deciding whether emissions reductions are additional, especially on the international side and in state-controlled economies like China's, said Wara. That could play out the extent to which EPA approves already-existing projects for the program, an important source for the initial market supply.
For example, the Obama administration could potentially certify some credits from the United Nations' Clean Development Mechanism, a program that has been fraught with controversies over questionable projects, said Alexia Kelly, a senior associate in the World Resources Institute's climate and energy program, although she questioned whether there would be the "political appetite" to do so.
Perhaps most significantly, the bill gives EPA, the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development the power to work out sector-by-sector baseline emissions thresholds with foreign countries, under which projects could qualify for offsets in the U.S. market. "It's sort of like a cap-and-trade with training wheels," said Wara.
On the U.S. side, EPA will likely look toward existing programs like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and the Climate Action Reserve, which has been busy building regulatory quality protocols to approve projects based on sector-wide standards for landfills, livestock and forests.
Today, however, RGGI has not yet approved any offset projects. The Climate Action Reserve recently issued its millionth offset credit, which would still be a small drop in the bucket for an economywide program.
Gary Gero, the Climate Action Reserve's president, is confident that the program could scale up significantly before cap and trade takes effect, and that its standardized methodologies allow for quick approval. He has been urging EPA to adopt its model or even to contract out the process to the Climate Action Reserve itself.
The agency itself already has some experience supervising offsets through voluntary programs and protocols, such as its Climate Leaders program. Those, however, are far less stringent than a regulatory program would be, said Kelly.
Regardless of the overall approach, many agreed that the need for speed is troublesome. Should the bill pass, EPA would have two years after its passage to get regulations into effect and provide an initial supply to the market.
"Look at everything they have to do to approve even a sector of offsets. They are going to be under a lot of pressure to rush, particularly if they are understaffed," said Victor Flatt, a University of Houston law professor and a scholar with the Center for Progressive Reform. Brownstein said it would be difficult for EPA to get a real head start until the legislation passes, since it currently lacks the mandate, funding and staff.
Will a forest fire cause 'havoc' in financial markets?
Flatt worried that the offset program could run into not only environmental trouble but also financial trouble if EPA makes early missteps in approving projects. He's essentially concerned about "toxic offsets."
The bill already incorporates an insurance plan on the international side, a buffer that requires five foreign-bought offset credits for every four emissions allowances awarded, leaving one to a common pool. For domestic offsets, the substitute bill removed this wiggle room, said Flatt. The only insurance is a requirement that carbon sequestration projects reimburse EPA if the project "reverses," or releases its captured emissions.
If a tree in an offset program, for example, is intentionally logged, the bill requires that project developer pay back the offset credit. But if the loss is "unintentional," say, through a forest fire, the project owner only returns half the cost to EPA.
This one provision, said Flatt, has the potential to cause havoc in emissions financial markets. "To the extent that they can, EPA really needs to have some way to make sure they are made whole again."
Copyright 2009 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on energy and the environment, visit www.climatewire.net
Experts have for the most part applauded the rigorous criteria for offsets in the far-reaching climate and energy bill passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week.
But while the bill, proposed by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), lays out a game plan, U.S. EPA would have to answer these and many other questions. The task could be one of the more complicated ones the agency has faced.
"Offsets are really going to allow this bill to get passed," said Shanna Brownstein, a policy associate with the Climate Trust, a nonprofit offset provider. "But implementation is critical, because it could very easily compromise the environmental integrity of the entire program."
The reason is that offsets -- greenhouse gas emissions reductions that occur outside of the overall carbon cap -- can be bought as credits by regulated industries to lower their compliance costs. They could account for up to 2 billion tons of the planned emissions reductions every year.
Half would be sourced domestically and half abroad, although the most recent Waxman-Markey substitute allows that international credits could reach three-quarters of the total in the likely chance that the U.S.-based market falls short.
But, as some are quick to note, offsets are tricky business. The agency is tasked with setting provisions to verify and enforce those reductions, both in the United States and, even harder, abroad. EPA is also to determine what constitutes a "permanent" emission cut that is "additional," or wouldn't have otherwise occurred without a carbon price.
Some consider it an unattainable mandate. "It's impossible to ensure," said Environment America's federal global warming director, Emily Figdor. Others, most notably a number of major environmental groups and businesses that have signed onto the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, have backed offsets that come with rigorous standards.
For regulated industries, they are among the most important components of the bill. Without international offsets, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade program could nearly double in cost, EPA estimates.
And although several previous cap-and-trade bills outlined specific projects and sectors, such as forestry and agriculture, that would qualify as offsets, the Waxman-Markey substitute instead would give EPA, advised by an independent nine-member Offsets Integrity Advisory Board, authority to decide which will make the cut.
Much will hang on an advisory board
The latitude left to EPA is largely on purpose. Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that the move takes a lot of the politics out of the current offsets debate.
But sectors looking to participate in a potentially lucrative market are wrangling to get more specific language back into the bill (ClimateWire, May 20). Rep. Zack Space (D-Ohio), for example, is working with Chairman Waxman to incorporate some certainty for the agricultural community in the offset market into the bill, according to his spokesman.
Others are happy about Congress' hands-off approach and for provisions requiring the agency periodically review its own rules. "The best aspect of the quality controls is that the bill leaves the technical decisions to the scientists," said Figdor.
The result, however, could be to push the political struggle down the chain to the selection and activities of the new advisory board, which the bill's language indicates could have substantial influence on EPA's decisions, said Michael Wara, a law professor at Stanford University.
"Everyone who is regulated or is selling offsets wants as much in as possible. This is the cost-control money, and these people are going to be the gatekeepers," he said.
Conservative regulations could control the supply
At minimum, EPA will have a delicate balancing act on its hands. It could take a conservative approach, limiting itself to projects that unambiguously meet the stringent criteria, but that would likely reduce the offset supply, especially early on in the program, several experts in offset projects and markets said.
One reason is the substantial gray area in deciding whether emissions reductions are additional, especially on the international side and in state-controlled economies like China's, said Wara. That could play out the extent to which EPA approves already-existing projects for the program, an important source for the initial market supply.
For example, the Obama administration could potentially certify some credits from the United Nations' Clean Development Mechanism, a program that has been fraught with controversies over questionable projects, said Alexia Kelly, a senior associate in the World Resources Institute's climate and energy program, although she questioned whether there would be the "political appetite" to do so.
Perhaps most significantly, the bill gives EPA, the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development the power to work out sector-by-sector baseline emissions thresholds with foreign countries, under which projects could qualify for offsets in the U.S. market. "It's sort of like a cap-and-trade with training wheels," said Wara.
On the U.S. side, EPA will likely look toward existing programs like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and the Climate Action Reserve, which has been busy building regulatory quality protocols to approve projects based on sector-wide standards for landfills, livestock and forests.
Today, however, RGGI has not yet approved any offset projects. The Climate Action Reserve recently issued its millionth offset credit, which would still be a small drop in the bucket for an economywide program.
Gary Gero, the Climate Action Reserve's president, is confident that the program could scale up significantly before cap and trade takes effect, and that its standardized methodologies allow for quick approval. He has been urging EPA to adopt its model or even to contract out the process to the Climate Action Reserve itself.
The agency itself already has some experience supervising offsets through voluntary programs and protocols, such as its Climate Leaders program. Those, however, are far less stringent than a regulatory program would be, said Kelly.
Regardless of the overall approach, many agreed that the need for speed is troublesome. Should the bill pass, EPA would have two years after its passage to get regulations into effect and provide an initial supply to the market.
"Look at everything they have to do to approve even a sector of offsets. They are going to be under a lot of pressure to rush, particularly if they are understaffed," said Victor Flatt, a University of Houston law professor and a scholar with the Center for Progressive Reform. Brownstein said it would be difficult for EPA to get a real head start until the legislation passes, since it currently lacks the mandate, funding and staff.
Will a forest fire cause 'havoc' in financial markets?
Flatt worried that the offset program could run into not only environmental trouble but also financial trouble if EPA makes early missteps in approving projects. He's essentially concerned about "toxic offsets."
The bill already incorporates an insurance plan on the international side, a buffer that requires five foreign-bought offset credits for every four emissions allowances awarded, leaving one to a common pool. For domestic offsets, the substitute bill removed this wiggle room, said Flatt. The only insurance is a requirement that carbon sequestration projects reimburse EPA if the project "reverses," or releases its captured emissions.
If a tree in an offset program, for example, is intentionally logged, the bill requires that project developer pay back the offset credit. But if the loss is "unintentional," say, through a forest fire, the project owner only returns half the cost to EPA.
This one provision, said Flatt, has the potential to cause havoc in emissions financial markets. "To the extent that they can, EPA really needs to have some way to make sure they are made whole again."
Copyright 2009 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on energy and the environment, visit www.climatewire.net
Monday, April 13, 2009
Exports at risk from U.S. climate change bill
Submitted by Brett H on Wed, 04/08/2009 - 09:25.
Tags:
Newsfeed
Date: -->
Wednesday Apr 08, 2009
By
The Globe and Mail
Proposed U.S. legislation could slap import levies on a range of Canadian products - from steel and cement to paper and ceramics - if Washington deems Canada is lax in fighting global warming.
The climate change legislation also includes low-carbon standards that could drive up the cost of imports from the Alberta oil sands.
Leading Democrats in the U.S. Congress this week introduced a bill to cap greenhouse gas emissions that would require the administration to impose tariff-like fees on importers whose own governments don't have regulations, reporting rules or enforcement mechanisms that are as tough as those laid out in the legislation.
The proposals in the bill have wide Democratic support and stand a good chance of becoming law.
U.S. President Barack Obama and congressional leaders are promising to move quickly on measures to combat climate change - from emission caps on industry, to low-carbon standards for transportation fuel, to renewable energy portfolios for utilities.
And while Mr. Obama yesterday warned of the dangers of protectionism at the Group of 20 meeting in London, trade experts say the environmental policies that he backs include a minefield of potential protectionist measures that would favour domestic producers over importers.
Coming after U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu's recent musings about using tariffs to protect American industry, the bill introduced this week by Representative Henry Waxman has heightened fears that the U.S. climate legislation will accelerate growing ecoprotectionism around the globe.
"We're very concerned," said Jayson Myers, president of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters association.
"I think the worst thing we could see here is regulatory standards being applied on manufacturing processes to restrict access to the U.S. market. ... On issues of enforcement, the boundaries get blurred pretty quickly, especially when you've got strong, local political pressure saying 'protect American jobs.' "
Chinese officials reacted angrily to Mr. Chu's suggestion at a congressional committee two weeks ago that some sort of tariffs could be used as a "weapon" to protect American jobs.
Under the legislation introduced this week, the U.S. government would be required to act when American manufacturing industries lose market share to foreign competitors deemed to enjoy an unfair environmental advantage.
Such importers would be required to purchase "emissions allowances" meant to equalize the environmental burden faced by U.S. producers.
The Obama administration and congressional leaders have vowed to pass climate change legislation this year, despite the recession. There is widespread agreement among supporters that such legislation must include measures to protect energy-intensive industries from unfair competition.
The current bill specifically targets industries such as steel and steel products, aluminum, cement, glass, pulp and paper, chemicals and ceramics.
Environmental experts argue such measures are necessary to prevent "leakage" - the loss of environmental benefits that would occur when energy-intensive industries boost production, and emissions, in less-strict jurisdictions and increase their exports to the United States.
Under the proposed legislation, Washington would have the power to control the volume of energy-intensive imports - and their prices - from countries that do not meet U.S. standards, said Elisabeth DeMarco, a Toronto-based lawyer with Macleod Dixon LLP.
That's because the proposed law would require importers to purchase "international reserve allowances" but would only make a limited number of those allowances available.
"Our provincial and federal governments need to wake up as to what is going on," Ms. DeMarco said. She added Canadian industries are going to have to step up their efforts to ensure their principal export market is not threatened by the U.S. climate change legislation.
Even as Congress debates a cap-and-trade bill, the U.S. government is expected to proceed with "product standards" like renewable-power standards for utilities and low-carbon fuel regulations, said Aldyen Donnelly, an economist and president of WDA Consulting Inc. in Vancouver.
She said many Democrats view the proposed environmental regulations as a way of rolling back massive job losses in the goods-producing sector that the United States has suffered over the past decade. "It was inevitable that as soon as the Democrats came to power, they were going to go this way," she said.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government is attempting to negotiate a continental agreement covering greenhouse gas emissions that would ensure Canadian industries are not unduly disadvantaged by the U.S. climate change regulations.
The government had been scheduled to unveil its own regulations to limit emissions on key industries but Environment Minister Jim Prentice has signalled that effort is on hold until there is greater clarity from Washington.
However, Ottawa will have to revisit its plans for intensity-based targets - which set regulations as a percentage of a company's production rather than hard caps - to ensure its plan is consistent with the U.S. approach. Canada must also ensure its enforcement mechanisms - and even its reporting rules - are consistent with U.S. approaches to avoid trade harassment.
Tags:
Newsfeed
Date: -->
Wednesday Apr 08, 2009
By
The Globe and Mail
Proposed U.S. legislation could slap import levies on a range of Canadian products - from steel and cement to paper and ceramics - if Washington deems Canada is lax in fighting global warming.
The climate change legislation also includes low-carbon standards that could drive up the cost of imports from the Alberta oil sands.
Leading Democrats in the U.S. Congress this week introduced a bill to cap greenhouse gas emissions that would require the administration to impose tariff-like fees on importers whose own governments don't have regulations, reporting rules or enforcement mechanisms that are as tough as those laid out in the legislation.
The proposals in the bill have wide Democratic support and stand a good chance of becoming law.
U.S. President Barack Obama and congressional leaders are promising to move quickly on measures to combat climate change - from emission caps on industry, to low-carbon standards for transportation fuel, to renewable energy portfolios for utilities.
And while Mr. Obama yesterday warned of the dangers of protectionism at the Group of 20 meeting in London, trade experts say the environmental policies that he backs include a minefield of potential protectionist measures that would favour domestic producers over importers.
Coming after U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu's recent musings about using tariffs to protect American industry, the bill introduced this week by Representative Henry Waxman has heightened fears that the U.S. climate legislation will accelerate growing ecoprotectionism around the globe.
"We're very concerned," said Jayson Myers, president of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters association.
"I think the worst thing we could see here is regulatory standards being applied on manufacturing processes to restrict access to the U.S. market. ... On issues of enforcement, the boundaries get blurred pretty quickly, especially when you've got strong, local political pressure saying 'protect American jobs.' "
Chinese officials reacted angrily to Mr. Chu's suggestion at a congressional committee two weeks ago that some sort of tariffs could be used as a "weapon" to protect American jobs.
Under the legislation introduced this week, the U.S. government would be required to act when American manufacturing industries lose market share to foreign competitors deemed to enjoy an unfair environmental advantage.
Such importers would be required to purchase "emissions allowances" meant to equalize the environmental burden faced by U.S. producers.
The Obama administration and congressional leaders have vowed to pass climate change legislation this year, despite the recession. There is widespread agreement among supporters that such legislation must include measures to protect energy-intensive industries from unfair competition.
The current bill specifically targets industries such as steel and steel products, aluminum, cement, glass, pulp and paper, chemicals and ceramics.
Environmental experts argue such measures are necessary to prevent "leakage" - the loss of environmental benefits that would occur when energy-intensive industries boost production, and emissions, in less-strict jurisdictions and increase their exports to the United States.
Under the proposed legislation, Washington would have the power to control the volume of energy-intensive imports - and their prices - from countries that do not meet U.S. standards, said Elisabeth DeMarco, a Toronto-based lawyer with Macleod Dixon LLP.
That's because the proposed law would require importers to purchase "international reserve allowances" but would only make a limited number of those allowances available.
"Our provincial and federal governments need to wake up as to what is going on," Ms. DeMarco said. She added Canadian industries are going to have to step up their efforts to ensure their principal export market is not threatened by the U.S. climate change legislation.
Even as Congress debates a cap-and-trade bill, the U.S. government is expected to proceed with "product standards" like renewable-power standards for utilities and low-carbon fuel regulations, said Aldyen Donnelly, an economist and president of WDA Consulting Inc. in Vancouver.
She said many Democrats view the proposed environmental regulations as a way of rolling back massive job losses in the goods-producing sector that the United States has suffered over the past decade. "It was inevitable that as soon as the Democrats came to power, they were going to go this way," she said.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government is attempting to negotiate a continental agreement covering greenhouse gas emissions that would ensure Canadian industries are not unduly disadvantaged by the U.S. climate change regulations.
The government had been scheduled to unveil its own regulations to limit emissions on key industries but Environment Minister Jim Prentice has signalled that effort is on hold until there is greater clarity from Washington.
However, Ottawa will have to revisit its plans for intensity-based targets - which set regulations as a percentage of a company's production rather than hard caps - to ensure its plan is consistent with the U.S. approach. Canada must also ensure its enforcement mechanisms - and even its reporting rules - are consistent with U.S. approaches to avoid trade harassment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)