tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-48967950936094157192024-02-19T04:03:30.616-08:00Climakind - Carbon Emissions ReductionClimakindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14795046516151119641noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896795093609415719.post-59363104939357060772011-03-11T18:24:00.000-08:002011-03-11T18:28:16.041-08:00Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere mattersSunlight reaching our planet is dominantly a short-wavelength energy, which passes easily through our atmosphere to warm the surface of the planet. As the surface warms, it emits an increasing amount of infrared, or long-wavelength, energy back out into the atmosphere: the incoming short-wavelength energy has been converted into outgoing long-wavelength energy. <br /><br />Molecules made up of two atoms of the same element, such as nitrogen (N2) or oxygen (O2), have no net change in their dipole moment when they vibrate and so do not absorb infrared energy, but 3-atom (or more) molecules, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), do. Consequently nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases as the infrared energy emitted from the planet surface would easily pass back out through an atmosphere of these gases. <br /><br />By contrast, carbon dioxide does absorb the outgoing infrared energy, gradually accumulating more heat and increasing the temperature of the planet’s surface. The greater the concentration of carbon dioxide, the more the temperature increases.<br /><br />It is well-known that the greenhouse effect of the carbon dioxide currently in our atmosphere is about 33°C. In other words, the planet surface is about 33°C warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect. As it stands, this is enormously beneficial to us, for a planet 33°C cooler than now would not be habitable by humans.<br /><br />However, the converse is also true. A planet substantially warmer than now would not be habitable by humans either. Consequently, fundamental questions for us as a species are whether our activity is actually capable of increasing the carbon dioxide concentration significantly and how much any such increase is liable to increase the temperature.Climakindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14795046516151119641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896795093609415719.post-54227590223247406992011-02-21T18:53:00.000-08:002011-02-21T18:58:32.389-08:00Global carbon emissions to doubleThe recently published <a target="_blank" href="http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/update-papers/up3-global-emissions-trends.pdf">Global Emissions Trends</a> analysis projects that in a "business as usual" scenario (i.e. no changes to carbon emission policies) global carbon emissions will <strong>double</strong> by 2030.<br /><br />This would make the IPCC target of a 50% reduction in global carbon emissions by 2050 (on 1990 levels) difficult to achieve, increasing the probability of global mean temperatures rising above the critical level of +2 Degrees. (See why 2 Degrees is a critical level in <a target="_blank" href="http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/docs/brochure_2c.pdf">The 2 Degree Target</a>).<br /> <br />Under this scenario:<ul> <li>Developing countries will account for 70 per cent of global carbon dioxide by 2030, up from around half today, with China (41%) and India (11%) taking the largest share, due to increasing population (+22% by 2030), industrialisation, and the greater energy demands as living standards improve in these countries.<br /> </li><li>Australia's carbon emissions would rise 24% by 2020. The strong growth in emissions would be dominated by the extraction and processing of energy resources.<br /> </li></ul>This disastrous scenario will not happen if governments shape public policy to transition towards a low-carbon future. This research forms part of eight papers in the Garnaut Climate Change Review - <a target="_blank" href="http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/update-papers.html">Update 2011</a>.Climakindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14795046516151119641noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896795093609415719.post-80063018064732005472010-11-16T17:42:00.000-08:002010-11-16T17:47:44.853-08:00Five Degrees difference changes our landscape<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjldAJzhCOcO2biTxKeszSrJyrMHTV3qVfeMspk5Uf3UKba3AmLMCifQxm5OkIwXNa1DX_GdmhUD_ydSIPxbOsfz_djfhuUZW9JJmHaeIohrLujarb7MOA-VyDjX_gkbjuP0B3E-h_xBtU/s1600/New+York+Under+Ice.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 232px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjldAJzhCOcO2biTxKeszSrJyrMHTV3qVfeMspk5Uf3UKba3AmLMCifQxm5OkIwXNa1DX_GdmhUD_ydSIPxbOsfz_djfhuUZW9JJmHaeIohrLujarb7MOA-VyDjX_gkbjuP0B3E-h_xBtU/s400/New+York+Under+Ice.jpg" border="0" alt="New York Under Ice - global warming effects"id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5540329023373150386" /></a><br /><br />It is estimated that the increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will almost certainly lead to a 2 Degree rise in global temperatures. It has been suggested that because the consequences of a 2 Degree rise are already certain, it would be better to invest in preparing for the consequences of more extreme weather events and rising sea levels rather than reducing emissions.<br /><br />However, if mankind does not change it’s appetite for fossil fuels then average temperatures will rise by more than 2 Degrees. As <a href="http://www.billmckibben.com/">Bill McKibben</a> of 350.org said, there are different degrees of hell. The consequences of a 3 Degree rise are much more severe than 2 Degrees, and 4 Degrees is even worse.<br /><br />For those who say that the world has survived greater variations in average temperature, they are right. Over the last 5 billion years temperatures have been more extreme and the world has kept turning. But is has a devastating impact on mankind and all biodiversity.<br /><br />The last time the global average temperatures were 5 Degrees different from today was during the last ice age, when temperatures were much cooler. As a result, New York was under 15 meters of ice. The impact of a similar rise in global average temperatures would be different but just as catastrophic.Climakindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14795046516151119641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896795093609415719.post-4038838199219481142010-08-30T03:29:00.000-07:002010-12-06T23:18:48.827-08:00The big carbon footprint in food<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiX3HQco8WuwpzLxKv1g5eCVtJ1vIzOB6GD7C6cQYHXJqUQJgIVN3CmDarS9mCPs5hlldnWQDJ-O0B-tgkIs5dHJPNXPUcy69Kwze6KvTWSAg2z-gq9jq6b9hr4fOOfm9hTL00IM0wdLi4/s1600/Household_Carbon_Emissions_Chart.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 383px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiX3HQco8WuwpzLxKv1g5eCVtJ1vIzOB6GD7C6cQYHXJqUQJgIVN3CmDarS9mCPs5hlldnWQDJ-O0B-tgkIs5dHJPNXPUcy69Kwze6KvTWSAg2z-gq9jq6b9hr4fOOfm9hTL00IM0wdLi4/s400/Household_Carbon_Emissions_Chart.jpg" border="0" alt="Household carbon emissions per activity shows food is the largest contributor"id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5511151724103502338" /></a><br />Everything has a carbon footprint. But when most of us think of our carbon footprint we think in terms of the carbon emissions from energy, such as electricity or transport. Few people would consider the large contribution to the household carbon footprint of food. However, a recent study by Taverner Research (commissioned by Willoughby Council on Willoughby residents), looked at the holistic carbon footprint per household and found that almost half the emissions, 47% on average, are a result of the food we buy.<br /><br />The study shows that a household of three people is responsible for 38.7 tonnes of carbon emissions per annum on average, with food being the largest contributor (47%), then travel (27%), Household Energy - including electricity, gas, heating and cooling (24%) and Waste (2%). Table 1 shows the household carbon emissions per activity in tonnes of CO2e.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Table 1: Carbon Emissions per household activity</span><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaI98TlVY2SH5KOP1eL5ZuRcTwR6RoxkUwnXnlX1Qlh1PIvOcuwXxUA1tTc-uock_7mCluahlBn83FOJN4mPnrG_jAmTaQkmL4RVNGXd-F1WUpsSBO5eCpkRDkvptu74_wqZfFg4En0Lk/s1600/Household_Carbon_Footprint_per_Activity.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 168px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaI98TlVY2SH5KOP1eL5ZuRcTwR6RoxkUwnXnlX1Qlh1PIvOcuwXxUA1tTc-uock_7mCluahlBn83FOJN4mPnrG_jAmTaQkmL4RVNGXd-F1WUpsSBO5eCpkRDkvptu74_wqZfFg4En0Lk/s400/Household_Carbon_Footprint_per_Activity.jpg" border="0" alt="Household tonnes of carbon emissions by activity"id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5511152790627552274" /></a><br />Interestingly, but not unexpected, the research showed that carbon emissions per occupant decreases as the number of people living in the household increases. Because occupants share some energy consumption and therefore each occupant is responsible for fewer carbon emissions. The study found that an individual on their own is responsible for 14.9 tonnes of carbon emissions on average, which is much higher than the average carbon emissions per individual across all research participants of 11.97 tonnes. <br /><br />Carbon emissions are almost one-third lower per occupant in a household of five people compared to a household with a sole occupant. <br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjr7l_zaT6FmtQeNKlQ1Kk7dbOloCgKHu1fwyWZ5UAK2aPFV3Udgf4pwIMyWQU2_CiKc-ZC1TRptqqZhMkIxlvADAv-91T7Zmt7La-Tdx4F6C3zTjODZaJUSpVzKf78sD6vTgyjjn-t9W0/s1600/Carbon_Footprint_By_Number_Occupants.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 194px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjr7l_zaT6FmtQeNKlQ1Kk7dbOloCgKHu1fwyWZ5UAK2aPFV3Udgf4pwIMyWQU2_CiKc-ZC1TRptqqZhMkIxlvADAv-91T7Zmt7La-Tdx4F6C3zTjODZaJUSpVzKf78sD6vTgyjjn-t9W0/s400/Carbon_Footprint_By_Number_Occupants.jpg" border="0" alt="Carbon Footprint per household occupant decreases as the number of occupants increases"id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5511153491565862610" /></a><br />This research clearly shows we need to consider more than just the energy we use when considering our impact on the environment. While there is merit in cohabitation in order to reduce the carbon emissions per occupant, the real opportunities to reduce our carbon footprint appear to be found in what we eat. A big part of an individual’s carbon footprint comes from food. Our next article looks at ways to reduce your carbon footprint from food.Climakindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14795046516151119641noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896795093609415719.post-81040671579929055372010-06-30T16:36:00.000-07:002010-08-06T04:18:51.528-07:00Effective Carbon Offsets are an Answer to Climate Change<img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 311px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 400px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5458336317195010690" border="0" alt="Climate Change Scam Question" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUD_9z9X-uVPn487dn0SDTSH4E0Eb2R0zohAohwvSChFDs6kvYLGtlBS1eIOTpdcvB3qd7Lo2xI-FzJJ0Os97VW8yR6TT0PV8qW1xwmuSrlIHKeZm0PDMpQcIsBmkrEx719a-tATt9YfU/s400/Climate_Change_Scam_Question.jpg" /><br /><br />The Australian Government has delayed the implementation of an Australian Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) until 2013. This failure at the political level has severely retarded the ability of Australia as a nation to effectively combat climate change. With no framework to regulate the reduction of carbon emissions in Australia, the onus is now on individuals and organisations to voluntarily reduce emissions in order to help drive the transition to a low-carbon future.<br /><br />So how does an organisation or individual most effectively reduce global carbon emissions? Certainly, the need to avoid and reduce energy use is necessary and financially beneficial, but more is needed to achieve the deep cuts in carbon emissions required to reduce damaging climate change.<br /><br />We need to reduce the amount of carbon mankind emits to the atmosphere. One way to achieve this is through effective carbon offsets.<br /><br />Carbon offsetting allows you to reduce carbon emissions by a cheaper and more convenient process elsewhere than you can achieve yourself. <br /><br />Forestry and renewables have been common offset solutions. About half of Australia’s offsets are created through forestry; the rest is mostly renewables with some greenhouse gas trapping projects (mostly methane).<br /><br />However, many of these schemes deal with the symptom and not the cause - they do not directly promote the reduction of carbon emitted by industry. They are reactive. Worse still, the lack of an ETS in Australia has serious implications for the use of Australian projects as voluntary carbon offsets for Australians, as they may not be additional.<br /><br />A more effective carbon offset, which is measurable, verifiable and additional, is the internationally recognised carbon emission credit from a carbon market such as the European ETS. Paul Gilding, ex-CEO of Greenpeace International, referred to buying and voluntarily cancelling the rights of industry to emit carbon dioxide from a limited pool of carbon emission credits as the ‘most pure’ form of carbon offset.<br /><br />Do international offsets have a positive effect on countries who do not have a carbon market? Yes, because climate change is a global problem. Reducing carbon emissions anywhere in the world will help save the future as we know it for the entire world.Climakindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14795046516151119641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896795093609415719.post-40881307856042178762010-05-25T22:26:00.000-07:002010-05-25T23:06:10.280-07:00What makes a tonne of carbon emissions?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4dqip_RE4RVYx05QtlHqUNCBWhskqzIIfUnpHWhCnlUGMWEZ9Kpcf7dojyZgFWkYJ8hyphenhyphencoGQVZpgmh61QQmCeFkkVKnffU1BcYtn96737rSkDmiFw6YlmlTw2TUtcSiubLJ0TXi7yLtU/s1600/One+Tonne+of+CO2+by+activity.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 222px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4dqip_RE4RVYx05QtlHqUNCBWhskqzIIfUnpHWhCnlUGMWEZ9Kpcf7dojyZgFWkYJ8hyphenhyphencoGQVZpgmh61QQmCeFkkVKnffU1BcYtn96737rSkDmiFw6YlmlTw2TUtcSiubLJ0TXi7yLtU/s400/One+Tonne+of+CO2+by+activity.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5475455637110065954" /></a><br />To help you understand how your everyday activities add to the changing climate we have created a table showing what makes a tonne of carbon emissions.<br /><br />Each of these activities results in 1 tonne of carbon emissions on average.<br /><UL><br /><LI>Travelling in a plane for 5000 kms / 3100 miles (about 3.5 return trips Sydney/Melbourne; 3 return trips New York/Chicago; 11 trips London/Paris)* <br /><LI>Driving a car with petrol/[US gas] about 4100 kms / 2500 miles <br /><LI>Using a clothes dryer for 15 hours <br /><LI>Turning on 10 light globes (100 Watts) for 68 days <br /><LI>Using a window air conditioner for 75 days <br /><LI>Staying 34 nights in a hotel</UL><br /><br />* for more detail on the carbon emissions from flying visit <A href="http://www.travelmath.com/flight-emissions/" target=_blank>Travel Math</A><br /><br />If you have any examples of an activity that results in approximately 1 tonne of carbon emissions please add it in a comment!Climakindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14795046516151119641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896795093609415719.post-71480130399980697572010-05-05T20:04:00.000-07:002010-05-05T20:29:33.544-07:00Are Deep Cuts In Carbon Emissions Optional?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1JGbP1-Q4q3fzQGNv9mqXuAGuvkba59C7n0wUXz_ub6tqix6tTMPRaOOxwiLGtM16V46-m2lCpP46890h9a1KjzD96bOZtGG1O-BnXtkJoD_fo1Yh096GOVJXU23N-yvsEh6710MMQP0/s1600/Sustainability_Offset_Carbon_Optional.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 276px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5467992925115199074" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1JGbP1-Q4q3fzQGNv9mqXuAGuvkba59C7n0wUXz_ub6tqix6tTMPRaOOxwiLGtM16V46-m2lCpP46890h9a1KjzD96bOZtGG1O-BnXtkJoD_fo1Yh096GOVJXU23N-yvsEh6710MMQP0/s400/Sustainability_Offset_Carbon_Optional.jpg" /></a><br /><div>Most people consider sustainable initiatives a necessity, but some believe that carbon offsetting is optional. It is important to consider why carbon offsetting is any more optional than the sustainable initiatives to measure, avoid and reduce carbon emissions. If the answer is the cost to offset carbon and the Return-On-Investment, then the time has come to change our way of thinking.<br /><br />The current scientific evidence on climate change indicates there is a drastically urgent need to make deep cuts in carbon emissions immediately.<br /><br />Reducing energy consumption alone will not achieve enough. For as we reduce energy consumption, the energy we save is being consumed by an increase in consumer demand and an increase in global population.<br /><br />The real solution is to encourage industry to invest in alternative low-carbon solutions. This requires an increase in the price of carbon so that low-carbon solutions such as renewable energy appear economically attractive.<br /><br />Reducing carbon emission credits in a carbon market can achieve this goal, because it helps speed up the transition to a low-carbon future. Climakind gives organisations access to cancel carbon emission credits (CECs) and works with them to ensure their efforts to the right thing and help stop damaging climate change are recognised. Find out how at <a href="http://www.climakind.com/">http://www.climakind.com/</a>. </div><div></div><p><span style="font-size:85%;">Image credits flikr </span><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/40003475@N07/"><span style="font-size:85%;">missallphoto's</span></a></p>Climakindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14795046516151119641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896795093609415719.post-45288003225535527502010-04-29T00:57:00.000-07:002010-04-29T01:12:43.335-07:00A Climate Change Failure<p>Australia's delayed action on climate change is an 'absolute failure of leadership'. Those were the words Kevin Rudd uttered only months before declaring this week that the Australian Emissions Trading Scheme (the CPRS - Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) would be delayed until 2013 at the earliest. </p><p>No wonder the people of Australia are frustrated. The Prime Minister was adamant that the CPRS was the "most important structural reforms to our economy in a generation" and branded climate change as "the great moral and economic challenge of our time".</p><p>Lenore Taylor sums up the political back-tracking and side-stepping in The Sydney Morning Herald article "<a href="http://bit.ly/9G6kz3" target="blank">Rudd's ETS flip-flop sparks climate chaos</a>" as does Paul Kelly in The Australian, "<a href="http://bit.ly/aEnq1s" target="_blank">Rudd's dangerous climate retreat</a>".</p><p>However, the failure to adopt and Australian ETS does not stop Climakind but rather strengthens the initiative. While Australians have been denied the opportunity to act directly to conclusively reduce carbon emissions in Australia they can still have an impact on the reduction of global carbon emissions.</p><p>If you are frustrated by the inaction on climate change and want to reduce global carbon emissions then do something about it by following simple <a href="http://www.blogger.com/c/41-Tips-for-individuals.aspx">tips to reduce your carbon footprint</a> and by <a href="http://www.blogger.com/Register/Default.aspx">joining Climakind</a> to cancel carbon emission credits!</p>Climakindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14795046516151119641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896795093609415719.post-28958508822148402922010-03-28T21:18:00.000-07:002010-03-29T01:29:23.845-07:00What are the alternatives to carbon offset / carbon neutralise emissions?<p>In our last blog “<a href="http://climakind.blogspot.com/2010/03/whats-in-carbon-offset.html" target="_blank">What’s in a carbon offset</a>” we looked at the value of neutralising carbon emissions. We concluded that more and more people are using carbon offsetting, believeing that it will reduce carbon emissions. But the question still remains, does a carbon offset really help to reduce carbon emissions. The fact is, the degree of success depends on the type of credit used. Let’s look at the types of credits available.<br /><br />Basically there are three types of carbon credits used to offset carbon emissions. For the sake of this blog I am going to refer to them as Tree Credits, Renewable Energy Credits and Carbon Emissions Credits. Though technically speaking when most people think of offsets they are referring to Tree Credits and Renewable Energy Credits. Carbon Emissions Credits offer a powerful and effective alternative because they can be used to actually reduce carbon emissions. But more about that soon, for the moment let’s look at the three options:<br /><br /><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 224px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 162px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5453909274289243954" border="0" alt="Tree Carbon Offsets" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbMOPRfKsIqOfLjqF7cTGT2l6S3_4Uo94f740PgBxxSy3zBY75tQiXsZwhwh_P_fqV_MH6SpEeLLlf2TIrKn-6TR7G6REVXqEHMlw5B_cXecvolLTtIPYQ53cSBv-vVhGq7UrIkUUq_VU/s400/Tree+Credits.jpg" /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">1. Tree Credits.</span></strong> These credits are generally made from growing forests or stopping forests being cut down. The trees sequester (suck) the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, helping reduce carbon in the atmosphere. Now, while we love trees and always need more of them there are issues with using them as carbon credits. The band Cold Play found this out recently when their efforts to neutralise their concerts backfired. Their credits were based on mangrove plantations. The mangroves died.<br /><br />The issues also include the centuries-long management processes required to ensure the trees live healthily. As a purchaser it is difficult to police how the money spent and whether the trees actually survive long enough to suck up the carbon dioxide you paid for. But most of all, it is reactive. It deals with the carbon emissions after they have occurred rather than stopping them from ever occurring.<br /><br />The reality is we already emit more carbon dioxide that we can plant trees!<br /><br /><strong><span style="font-size:130%;">2. Renewable Energy Credits.</span></strong> These credits are created from projects to produce renewable energy or trap greenhouse gases. The carbon credits represent the emissions that would have been caused had the renewable project not occured. Ie if the hydro dam was not built a coal fired power station would have been. The money from the carbon credits is used to fund the project. The idea is that carbon emissions have been avoided and therefore can be made into credits and used to offset emissions somewhere else in the world.<br /><br />This is a noble cause as a large number of these projects occur in developing countries. The poor living standard and fast paced growth in these countries requires enormous amounts of energy. Renewable Energy offset projects help fund this low carbon growth. That’s why they are an appealing option because you are helping to fund a project that reduces emissions, gives power to communities and creates employment.<br /></p><p><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 231px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5453910675838682882" border="0" alt="Renewable Energy and Greenhouse Gas Trapping Offets" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiwUvt8cTyCGJ86XTtFKnmruWC0KrQgUAyo3Ze8rv4RN8NrZytktNgG90CYJsFUcUIyVwleHu_sRlUI-45Hs-RUvSAjl2bMKK_1gSn6nMdXdLBTR93YoWdWb6QmVMMnD8lKCTQ1M7SM-8/s400/Renewable+Energy+and+Greenhouse+Trapping+Carbon+Offsets.jpg" /><br />However, there are risks with creating carbon credits from these projects. Mostly the question of additionality; would the project have occured without the carbon credits? If so the carbon credits have no value as offsets because they have not actually reduced carbon dioxide. <a href="http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/node/2326" target="_blank">International Rivers</a> has been reporting on this for years. There is also the question of the impact on the environment on the value of the credits. Ie. If a hydro dam is built what is the impact on the people, the forests that were in the valley (a carbon sink) and the downstream community reliant on the water?<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><strong>3. Carbon Emissions Credits.</strong></span> These credits are created by schemes to limit the amount of carbon emissions from industry. These schemes, often referred to as cap and trade or emissions trading, provide a limited pool of carbon credits, credits that industry requires in order to legally emit carbon dioxide. The credits are regulated by the government. In a well designed scheme like the European Emissions Trading Scheme, emitters are heavily penalised if they do not have sufficient credits. The idea is that each year fewer and fewer credits are issued so that the emissions reduction targets are met.<br /><br />While these carbon emissions credits are required by the regulated industries they can also be used voluntary, providing an alternative to the classic carbon offset of Trees and Renewable Energy above.<br /><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 219px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5453911660575890290" border="0" alt="Carbon Emission Credits - a better carbon offset" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglqpm2T9Ud4BWlmmSo7xtEaX_pEtMFie5RC4UB5PcsAbvBnD4LPCdxhqLPNLPqSU3cRW_hkOi6nq-N75cVEv9ctXJhYln79yvsUGeZTGdEwTu21TZx7ZUyuBep4xAtEKDL1eYl1CfoYtc/s400/Carbon+Emission+Credits+-+a+better+carbon+offset.jpg" /><br />The advantage of voluntarily cancelling carbon emission credits is that it reduces the credits available to emitters. This encourages emitters to be innovative and to develop low-carbon solutions.<br /><br />Think about it this way, cancelling carbon emissions credits is proactive emission reduction, because the right to emit carbon is cancelled before it is used. Using these credits voluntarily also provides certainty and security because the transaction is transparent and can withstand the scrutiny of market regulators.<br /><br />As Paul Gilding, ex CEO of Greenpeace, said in his recent article “<a href="http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Dear-Jack--How-to-best-offset-your-carbon-travel-pd20100316-3L2E3?OpenDocument&src=is" target="_blank">How to carbon offset your family holiday</a>”, retiring carbon emissions credits may not be the most exciting form of reducing emissions but it is the <strong>most pure</strong>.<br /><br />More and more individuals and businesses are using carbon credits to neutralise their carbon emissions. There are several carbon credits to choose from. The characteristics of these carbon credits can be represented by a <a href="http://climakind.blogspot.com/2009/12/well-designed-framework-to-reduce.html" target="_blank">spectrum of quality</a>. </p><p>Hopefully as people become acutely aware of the issues surrounding damaging climate change, and as they become more educated about the different types of carbon credit, more people will choose to use the most pure form of reducing carbon emissions by cancelling carbon emission credits.</p>Climakindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14795046516151119641noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896795093609415719.post-13807236432604116482010-03-28T20:53:00.000-07:002010-03-29T00:54:41.760-07:00What’s in a carbon offset?<p>Carbon offsetting is seen to provide a way to help reduce global carbon emissions. Yet, does it really? </p><p>If you have been following the world’s leading scientists any time over the past twenty years you would have heard that we urgently need to reduce global carbon emissions to avoid the consequences of severe climate change.<br /><br />If done correctly a carbon offset does reduce carbon emissions. It allows you to act on your concern for the rising levels of man made carbon dioxide and empowers you to help stop damaging climate change. </p><p>The number of people using carbon offsetting is growing rapidly, with 87% more carbon offsetting in 2008 than in 2007. But what’s in a carbon offset? Does it really help to reduce carbon emissions? What are the alternatives?<br /><br />Everyday, more people and businesses are becoming aware of the impact of their everyday activities on the environment. When we use electricity or transport we are producing carbon dioxide somewhere! Reducing our energy demands helps reduce the amount of carbon emissions for which we are responsible. For instance we can do simple things like turn off unused lights, use less heating and cooling, and drive less. Reducing our demand on energy has a double win; not only does it help reduce carbon emissions but it also saves you money through reducing your bills.<br /><br />However, is a reduction in energy demand enough? The risk is that the energy you save may be used somewhere else. That’s where carbon offsetting comes into the equation.<br /><br /></p><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 371px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 363px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5453913701060106418" border="0" alt="Captain Carbon Neutral - Helping Reduce Global Carbon Emissions and Stop Climate Change" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-nxl6UFCtFAaNOfsxg2LlJo15f9DX7v62gRM4qCy-hhcXQtwI1lYNC9sjvJufO4LbsA0TgUMP4YJr17yyDRU-W6Y4uhWL-fuV99hbw47iLZlCQ3MK_9FcBE2rHT5UMZmCYysCjdMEzFY/s400/CaptainCarbonNeutral.jpg" /><br />To voluntarily carbon offset is to go the extra mile. After reducing our energy demands it is possible to cancel out (carbon neutralise) the emissions that are unavoidable. Many businesses are seeing the benefits of leading the way to cancel carbon emissions. Some businesses have committed to cancelling all of the carbon emissions for which they are responsible and becoming carbon neutral, such as AGL, ANZ, Dell, Goldman Sachs JBWere, Hydro Tasmania, ING, KPMG, Melbourne Water, NAB, and News Limited.<br /><br />Now, the question remains; does carbon offsetting really help to reduce carbon emission? The answer depends on the type of credit used to ‘offset’.<br /><br />In our next blog we will look at <a href="http://climakind.blogspot.com/2010/03/what-are-alternatives-to-carbon-offset.html" target="_blank">“What are the alternatives to carbon offset emissions”</a>Climakindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14795046516151119641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896795093609415719.post-46286221848083577072010-03-25T21:27:00.000-07:002010-03-26T00:18:14.570-07:00Is this why people do so little for climate change?<p>For a long time I have tried to figure out the reason why people do so little to reduce carbon emissions and help stop damaging climate change. Sure it seems a lot of the answers are found on sites like <a href="http://www.blogger.com/scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php" target="_blank">how to talk to a climate sceptic</a>, <a href="http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/myth-busters" target="_blank">Climate Myth Busters</a>, or <a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-faq.html" target="_blank">Global Warming FAQ</a>. But there was something more that eluded me, until now…<br /><br />The enlightening moment came during a recent email conversation.<br /><br />It all started with my request to make a sustainability event carbon neutral. I sent an email to the person in charge of sustainability outlining how it was necessary to 'walk the talk' and account for the carbon footprint of the event. The names of the event and person are withheld to protect their privacy.<br /><br />Here is their response: </p><table width="350" align="center"><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:verdana;color:#666666;">“Hi<br /><br />Thank you for your emails. In response:<br /><br />1. [The] event - I believe the majority of our carbon footprint for this event will come from electricity. We also actively encourage participants to walk/ride/public transport to the event. As [we] already purchases 25% GreenPower for our high profile facilities... I don't think we'll need to spend more to further 'neutralise' the event.”<br /></span><br /></span><br /><tbody></tbody></table>Can you see the answer? Do you start to see why people do so little?<br /><br />I responded as nicely as possible, trying to mask my frustration!<br /><table width="350" align="center"><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:verdana;color:#666666;">“Hi xxx<br /><br />Okay. But you see how hard my job is?<br /><br />You can tell people that human carbon emissions cause damaging climate change.<br /><br />You can tell them we have already emitted so much carbon dioxide that there will be unavoidable consequences.<br /><br />You can tell them it is urgent that we do everything we can to reduce emissions to minimise the consequences.<br /><br />And yet people, included those who work in the area such as you, believe that doing a little bit is enough. They don’t think that it is important enough to do everything they can.”</span><br /></span><br /><tbody></tbody></table>Is this why poeple do so little for climate change? Do most people believe a little bit is enough? Do most people think it is <strong>not</strong> important we do everything we can?Climakindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14795046516151119641noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896795093609415719.post-18994592946612766902010-02-22T16:16:00.000-08:002010-02-22T23:22:00.664-08:00What is My Carbon Footprint?<strong>A Goal to Cancel Personally Controllable Carbon Emissions</strong><br /><br /><p>In this article we will look at the benefits of using an individual’s average controllable carbon emissions as a goal to reduce carbon emissions credits as opposed to reducing a carbon footprint. If every individual in the developed world cancelled 12 tonnes of carbon emissions credits it would amount to about 14.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. That is about half the world’s total annual carbon emissions!<br /><img style=" WIDTH: 162px; FLOAT: right; HEIGHT: 187px; " id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5441236177348927762" alt="Measuring Carbon Footprint" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgh7mQNNrgPrZmq9OIuzjFaL-wSZIwbIGGzMRKXxjBtsIZqbZqMePMDKT6AVyul6PD3ixKcphlUtZ98hGTvvk_MjT1pW6LzBE7Rrs4D9kZgEg2-SBcfmGlphTsTx516ejjH89quc8vrPtc/s400/Measuring+Carbon+Footprint.jpg" /><br />There are many definitions of a carbon footprint. In general, it provides a measure of the annual carbon emissions for which something is responsible. A carbon footprint can be calculated for many things, such as an individual, family, business, group, product or an event. A carbon footprint can serve as an indicator to measure the progress of emission reduction efforts or as a goal to neutralise by cancelling carbon credits.<br /><br />Knowing and reducing your footprint is an ideal goal but does it really reduce the dependency on fossil fuels? Until we find a way to make low carbon solutions economically attractive fossil fuels will continue to appeal to those who are not convinced by the need to <a href="http://www.climakind.com/c/26-Act-Now.aspx">act now</a>.<br /><br />Cancelling genuine carbon emissions credits provides a more <a href="http://www.climakind.com/c/28-Climakind-the-rest.aspx">conclusive solution</a> to help drive the change to low carbon solutions. It helps reduce the supply of credits available to emitters of carbon dioxide. If the number of carbon emission credits is limited, then the reduction in supply will tend to put upward pressure on the price of the remaining carbon credits. In doing so it increases the cost of fossil fuel energy. That helps change the balance in favour of low carbon solutions. Most people accept that low carbon solutions are the only way to a sustainable future.<br /><br />Knowing that buying and cancelling carbon emissions credits can make a difference is the first step, next we need to know how many to buy and cancel. This is where the idea of controllable carbon emissions comes into play. By calculating the average personally controllable carbon emissions we arrive at a goal that individuals can aim for that will help reduce carbon emissions and help stop damaging climate change.<br /><br />Your personally controllable carbon emissions are those over which you have control. They result from your daily activities. There are many ways to calculate an individual's controllable carbon emissions. Here we look at the carbon emissions from the main energy consumption activities which include, household electricity, vehicle travel, waste, air travel, and other. Table 1 shows the personally controllable carbon emissions equal 12 tonnes for an individual on average.<br /><br /></p><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; WIDTH: 400px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 247px; " id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5441230201992347394" alt="Personally Controllable Carbon Emissions - Carbon Footprint" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTB8KtJXsNNPxH-RMkVmGsPrA7zCMTOSdsYo36ALYpOdssZpcQuuZTlO2KWikC1pMXbr8XBQUyGjU2TaXdsq_g307mt4qTNFhpN69AvsUI9wLcDCIyP8w8M67DqFRiDVTscwKEW4fSt7s/s400/12_tonnes_Personally_Controllable_Carbon_Emissions.jpg" /><br /><br />A bit less than half an individual’s carbon emissions come directly from electricity; of which a large part goes in heating water and household heating/cooling. Vehicle travel is responsible for about a quarter of emissions. Other includes natural gas, public transport and community infrastructure.<br /><br />These are averages, meaning some people will consume less and some more. For example, private vehicle emissions can vary based on the size of the car and the conditions that the car is driven. There are also areas we have not covered such as carbon emissions from food, clothing and education.<br /><br />What is important is that you as an individual now have an understanding of where your emissions are likely to come from. With some more <a href="http://www.climakind.com/c/41-Tips-for-individuals.aspx">information and a few tips</a> you can start to reduce them.<br /><br />It also provides a goal for the cancellation of carbon emissions credits. A goal that is internationally comparable across developed countries. A goal that is easily recognised and indentified by the Climakind <a href="http://www.climakind.com/c/16-Individuals-and-Families.aspx">levels</a> of participation.<br /><br />If every individual in the <a href="http://www.prb.org/pdf08/08WPDS_Eng.pdf">developed world</a> cancelled 12 tonnes of carbon emissions credits it would amount to about 14.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. That is about half the world’s total annual carbon emissions!<br /><br />Climakind provides an interface to simplify your emissions reduction efforts through cancelling carbon emissions credits. Visit <a href="http://www.climakind.com/">http://www.climakind.com/</a> today.<br /><br /><strong>Make a difference.</strong> Cancel Carbon Emissions Credits.Climakindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14795046516151119641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896795093609415719.post-37065511700990706832010-02-18T21:54:00.000-08:002010-02-18T22:53:15.561-08:00Climakind.com is a CO2NeutralWebsite<img style="WIDTH: 200px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 83px;" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5439837016606627042" alt="CO2NeutralWebsite" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4YlAaHnjvxvOILH0iaUK-TTvUiqOZIQEWk4n98jRx20-FvfneTHhSZfQDNBJ8ZTi01dkN_a8Oz0IwP0PNI0lyAAJ6NbVohAHKx8m8cbcpiITKegWNLnSg1FGa7gof7BQPWx4VjGRU_eQ/s200/CO2NeutralWebsite.png" /><br /><br /><br /><br /><p><br />The internet is a good thing for the climate. It reduces the need for transportation. It reduces the need for printing brochures and leaflets. But the internet also causes carbon emissions due to the electricity consumption.<br /><br />The use of the internet today is estimated to cause more carbon emissions than airfreight! This is due to the electricity used to run the servers behind websites as well as the computers and monitors of the visitors.<br /><br />If the electricity is generated from fossil fuels such as carbon then the website is responsible for a "carbon footprint".<br /><br />CO2NeutralWebsite have created an algorithm to calculate the CO2 emissions generated by the traffic on your site. Now you can estimate the carbon emissions and match them with genuine carbon credits, effectively neutralising the websites carbon footprint.<br /><br />Climakind.com is proud to be the first Australian based website to join the voluntary initiative <a href="http://www.climakind.com/c/54-Preferred-Suppliers.aspx" target="_blank">CO2NeutralWebsite</a>.<br /><br />Both large and small companies from many different countries participate in the initiative. In total more than 800 companies have joined.<br /><br />A website is a very visible part of your business. Neutralising the carbon emissions created by surfing your site can appeal to your visitors. It can help position your brand as environmentally concerned and visibly active in reducing carbon emissions credits. CO2NeutralWebsite believes your "company gets a good profile that is far bigger than the cost of joining."<br /><br />Normally the cost of participating is 31 AUD per month (the algorithm is based on site traffic).<br /><br />Please find further information regarding the CO2 initiative at the <a href="http://www.co2neutralwebsite.com/?utm_source=climakind&utm_medium=climakind&utm_campaign=climakind" target="_blank">official website</a>.<br /></p>Climakindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14795046516151119641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896795093609415719.post-37916600824752086192010-01-15T17:29:00.000-08:002010-01-15T17:59:33.925-08:00Make low-carbon solutions attractive<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihU2NBiXU0ZpNWtMDHgNEtQTJ1ISClayJ0A3uuyZb-1N0XIV07T0M4rSm2cd4X3pWQ9U1awAex0IS3w4-fHvVwctl7xPMH1rHdQ84g9b7tYHeehaBQgfX1mnumsxnr6CfN-q24udXZRYY/s1600-h/Low-carbon-energy-equilibrium-carbon-credits.jpg"><img style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; DISPLAY: block; HEIGHT: 217px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5427150361914870626" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihU2NBiXU0ZpNWtMDHgNEtQTJ1ISClayJ0A3uuyZb-1N0XIV07T0M4rSm2cd4X3pWQ9U1awAex0IS3w4-fHvVwctl7xPMH1rHdQ84g9b7tYHeehaBQgfX1mnumsxnr6CfN-q24udXZRYY/s400/Low-carbon-energy-equilibrium-carbon-credits.jpg" /></a><br /><p>Welcome back from the festive season. I hope everyone had a good break and is enjoying a positive start to the new year.<br /><br />We all have high expectations of what 2010 will bring. Of one thing you can almost be sure, in 2010 the world will make big advances in low-carbon solutions.<br /><br />But the question will remain, "how do we get people and business to shift from high carbon fossil <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">fuels</span> such as coal and oil to low-carbon solutions"? To do that we need to make low-carbon solutions more economically attractive!<br /><br />One way to achieve the transition is to change the equilibrium of energy by Making low-carbon solutions such as natural gas, wind and solar more economic attractive. It makes a lot of sense. Rather than waiting until “E-day” (the 'End' of easily accessible high grade oil) we can slowly wean ourselves off fossil <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">fuels</span>.<br /><br />How do we achieve this? We use an already established pricing mechanism to slowly change the price differential between oil and low-carbon energy.<br /><br />One such pricing mechanism is the European Emissions Trading Scheme. The price is the value of a carbon credit. A carbon credit puts a price on a tonne of carbon dioxide. By purchasing and cancelling a credit you are removing it from a limited pool of credits before it can be used to emit carbon dioxide. The price of the remaining credits will likely rise as a result of the diminishing supply. Emitters will be forced to invest in low-carbon solutions making them more economically attractive – the only way to a sustainable future!<br /><br />There is a reason that this sounds like simple, transparent and effective way to make low-carbon solutions attractive. It is.<br /><br /></p>Climakindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14795046516151119641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896795093609415719.post-55627226864669111402009-12-29T17:58:00.000-08:002010-02-22T23:25:51.192-08:00Carbon Emissions Reduction - It's Easy<p><br />David Birley's video shows how easy it is to reduce global carbon emission credits.<br /><br />When David Birley from <a href="http://informationexpress.com.au/">InfoExpress</a> heard about Climakind he was completely taken by the simplicity and effectiveness of the idea. So taken that he went back to his office and created the ‘It’s Easy’ video. The video captures the attention and amazes the senses, all while showing how easy it is to reduce carbon emission credits through Climakind – that’s what I call information express!<br /></p><br /><object width="440" height="255"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZB8fLPCT0XQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZB8fLPCT0XQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="440" height="255"></embed></object>Climakindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14795046516151119641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896795093609415719.post-3470244160759710192009-12-20T16:20:00.000-08:002009-12-20T16:57:00.718-08:00A well designed framework to reduce emissions | Part 1 - Quality Credits<p>In this series we will look at what is really necessary to have a successful Emissions Trading Scheme (<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">ETS</span>) . The <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">ETS</span> has been the focus of a lot of negative press recently. However, it is not the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">ETS</span> which is the problem. Like any solution it is the design which is important. What credits are included, who is directly included (those that must comply), the targets and the timing are all key issues.<br /><br />In Part 1 we will look at a key area of a well designed <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">ETS</span> - the quality of the credits included in the scheme. </p><p>This is probably the most important area of design. What we must ensure is that the quality of emissions reduction remains high. How do you measure carbon emission quality? Let's have a look...<br /><br /></p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib4ET2o9Oal57ENI4iiyPtMctS8JnAVDY3Wd4xh9hyphenhyphenM1_7PzQWV2TH9E5TdWh6-I-P3NB4vLwQcNKtPWiUk25vygfzpnrw-YLmOvTdG62pFghdQ4o_lvft1TYzOpO5CpMJPk6Lw3i2vfY/s1600-h/Spectrum+of+Carbon+Credit+Quality.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; FLOAT: right; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5417485358578872994" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib4ET2o9Oal57ENI4iiyPtMctS8JnAVDY3Wd4xh9hyphenhyphenM1_7PzQWV2TH9E5TdWh6-I-P3NB4vLwQcNKtPWiUk25vygfzpnrw-YLmOvTdG62pFghdQ4o_lvft1TYzOpO5CpMJPk6Lw3i2vfY/s400/Spectrum+of+Carbon+Credit+Quality.jpg" /></a></p><p>When it comes to carbon credits, quality can be determined by the ability to demonstrate that the resulting reduction of carbon emissions is genuine, that is, it must be verifiable, measurable and additional. </p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib4ET2o9Oal57ENI4iiyPtMctS8JnAVDY3Wd4xh9hyphenhyphenM1_7PzQWV2TH9E5TdWh6-I-P3NB4vLwQcNKtPWiUk25vygfzpnrw-YLmOvTdG62pFghdQ4o_lvft1TYzOpO5CpMJPk6Lw3i2vfY/s1600-h/Spectrum+of+Carbon+Credit+Quality.jpg"></a></p><p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib4ET2o9Oal57ENI4iiyPtMctS8JnAVDY3Wd4xh9hyphenhyphenM1_7PzQWV2TH9E5TdWh6-I-P3NB4vLwQcNKtPWiUk25vygfzpnrw-YLmOvTdG62pFghdQ4o_lvft1TYzOpO5CpMJPk6Lw3i2vfY/s1600-h/Spectrum+of+Carbon+Credit+Quality.jpg"></a></p><p>Carbon credits in a compliance-regulated Emissions Trading Scheme offer emissions reduction that is robust and verifiable. The credits are easily measured and make additional cuts in emissions beyond agreed targets. Buying and cancelling credits ensures the carbon dioxide they represent will never be emitted.<br /><br />This is <strong><a href="http://climakind.blogspot.com/2009/12/we-need-proactive-emissions-reduction.html">proactive carbon emissions reduction</a> </strong>– the emissions never occur. As opposed to projects that sequester carbon dioxide – which are reactive because the carbon has already been released.<br /><br />At the same time your efforts help drive investment in low-carbon solutions because there are fewer credits available. In the long run, it helps ensure low-carbon solutions become more economically attractive – the only way to a sustainable future.<br /></p>Climakindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14795046516151119641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896795093609415719.post-12525718935859087602009-12-20T16:04:00.000-08:002009-12-20T16:20:33.997-08:00We need proactive emissions reduction<img alt="Carbon Emissions" src="http://www.greentimes.com.au/images/stories/128-ets.jpg" width="425" height="282" /> <p>Some politicians do not seem to understand. We need real carbon emissions reduction, not some cover-up. All the talk about forestation and land use change is not solving the real problem, our reliance on fossil fuels. Sure we can do with more trees because of the carbon they take out of the atmosphere, but this bio-sequestration is reactive. It encourages the carbon emissions to occur and then deals with them.</p><p>We need to be proactive! We need a way to wean ourselves off fossil fuels – a way to make low-carbon solutions economically attractive. We need a well designed framework to reduce carbon emissions - one that achieves strong targets and provides for economic stability and growth. </p><p>Every scheme has advantages and disadvantages, be it a tax, a cap & trade, an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), or a cap & dividend. However there is one little discussed and very powerful advantage of an ETS, it allows individuals and organisations to directly interact and help force deep cuts in carbon emissions. Companies such as <a href="http://www.climakind.com/">Climakind.com</a> provide an interface to buy and cancel carbon credits on an ETS. The cancelled credits are removed from ever being used to emit carbon dioxide! At the same time your efforts help drive investment in low-carbon solutions – the only way to a sustainable future.</p><p>Climate change or not we need an ETS to reduce our dependence on oil before it becomes scarce. The additional benefit of investment in low-carbon solutions reduces pollution. It is a win-win scenario.</p><p>Contributed by: Michael Salvatico</p><p>Image credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/senor_codo/352250460/">Codo</a> via Flickr Creative Commons.</p>Climakindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14795046516151119641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896795093609415719.post-26282789132294399522009-12-15T18:01:00.000-08:002009-12-15T19:06:30.249-08:00Ian Plimer the question evader<p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhS0l0IUzu0OJd6kWG7ajHbgh5NaBDn5ivb_Q2H0xShsqfL0MCouLkuZcu6IYnxi0Iav4K9R57kc3GupdU2lUzCBd-uxYtAmve-BY-hi5SY6938Q_fmbe6jbJVtuVD3-ZkncX77bTny9cw/s1600-h/Plimer-Monbiot.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 80px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 60px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5415663331199157234" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhS0l0IUzu0OJd6kWG7ajHbgh5NaBDn5ivb_Q2H0xShsqfL0MCouLkuZcu6IYnxi0Iav4K9R57kc3GupdU2lUzCBd-uxYtAmve-BY-hi5SY6938Q_fmbe6jbJVtuVD3-ZkncX77bTny9cw/s400/Plimer-Monbiot.jpg" /></a>The Plimer-Monbiot debate finally took place last night. The baby gloves were taken off and insults flowed freely from Plimer. Even the Lateline host, Tony Jones, was not safe from Plimer.<br /><br />In the end the basis of Ian Plimer's book was put into serious question by George Monbiot. Monbiot asked very straight forward questions based on claims in Plimer's book and references to those claims. Plimer did not answer one question in a 24 minute interview. He uses every technique possible to avoid a straightforward answer.<br /><br />Monbiot claims that Plimer's book is "filled with fabrication after fabrication, simple untruths repeated again and again".<br /><br />References from Plimer's book that he could not support include:<br /><br /><ol><li>Plimer's claim that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than humans, though <a href="http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php">US Geological Survey</a> shows that human being produce 130 times more carbon dioxide than volcanoes.</li><li>Plimer's claim that the <a href="http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/hadleycentre/">Hadley Centre</a> in the UK has shown that warming stoped in 1998. He could not give the exact reference to this otherwise unknown claim. </li><li>Plimer's mis-quotation of the Charles Keller research. In effect Plimer turns the conclusion that temperatures have risen recently 180 degrees and claims they have not!</li></ol>Monbiot labels Plimer as a question evader when he concludes that the debate has been "a fascinating exercise in evasion and distraction." Monbiot like the rest of us asks why won't professor plimer ever answer a simple question?<br /><br />See the video of the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200912/r487279_2511549.asx">Lateline interview.</a><br /><br />Photo credits: Lateline<br /><p></p>Climakindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14795046516151119641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896795093609415719.post-34106530956135477512009-12-15T16:04:00.000-08:002009-12-15T16:26:09.619-08:00Support a framework to reduce emissions!<p>The more people that join Climakind the greater the influence we have to ensure the Government implements a well designed ETS in February 2010.<br /><ul><li>Show your support for a framework to reduce pollution </li><li>Strengthen the impact of the ETS to reduce carbon emissions </li><li>Make meaningful cuts in carbon emissions</li></ul>As John Connor chief executive of the Climate Institute said in response to the rejected Australian ETS <em>“It’s difficult to see what option there is to avoid another 12 months or more of political squabbling and scaremongering…”</em>; Sydney Morning Herald, December 3, 2009, page 8.<br /><br />Your action can make a difference<br /><br /><strong>Think Climate Change - Be Climakind</strong> <p></p>Climakindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14795046516151119641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896795093609415719.post-33602544182016859422009-12-07T14:55:00.000-08:002009-12-07T15:37:50.600-08:00Climate or Not - Reduce EmissionsA friend of mine made a great point in a post on <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8388485.stm" target="_blank">climate change science</a>; there is more to reducing carbon emissions than reacting to global warming.<br /><br />As the global population grows and easy-to-access oil becomes scarce we will be forced to rethink our consumption habits - especially our consumption of energy.<br /><br />Rather than wait until the last minute we should act now to wean ourselves off fossil fuels. The benefits are clear. Investing in low-carbon solutions now means we have increasingly efficient fossil-fuel-alternatives - just as oil become increasing rare. At the same time low-carbon solutions reduce pollution in the local community. It's win-win for everyone on the planet!<br /><br />Here are the points my friend (Mr M.Heffernan) makes that inspired this post.<br /><br /><br />1. There will be more people on the planet tomorrow than there were today. Never in the history of our planet have tomorrow's number of people attempted to live on earth at the same time.<br /><br />2. We are sitting on a finite amount of water and, to a certain extent, soil.<br /><br />3. We all have an impact on the environment by our very existence. After all, why feel guilty for enjoying ourselves while we are here?<br /><br />4. Given an increasing population and finite resources, attempting to pollute less would seem logical<br /><br />5. We could all pollute less by consuming less stuff.<br /><br />Think about it this way. In 1800 the world's population was about 1 billion people; 210 years later the worlds popultion is almost 7 billion. It is estimated the poplution will increase by almost two billion people in the next 40 years to 8.9 billion people - <a href="http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdf" target="_blank">UN Release</a>.<br /><br />It is pretty simple, and it might just save the world as we know it for future generations.Climakindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14795046516151119641noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896795093609415719.post-27371681994526014222009-12-03T16:19:00.000-08:002009-12-04T02:17:58.031-08:00Distractions to a Carbon SolutionThe latest video from the Story of Stuff team slams the ETS as a failure to reduce carbon emissions and a capitalist ploy to get rich. But is it really all that bad? Below is my reply to the video which you can see on <a href="http://links.org.au/node/1380#comment-51048">here</a>.<br /><br />Dear Annie<br /><br />Distraction? It appears your video is a distraction. For while you proceed to highlight all the possible negatives of an ETS, your solution (after nine minutes of watching) is an ETS.<br /><br />And you have to listen closely to hear the solution because it is only quickly mentioned. The alternatives of solid caps, strong laws, citizen action, and carbon fees – sounds like a well designed ETS to me.<br /><br />In a way you are right, like anything, the ETS must be well designed to work, but you could have said that in 30 seconds. And that would have just been repeating the work of Garnaut and Stern.<br /><br />You are wrong in saying no ETS has worked. The EU ETS reduced carbon emissions by <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/794&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en" target="_blank">3.1 per cent</a> in 2008 while global levels increased 1.9 per cent. This is not made clear in the video and nor in the notes where Gar Lipow shrugs it off.<br /><br />The UNFCCC created the CDM to give the developing world the same opportunities to grow that the developed world had without the carbon emissions. It helps drive research and investment in low-carbon solutions! The only way to a sustainable future.<br /><br />Sure label me as a business man; the story seems to have it in for anyone in the business of carbon. But you are really pointing the finger at the wrong person. Business would not exist if customers were not there to buy. Yes, it is consumers who demand the cheap goods created by using fossil fuels. This is recognised by Climate Justice Action groups’ initiatives in the notes.<br /><br />The real truth is that we have to change our lifestyle to reduce our consumption of energy. Unfortunately for a lot of people that doesn’t happen until the price of energy rises. Once it costs more, we make an effort to stop our energy bills from rising by <a href="http://www.greentimes.com.au/climate-change/ets-there-is-still-hope.html" target="_blank">reducing our energy demand</a>.<br /><br />The world has been working on a global solution for 17 years. We are almost there. A framework to reduce carbon is better than nothing. Because nothing is what we have if we do not find a solution quickly.<br /><br />Australia has gone from a possible target of 25 per cent reduction by 2020 under the Rudd-Turnbull discussions to potentially no agreement whatsoever. In response to the rejected Australian ETS John Connor, chief executive of the Climate Institute said “It’s difficult to see what option there is to avoid another 12 months or more of political squabbling and scaremongering…”; Sydney Morning Herald, December 3, 2009, page 8.<br /><br />We should balance all the shortcomings of the ETS with the benefits of a global initiative to reduce carbon emissions.<br /><br />In fact Annie, like me some people may question your motivation and involvement with fossil fuel businesses that benefit from no carbon action – because your distraction from a solution benefits them most!<br /><br />Regards<br />Michael SalvaticoClimakindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14795046516151119641noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896795093609415719.post-67614339439551397582009-11-09T21:19:00.000-08:002009-11-16T21:10:29.763-08:00ETS - No more delays!The world needs climate action now. While we quibble over the details of how to implement an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) the window of opportunity to help stop damaging climate change narrows. Capping emissions with an ETS is a step in the right direction. An ETS provides an environmentally effective and efficient means of reducing carbon emissions. It allows the market to determine where and at what price emissions will be reduced. At the same time<span style="color:#000000;"> it provides incentive for </span>research and investment in low-carbon solutions - the only way to a sustainable future.<br /><br />All of this is well documented on sites such as <a href="http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Climate101-CapTrade-Jan09.pdf">www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Climate101-CapTrade-Jan09.pdf</a>. What Climakind adds to the mix is the ability for individuals and organisations to participate in the purchase and cancellation of carbon credits. This effectively removes them from the carbon market and stops them from ever being used to create carbon dioxide. The reduced supply of carbon credits pushes up the carbon credit price making alternative low-carbon solutions more attractive. Low-carbon solutions are the only way to a sustainable future. <br /><br />See <a href="http://www.climakind.com/">http://www.climakind.com/</a> for more information.<br /><br /><br />Here is an exert from the Climakind presentation on the ETS.<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWRTp-3_dHtZPZdwAbJ381YuKBKNZ15neV6_gu5lFYx5Oq9T-SOaRoNgX2-DAVC_w9EmAF1hD8jiyr9y0Eu_1yfbH7D8w1cFYt949rGr8_WLxNKi-8IcSKd2CU-W9JHrfseQWLQV2TEpo/s1600-h/ETS+Example+-+Climakind+2.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 400px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 283px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5402363881046338274" border="0" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWRTp-3_dHtZPZdwAbJ381YuKBKNZ15neV6_gu5lFYx5Oq9T-SOaRoNgX2-DAVC_w9EmAF1hD8jiyr9y0Eu_1yfbH7D8w1cFYt949rGr8_WLxNKi-8IcSKd2CU-W9JHrfseQWLQV2TEpo/s400/ETS+Example+-+Climakind+2.jpg" /></a>Climakindhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14795046516151119641noreply@blogger.com0