Proposed Changes to the ETS

The New Zealand government reviewed the ETS legislation in 2011 and today they released the following recommendations. They are asking for feedback so have a look at their document and let them know what you think. I have outlined the key recommendations and my thoughts on them.

Recommendation one: phase out the ‘transition measures’ more gradually from 2013 to 2015 by accepting the Panel’s recommendation to phase out the ‘one for two’ measure in three equal steps.

My opinion: thumbs down. The transition measures were set to expire in 2012. The argument is that businesses need more time to adapt but in reality, if businesses were transitioned in they would start investing in green technology. The one for two measure also needs to be phased out sooner rather than later. Currently companies do not pay for their full emissions. They only have to pay one unit (NZU) for every two tonnes of carbon emitted. As long as companies get to emit for half price there is less incentive for making the changes needed to lower total emissions. It is keeping the price of NZUs low, causing a disincentive for forestry and more sustainable forms of energy.

Recommendation two: maintain the $25 fixed price option until at least 2015 rather than accepting the Panel’s recommendation to increase the fixed price by $5 each year.

My opinion: thumbs down. The original plan was to increase the fixed price option by $5 per year starting in 2013. In reality the price of carbon is still below $25 per tonne and with the extension of the “one for two” it is not likely the market price would exceed the governments $25 per tonne fixed price.

Recommendation three: introduce more explicit powers to enable auctioning of NZUs within an overall cap subject to further consultation on the detailed settings.

My opinion: tentative thumbs up. A cap and auction means the government sets a cap on emissions and emitters purchase emissions rights from the government in regularly scheduled auctions. I think auctions are a good idea and preferable to giving away free permits but there is not enough detail on the proposed auctions to decide if it is a good idea.

Recommendation four: provide a power for appropriate quantitative restrictions on the use of international units subject to further consultation on details.

My opinion: thumbs up. I am in agreement that there is something wrong with the international units available on the market. International units were designed to help in the early stages if domestic units were not available, but the price is so low on international units that there is no incentive to plant forests or lower emissions and sell the credits. Furthermore, the validity of some international units are questionable. The worst offenders are the CERs from industrial gas projects which the NZ government banned back in December.

Recommendation five: provide more flexibility to convert land to its highest value use by allowing for the ‘offsetting’ of deforestation on pre-1990 forest land, and consistent with the international flexible land-use rules agreed in Durban.

My opinion: thumbs up. Offsetting was one of the most debated topics in Durban and Copenhagen. Opinions are mixed and there is certainly plenty of room for fraud and “greenwashing”, but I think it is a good option for New Zealand. Currently forest landowners in the ETS have to replant the same site after harvesting. With offsetting landowners could replant an equal amount of forests in a different part of their property. This would provide landowners with some flexibility in making land use decisions.

Recommendation six: in light of the introduction of pre-1990 forest ‘offsetting’, which will significantly reduce deforestation liabilities under the ETS, review the number of compensatory NZUs provided to pre-1990 forest landowners.

My opinion: thumbs up. Pre-1990 forests have been a problem for forest landowners. Because Kyoto was signed to reduce emissions to pre-1990 levels, trees planted before then were already considered to be contributing to emissions levels and landowners were penalised for harvesting. The decrease in land value for those landowners was offset by a free allocation of NZUs from the government. If the government decides to allow off-setting, the harvesting obligations for pre-1990 forest landowners will be reduced by as much as 50-75% depending on the price of NZUs. It is fair to rethink the free NZUs allocated to those landowners.

Forest Plantation in Otago

Recommendation seven: provide for a power to delay the entry of emissions from animal livestock and fertiliser use for up to three years if certain criteria are not met, following a review in 2014.

My opinion: thumbs down. I realise that agriculture is the main emitter in New Zealand but delaying entry hurts everyone else. Forest industry, technology for lowering emissions and green energy all pay for a delay, resulting in a free subsidy to the agricultural industry at the expense of other sectors. The argument is that green technology needs to be available to agriculture before inclusion in the ETS. This is terrible economics and logic. Investment in new technology is demand driven.

Recommendation eight: provide for a power to extend, if necessary, the fixed price option beyond 2015 and align it with any price ceiling in Australia if we link with the Australian scheme.

My opinion: thumbs down. Get rid of the fixed price option. Let the market decide.

In summary, the recommendations are a bit mixed. I like the forestry recommendations but the other recommendations seem to be giving agriculture a big subsidy to keep emitting. Research shows that when emitters are required to pay for emissions, they develop emission reducing technology. What do you think? The government is asking for feedback. You have until 11 May 2012 to let them know your opinion.

A mix of land uses on the Canterbury plains

Posted in Environmental Issues, ETS, Forestry | Leave a comment

Unquenchable

My dad was an environmental engineer that worked for the government in groundwater issues, specifically nonpoint source pollution. My siblings and I all share memories of more than a few tours of water treatment plants on family holidays. Growing up one of my favourite pieces of clothing was a shirt that said “Groundwater, Wisconsin’s Buried Treasure”. I still don’t have much fashion sense but you can imagine my excitement when I heard Robert Glennon would be speaking at the University of Canterbury. His book, Unquenchable: America’s Water Crisis and What to Do About It”, has been on my reading list for a bit.

Robert Glennon lecture on the University of Canterbury campus

“There is no lack of water in the Mojave Desert unless you try to establish a city where no city should be.” Edward Abbey

 Robert Glennon started with this quote by Edward Abbey. Edward Abbey is of course referring to Las Vegas, which is a classic example of the water crisis in America. The city has 15 of the 20 largest hotels in the world. The Bellagio fountain features an eight acre pond that holds 27 million gallons of water and more than 1200 water jets shoot water almost 250 feet in the air. Las Vegas is a big city and it is growing. It is expected to add another 1.2 million people by 2020. The problem is that Las Vegas does not have any water. The city has used up its rights to Colorado River water from Lake Mead. The only way they can get more water is to fund conservation projects and use the water. Las Vegas is currently working to build a $2 billion pipeline from the Spring and Snake Valley in Utah to Las Vegas. All this for a resource that people turn on their taps and receive for free. Despite this, in some ways, Las Vegas is the future of water use. New hotels are required to be double plumbed. The Bellagio fountain gets all their water from the run off on an adjacent golf course. The Mirage and Treasure Island hotels have a treatment plant under the hotel. They recycle water, use low-flow fixtures, shower aerators, on-demand hot water. The 4000 room hotel uses less water than the golf course.

Bellagio Fountain in Las Vegas. Photo Courtesy of P. Tang.

The water crisis isn’t limited to Las Vegas. Orme, Tennessee ran out of water and was forced to truck in water from Alabama.  Bowater, a South Carolina paper company, closed because low river flows prevented the plant from discharging its wastewater. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission denied permits for new reactors in Georgia due to lack of water. Every year farmers lose crops from lack of irrigation water. Scientist predict that Lake Mead, which supplies water to Los Angeles, Phoenix and Las Vegas could dry up by 2021. Lake Superior is too low to float fully loaded cargo ships. Atlanta came within 90 days of running out of water.

Lake Lanier provides the water supply for Atlanta. Photo from the 2007 drought courtesy of institute.ourfuture.org

Georgia’s problem is not that they do not get enough rain; they get 49 inches of rain a year. The problem in Atlanta is sprawl. I-75 in Atlanta is 15 lanes wide and because traffic is still a problem, they are widening it to 23 lanes wide. The highway will be wider than the length of a rugby field. When faced with an impending crisis that would leave the biggest city in Georgia without water, you would think the governor might start by limiting people from building new wells. In Atlanta you don’t need a permit to build a new well unless you will be pumping more than 100,000 gallons EACH DAY! Instead the governor decided that one solution would be to declare that the state survey boundaries were erroneous and the Georgia boundary should be moved north one mile in order to give Georgia access to the Tennessee River. The Governor also held a prayer vigil in order to pray for more rain. In 2007 during the height of the drought, the governor announced plans for a snow mountain sponsored by Coca-Cola. It would be a 13,000 square foot area and they would make 200 tons of snow a day. They started making snow in early October when the temperature reached 27C (81F).

Snow Park at the base of Stone Mountain, Georgia. Photo courtesy of snowmountainpark.com

 “You can’t become president in America without going to Iowa and bowing to the shrine of corn” Robert Glennon. Glennon also points the finger at Ethanol plants in the Midwest.  The current ethanol debate ignores water. It takes as much as 2500 gallons of water for corn for one gallon of ethanol. California has a goal of 1 billion gallons of ethanol per year. It will need 1.7 TRILLION gallons of water. In my home state of Wisconsin, rainfall waters corn, but west of the Mississippi River they rely on irrigation.

Our modern economy relies on water in other ways. Google’s server farms are cooled by water. Intels chips are produced with lots of pure water. This need for water is leading to cities to turn to extreme measures to get their water. They are diverting rivers, building dams and drilling wells. These “solutions” are leading to dried up rivers and land subsidence. A private financer, Aaron Million, in Colorado proposed a $4 billion pipeline from Wyoming to Colorado Springs. The pipeline would go OVER the Rocky Mountains and cost $95 billion/year. Other people have proposed cloud seeding. They suggest dispersing silver iodide into clouds to cause rain even though scientists are sceptical and there is no convincing scientific proof it works. Other cities are building costly desalination plants. They sound promising but are very expensive, use lots of energy and disposing of the leftover salt has led to contamination of marine ecosystems.

Glennon provides several practical solutions. The first is to modernize the flush toilet and treatment plants. Flushing the toilets accounts for 1/3 of domestic indoor water use. We treat all water to make it potable even though only 10% gets used for drinking and cooking. There are better solutions such as composting toilets, waterless urinals and incinerating toilets.

The second solution is to conserve and encourage green infrastructure. Much of what Las Vegas is requiring in new hotels should be the standard around the U.S. Santa Fe, New Mexico does a good job of encouraging xeriscaping instead of golf course type lawns. They need to encourage green infrastructure such as rain barrels and using greywater.

Xeriscaping in New Mexico. Photo courtesy of the Santa Fe Sun.

The third solution is to reallocate water. Utah stopped automatically granting permits for new wells. Santa Fe demands that every new development project must offset water required for construction. When Geneva Steel in Utah was sold, they received $101 million for the real estate and machinery and equipment and $102 million for the water rights. The water rights were worth more than the factory and land. Agriculture uses 75% of the water in the Western US. Farmers need to use less water by improving efficiency and growing crops appropriate for water level.

His final solution is my favourite. We need a water market. Water should not be free. We need to protect people’s right to water but price the other 99%. Americans need an average of 50 litres of water a day. Water usage beyond a reasonable level should cost money. Water is a classic example of tragedy of the commons. We need price signals to encourage conservation and we need to quantify water rights and make them transferable. Voluntary transfers are preferable to government mandates. Markets produce winners and loser so we need government oversight to produce a regulated market. The government needs to protect third parties and prevent negative externalities such as sprawl. Glennon’s final message was that voluntary transfers would provide water for new demands and break America’s relentless cycle of overuse.

 

Posted in Environmental Issues | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

500 Days of Earthquakes

The Press had an article about the Canterbury earthquakes with some interesting statistics. Christchurch had more than 9500 earthquakes in the past 500 days. We had an average of one earthquake of magnitude 3+ every FOUR hours. No wonder none of the doors and windows in my house line up and all my photos are attached to the shelves with Blu-Tack. For more interesting statistics, read the full article.

500 days ago I had never felt an earthquake. Now I can guess magnitudes and fault lines, liquefaction is a part of my every day vocabulary, I can discuss various types of demolition equipment and all my favourite pubs and cafes are now operating out of shipping containers.  Kia Kaha Cantabrians.

Converted shipping container cafe in Merivale

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Forestry Fleece Jackets

The School of Forestry jumpers we ordered arrived. They arrived in less than two weeks and look terrific. I think the logo turned out especially nice. I was expecting just a white logo but the touch of grey and green really looks good. Thanks to the local Christchurch company, Brandwear, for the excellent custom embroidery. I think we will try to order some polo shirts in the fall.

School of Forestry Fleece Jacket Logo

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Canterbury A&P Show 2011

Today is the first day of the Canterbury A&P Show. I will be working at the University of Canterbury, School of Forestry table all week so stop by and say hello. We are in the Trade Pavilion.

image

Curious children counting tree rings on a Douglas fir

 

Posted in Christchurch, Forestry | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Crowdsourcing Ecosystem Services Certification

I recently read the report by CIFOR on Ecosystem Services Certification. The problem with certification seems to be finding a system that is not easy to cheat but also affordable enough for smaller players to participate. A certification system like Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is hard to cheat but small players cannot afford to be certified and tracking the chain of command is nearly impossible in some countries. Other certification systems are not stringent enough and anyone can be certified leaving the public confused about how much they can trust certification. But what if we let the public help certify ecosystem services? What about trying to crowd source ecosystem services certification? It is completely different from all current certification systems but I think there is potential for such a scheme. Smaller players may not generate as much interest from the public and therefore would not have to spend as much time and money on certification while larger more controversial projects may need to do quite a bit of work to gain public approval.

There are many ways it could be arranged and I don’t have a perfect solution as it is not being done for ecosystem services but it is obvious that there are a wide range of needs and none of the current certification models seem to work for all groups. There are lots of modern examples of crowdsourcing and all have advantages and disadvantages. But looking at all the other examples I think you could come up with something that would fit. Some examples that I think have elements that could be included in an ecosystem services model include Kickstarter, Open Source Science Project, Crowdspring, StackOverflow or Wikipedia. I like Wikipedia because there are many mildly interested users that participate and then are a core group of people who really seem to defend the topic and help keep out trolls. StackOverflow is interesting because users have to put their own reputation on the line to make comments which seems to encourage intelligent ideas.

The general idea is that there would be some loose guidelines (think of it as a constitution) for ecosystem services certification created by CIFOR. Communities or organisations would submit their projects for certification and the public could ask for clarification, provide scientific input or ultimately reject projects they felt did not meet the criteria. As people participated in discussions on more projects the weight of their opinion would increase. One advantage is that as projects become larger or more controversial they will naturally generate more input and concern from the public and will therefore be challenged to a higher standard than smaller less controversial projects. This will allow communities with fewer resources to participate without the administrative burden of larger projects. In addition, smaller communities could ask for input from the crowd for ideas on projects or help (for example, a smaller community could ask for assistance in mapping the project).

There are certainly lots of other ways you could organise it and I have other ideas of how it would work but I see lots of potential for it in Payment for Ecosystem Services and REDD+ projects.

Posted in New Ideas | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

My First Prezi

Prezi is a presentation software that was launched in 2009. I first heard about it during a TED talk by Chris Anderson and wanted to try it for a presentation. The problem was choosing the audience. It was a risk to try it out at a conference because there was a chance that something would go wrong or Prezi would not be what I expected.  A few weeks ago my department started having postgrads present our research to each other when they realised that even though we see each other every day we actually do not know a great deal about the research of our peers.  When I heard about the presentations I knew I had my audience. Fellow postgrads are low-risk. If something goes horribly wrong, we can chalk it all up to a learning experience.  So behold, my first Prezi:

It may not make as much sense without narration but you get the idea of how Prezi works. After creating the presentation I think there are advantages and disadvantages. First, let’s talk about the advantages:

    • It is free. I am a postgrad so free is good. You can pay to get some upgraded features such as more storage space or the ability to create Prezi on your desktop. It comes with a few extra perks if you are a student. With a student account you can download the presentation to your desktop and keep the presentation private.  A free account means your presentation will be viewable by anyone and in order to show it you need to have a connection to the internet.
    • Different from PowerPoint.  I  think PowerPoint is overused and misused and I have suffered through some terrible PowerPoint presentations at conferences. Prezi looks different and the audience seems to be more engaged with the material than a traditional PowerPoint.
    • Easy to present non linear material. PowerPoint has lead to people presenting everything in a linear way and let’s face it, almost nothing is linear. Yes, even YOUR research is not linear.  This Prezi by Alison Blank explains that even mathematics is not linear.
    • Zooming. Prezi allows you to zoom in and out and navigate through your presentation. It is useful for discussions and brainstorming. I started thinking about my presentation by drawing a mind map of the ideas I wanted to demonstrate and it was easy to translate that into Prezi. You create a path with Prezi so it was easy to go back and highlight how things were linked together.
    • Imbedding images from Google. You can easily search and imbed public images from Google. I actually used my own images but I enjoyed (i.e. wasted lots of time) searching for images related to my research.

Prezi was not perfect for presentations. Some disadvantages:

  • No spell check. This one was pretty annoying. I had to continually check my presentation to make sure there were no typos and even asked friends to proof read it.
  • Too much zooming. If you zoom around too much be warned that your audience may start to feel motion sick. Prezi has some tips on how to avoid too much zooming. Just like a terrible PowerPoint there are terrible Prezis.
  • Limited editing. There are limited font and colour choices. It is hard to create your own background. There is a CSS editor which is a good option if you have advanced CSS skills but I am a novice so it took me a bit of time to make changes in the CSS editor.
  • It requires Flash. I wish Prezi would support HTML5. Using Flash means you cannot view presentations on an iPad or iPhone. Current versions of Android support Flash, but really, they need to create a version of Prezi that uses HTML5.

Overall I am glad I used Prezi. It is a presentation tool but it also has a novelty factor that gets the attention of the audience. I would not use it for every presentation but it was different and I would use it again. It is ideal for presenting visual information and a bit less useful for extremely technical research.

Posted in Research | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Day in the Life of Forestry Research

image

Planting trees for a research project on wood stiffness. Currently the best (stiffest wood) radiata pines in the nursery are not identified until year 4-5. This research is hoping to identify techniques to select the best trees in year 1-2. One of the fun things about being a postgrad is helping out on a variety of forestry research projects.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

ETS and the Christchurch Rebuild

What do the Christchurch rebuild and New Zealand’s international obligation to climate change have in common? I believe there may be an opportunity to use the ETS to help fund some of the Christchurch rebuild. The ETS or Emissions Trading Scheme is New Zealand’s way of meeting international obligations on climate change by putting a price on greenhouse gases and requiring emitters to pay if they go over the limit. New Zealand is unique in the world because they include forestry in the ETS and landowners can earn money for planting trees or be required to pay if they harvest. What does this have to do with the Christchurch rebuild? It seems to me we are going to have lots of land along the Avon River and in the eastern suburbs that is not suitable for housing. I noticed the draft plan indicated this area would be green space with bicycle and walking paths. But I believe we could also earn money from some of that land by planting trees and enrolling the land in the ETS. Perhaps the University of Canterbury or local schools could buy some of the land and plant trees to earn money as well as use it as an outdoor classroom. The ETS doesn’t require you to plant radiata pine or douglas fir, it is also open to native forests through the regular ETS or through the Permanent Forest Sink Intiative (PFSI). Even if we don’t enrol the land in the ETS or PFSI it would be nice to plant trees as an offset to the carbon emissions created during the rebuild. Planting forests also has the added benefit of stabilising the soil. I love walking around Riccarton Bush and feel proud that the Dean’s family had the forethought to preserve the kahikatea, totara, matai and hinau forest. It would be great if we could establish something just as amazing for the future generations of Christchurch.

Posted in Christchurch, ETS | Tagged , | Leave a comment

PhD in 3 Update

Good news! I was one of the top two forestry presenters so I move on to the engineering finals tomorrow. The panel of professors that scored the presentations suggested I improve my slide. With some advice from my fellow postgrads I believe we created a more attractive slide.

Updated Slide for PhD in 3 competition

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment