CARBON CREDITS FROM PAULOWNIA TREES
On 25/03/99, it was reported in the Financial Review, that "The emerging ;
global market for greenhouse gases could be worth US$4O-100 billion p.a. and the
demand for offsets is set to rise dramatically"... so advised Dr Trexier of the
US firm Trexier & Associates Inc. However, in the main most still regard this topic
as abstract and confusing.
In order to appraise the situation in logical fashion we must retrace the steps
to the first Greenhouse Gas conference in Kyoto (?November 1997). Here it was decided
that mankind was unquestionably contributing to global warming and constructive
action was required. It therefore set an international agenda for certain controls
by reducing greenhouse gases and listed six (6) as being problematic. The two main
ones were carbon dioxide; indexed as I and nitrous oxide as 310. Further, it subsequently
recommended that one (1) tonne of CO2 equivalent be set as the
standard of credit unit. Obviously the percentages vary from country to country
but statistics show that 99.7% of the problem lies with 002, methane and NO. Here
stationary energy (mainly electricity generation) is the principal culprit, accounting
for 55% of emissions with agriculture (20%) & transport (17%) both heavily contributing.
It was envisaged that emission trading on a global scale was not only possible but
absolutely necessary and would arguably be the precursor to a carbon tax
or energy levy on industry. However, standards and targets needed
to be set and a format was signed-off by most developed countries to reduce emissions
to 95% of their 1990 levels by 2008-12. This momentum was continued in November
1998 in Buenos Aires although reticence by the US to ratify their own definitive
guidelines in Congress has meant that most OECD countries like Australia are fence-sitting
until some leadership is shown.
The concept of emission trading based on predetermined values was assessed as potentially
having a powerful benefit to man kind. This is especially so when the negative "aftermath
damage costs" as instigated by climate change were taken into account.
How does Paulownia fit into the equation? Well Forestry has been deemed a critical
contributor, for as we all know - it absorbs carbon dioxide and returns oxygen to
the atmosphere. In essence• it becomes what is now commonly called a carbon sink.
Trading of CE credit would allow power generators to buy the right to emit greenhouse
gases and hence somewhat minimise the impact on industry. Hence a fillip for afforestation
and a catalyst for the evolvement of a Carbon Credit market.
Where are we at? There is no doubt that the present situation is both confusing
and convoluted. There are few clearly defined boundaries that obtain consensus whilst
the wide range of greenhouse products on show are problematic as to exact measurement.
Combine this with second and third world countries not included as such (at present
anyway) and a solution seems daunting. Price per unit / cost per unit /who is in
/who is out /who will monitor are relevant questions and in some cases great inhibitors
to a solution. Further, in relation to forestry most certainly satellite technology
will need to evolve as an effective measurement of vegetation cover.
In essence, we are in a state of flux, albeit with some positive signs on display.
Although deemed nebulous by some, it is becoming more accepted that a carbon dioxide
equivalent can be priced at between US$-lO permetric tonne and nitrous oxide possibly
as high as USD95 per metric tonne. Further, there seems an inevitability of a system
becoming law based on sheer pragmatism of survival. Good Corporate citizenship is
becoming vogue exemplified recently by Toyota entertaining the donation of carbon
credits to fleet buying customers of "low carbon emission vehicles" (e.g. geared
especially to the petrol electrical hybrids). In addition, Toyota is also showing
the way as a sign of things to come by joint venturing with Mitsui in a massive
global tree planting program. The target is to remove 25% of all greenhouse gases
emitted from the annual production of its 4 million vehicles. Power utilities and
petroleum companies (e.g. Shell) are also reinforcing this trend and hedging their
bets by developing extensive afforestation.
The catalyst to change? Perhaps the Liebermann Bill currently before the US Congress
will be the trigger to a new age of responsibility. The potential balancing of
"the true cost to humanity" by taking a balanced and objective view.
Universally we must eradicate the short term, ignorant and subjective business notion
that this is not a "today" problem but one that can be deferred. The pretext of
current financial survival cost is no longer good enough for to remain oblivious
to the problem will bequeath a horrific legacy to our children and progeny of the
future.
In the overall scheme of things, and as the "lungs of the world", forestry will
continue to play a critical global role although it must only be a segment of a
developed rnindset. The option "not to conform" will simply put us on an inevitable
course of self-destruct.
In relation to this game plan Paulownia, because of its speed of growth and multitude
of uses, can play an exceedingly important role. Under ideal growing conditions
and prudent silvicultural practice, it has been proven that some Paulownia species
can provide the same amount of cubic metres in a butt log at year 10 as most fast
growing softwoods can provide at year 25. However, it is not the "panacea for all
ills" although there is still no doubt that the Paulownia family has a magnificent
future in the timber industry whilst playing an invaluable role for the survival
of the human race.
Back
| Home »
