There is already a carbon credit system in Australia.
Carbon polluters already buy credits generated by carbon absorbing projects such as land rewilding or replantings and changed farming and burn-off methods.
Public native forests taken off the logging schedule can now also generate carbon credits.
The NSW Labor Government contracted the Australian National University (ANU) to help draft the ‘method’ (the rules) by which carbon credits are generated in return for taking the forests off the logging schedule.
ANU’s Professor Andrew Macintosh’s team had spent years calling out weak carbon methods, so having them design this one is, from the forests’ point of view, a big win. It could have been Price Waterhouse instead. (Well done Labor for that decision, btw).
Our friends at the North East Forest Alliance (NEFA) et al were invited to submit input.
NEFA et al specifically raised the issue of ‘permanence’. Other native forests cc methods are for ‘deferment’ and only for 21 years then the forest goes back into the harvesting pool to be re-contracted, or logged. Nefa asked for permanence.
NEFA et al also included reduced logging in the whole of the forest region surrounding each cc protected area by 20%.
The ANU included both of those in the draft.
And the thing that is surprising for many of us is that the Labor Government said “Yes.”
This NEFA et al inputted method is surprisingly good given the realities on the ground.
The logging industry said it is a death knell for the native forest logging industry.
Here’s the problem: The Nationals have moved in the Senate that the method be disallowed, because it threatens the logging industry. The Liberals et al will vote with the Nationals to disallow it.
It is the Greens Party pivotal vote that will decide if the method is disallowed.
Greens Policy is ‘No native forests for carbon credits at all so therefore they will vote with the N/L/ON to disallow the NEFA inputted method. !!!
But that principled policy of ‘No native forests for carbon credits is lost whichever way the Greens vote on this, because whichever method is adopted – and either this one or a different one will be – the native forests for cc’s are included as a fact.
Greens HQ Policy will likely cause us to lose us this NEFA inputted method. !
And the next model will not be at all as favourable, because the ON/N/L coalition will be voting for it on behalf of the logging industry.
So we here at the CEC don’t want to lose this NEFA inputted method.
The NEFA et al inputted native forests method may be disallowed by Greens HQ, resulting instead in a logging industry inputted method, for an either way already lost ideal of no native forests in the Carbon Credits Scheme.
The Problem that Greens HQ has: Either way they vote there is a native forest cc scheme.
We may lose this therefore because of an already-lost-either-way principled Greens policy.
“Please Greens HQ: Don’t f’k this up!”
So Greens HQ voting yes or voting no makes no difference as regards their of virtuous principled policy because the native forests are in the cc scheme whichever way they vote. The Greens policy fails whichever way they vote. How they vote though makes a very big difference to the native forest logging schedule.
We are lucky to have the NEFA et al inputted method given the realities on the ground.
The Greens are likely to vote to disallow it.
“Please Greens HQ: Don’t f’k this up!”
Caldera Environment Centre.
.
