South Korea and Indonesia Sign Agreement on Reforestation

The governments of South Korea and Indonesia have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to undertake a major reforestation project in Indonesia over the next 10 years. The Korea Forest Service (KFS) has agreed to plant trees on 200,000 ha of degraded land in exchange for 100 million tons of carbon credits, all conducted within the REDD+ framework. Initial plantings will be carried out in Sumatran rainforest. This deal comes on the heels of a similar, recently announced agreement to promote reforestation in sub-Saharan Africa (see Hopeful Signs for Reforestation in Africa, 2/4).

Environmental Economists Present "Schelling Consensus"

A group of leading environmental economists has published what is being referred to as the "Schelling consensus" on tackling climate change. This 10-point consensus (named for Nobel Prize-winning economist and game theorist Tom Schelling) calls for an innovative, reinvigorated approach to climate change, making use of the full spectrum of available policy options:

1. Economic analysis suggests that Governments have underinvested in mitigation relative to the level of effort that would be economically efficient.
2. All serious options for addressing climate change should be considered – including controlling greenhouse gas emissions, removing CO2 ,adaption and geo-engineering.
3. International agreements are needed, but need not include all countries or sectors.
4. New approaches that pass a benefit-cost test should be tried, but not necessarily in a single comprehensive agreement; e.g. individual greenhouse gasses could be handled in separate agreements.
5. Putting a price on greenhouse emissions by taxing them or using emission caps would be desirable because it would help consumers, businesses and governments to account for the full social cost of their behaviours. Many countries already have explicit implicit prices on greenhouse gas reductions. The large revenue streams that result should be used productively by reducing other taxes that distort economic activity.
6. Climate stabilization requires that net CO2 emissions decline significantly. Achieving that goal will require a technical revolution. This is one reason why R and D in energy technologies should be a priority, though policies should also ensure innovative efforts are socially productive.
7. R and D is also needed in technologies for removing CO2 from the atmosphere and for managing solar radiation, even though these technologies may not be deployed for decades. Efforts should begin now to develop governance arrangements for the appropriate use of geo-engineering.
8. Businesses need appropriate incentives for innovation, investment and behavioural change.
9. The incentives for consumers, firms and governments to adapt are strong because they will bear most of the costs if they do not. The poorest countries will need assistance from industrialised countries, which may be best targeted to more economic development.
10. There are great uncertainties about how best to manage the various components of the climate change problem. These uncertainties should be acknowledged by adopting a flexible approach to decision making that responds to new knowledge about climate change. Uncertainty should not be used as a rationale for inaction.

These points are generally unremarkable and relatively uncontroversial. Nevertheless, it is significant that geoengineering is treated on equal terms with mitigation and adaptation, as one tool among many that should be considered in the overall effort to avoid dangerous climate change. Such characterizations provide added legitimacy to the field of geoengineering, and promote its increasing acceptance as a normal part of the climate change discourse.

ZEP to Rescue CCS in Europe?

The European carbon market is currently in a depressed state, and looks set to remain so for the foreseeable future. This is due primarily to a combination of excess supply of credits, and anemic demand due to stagnant growth and the ongoing Eurozone crisis. Among the many casualties of low-priced carbon, CCS may be particularly hard hit, for a couple of reasons. First, in the short term, funding for demonstration projects in the EU is tied directly to carbon prices via set-asides of emission allowances under the New Entrants' Reserve (NER) 300 financing mechanism. Lower allowance prices mean less funding available for CCS. Second, in the longer term, with a weak carbon price, the business case for CCS begins to fall apart, as there is little incentive to invest in costly capture and storage infrastructure.

In response to this situation, the Zero Emissions Platform (ZEP), a collaborative of European industry, civil society, and academia that works to promote adoption of CCS across the continent, has unveiled a new strategy designed to bolster prospects for the technology. The ZEP plan has four components:

1. Targeted support for the 11 remaining NER300 CCS candidate projects.

2. Recommend Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) market reforms, such as a floor price for EU Allowances (EUA).

3. Increase efforts to promote investments in transport and storage, not just capture.

4. Push for greater R&D funding to enable eventual commercial deployment.

Given the present economic and fiscal climate in Europe, it is highly unlikely that calls for additional spending on CCS will be met either by the EU or by individual member states. As such, the most promising option to boost CCS in Europe probably lies in reducing the supply of carbon credits in the ETS, by withdrawing a large quantity of EUAs from the system. The EU is currently considering removing up to 1.4 billion EUAs from the market, and ZEP supports this move. However, utilities and manufacturers will be loathe to accede to the higher carbon prices resulting from such a measure, and can be relied on to resist any such attempt.

Environmental Audit Committee Hearing in the UK

Earlier this week, the UK House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee held a hearing on "Protecting the Arctic" (available for viewing here). The session focused on threats to the Arctic posed by climate change and potential responses. Key topics included tipping points, sea-ice retreat, methane releases, and geoengineering. The proceedings were very much in line with recent discussions about a supposed methane emergency in the Arctic (see Arctic Methane, Emergencies, and Alarmism, 12/29/11), and cast a decidedly negative light on calls by the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) for near-term deployment of geoengineering technologies to avert impending climate catastrophe.

After initial remarks on tipping points (by Tim Lenton, University of Exeter) and sea-ice retreat (by Peter Wadhams, University of Cambridge), John Nissen, founder and Chair of AMEG, argued that recently detected methane plumes in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) may signal the onset of runaway climate change, and hence regional stratospheric aerosol and cloud brightening schemes must be implemented as soon as possible. Lenton, arguably the world's leading authority on climate tipping points, was quick to dismiss the nightmare scenario laid out by Nissen, stating that "I don't think the alarmist story adds up in what I've seen" (15:20:33). Lenton was hugely skeptical of proposed geoengineering deployment in the Arctic. Caroline Lucas MP, leader of the Green Party, questioned Nissen about the possible risks of geoengineering proposed by AMEG, and expressed serious reservations about Arctic deployment. Wadhams, an expert on sea ice and also a member of AMEG, was caught uncomfortably between the two positions, deeply concerned about positive feedbacks and nonlinearities, but seeming to lack enthusiasm for immediate deployment. (Wadhams did not fully articulate his views on geoengineering, and one wonders how forcefully he backs the aggressive demands put forward by AMEG.)

On balance, geoengineering did not fare well in the hearing. This is not surprising given that its implementation in the Arctic is clearly premature at present. The absence of support from the scientific establishment for rapid implementation ought to signal to advocates of Arctic deployment that the case for action now is not persuasive, and calls for geoengineering in the near future are unwise. Unfortunately, AMEG and its sympathizers may draw the opposite conclusion, and redouble their efforts to convince skeptical scientists and policymakers that the end is nigh, further marginalizing geoengineering in the process.

More Carbon Farming in Australia

With the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) underway and a national carbon market launching in July, reforestation and other carbon farming projects are gaining momentum in Australia. The country's largest commercial reforestation firm, CO2 Australia, is reporting a 681% increase in the number of landholders exploring opportunities to generate carbon credits using carbon sinks. CO2 Australia manages more than 22,000 hectares of reforestated land, and specializes in mallee tree plantings, which recover quickly from fires and thus help ensure permanent carbon sequestration.

Meanwhile, the federal government is preparing an Indigenous Carbon Farming Fund, also scheduled to begin operations in July. The 5-year, AUD$22.3 million ($23.8 million) project aims to support R&D, capacity building, and market entry activities for Aboriginal communities looking to benefit from reforestation and other land management schemes under the CFI. A series of introductory seminars called "Aboriginal Carbon Farming - Fixing Our Country" is currently being held in communities across South Australia.

La Via Campesina Calls for Ban on Geoengineering

La Via Campesina, the international peasants' organization struggling against global capitalism, has called for governments to impose a complete ban on all geoengineering activities at the upcoming Rio+20 conference. Specifically, the group has announced,

We demand a complete ban on geoengineering projects and experiments; under the guise of "green" or "clean" technology to the benefit of agribusiness. This includes new technologies being proposed for adaptation and mitigation to climate change under the banners of "geo-engineering" and "climate smart agriculture," including false solutions like transgenic plants supposed to adapt to climate change, and "biochar" purported to replenish the soil with carbon.

La Via Campesina is a charter member of the HOME anti-geoengineering campaign, along with the ETC Group, Biofuelwatch, and many other left-leaning groups.

The organization makes a number of other sweeping calls for action, rejecting all forms of carbon trading, REDD+, and indeed the global capitalist system itself, while citing worldwide agrarian reform as the solution to climate change and myriad other socioeconomic and environmental problems. Making such demands is no doubt therapeutic, but bears little connection to the world we live in. Global land redistribution may appeal to one's sense of justice, but is hardly a pragmatic strategy for averting catastrophic climate change. Nevertheless, these and similar positions will continue to be advocated in the run-up to Rio+20 in June (see, for example, European Parliament Comes Out Against Geoengineering, 10/11/11), as the summit is shaping up to be the next major forum for debating the merits of geoengineering.

Japanese Government Considers Research Funding

The Japanese Ministry of the Environment is currently finalizing funding decisions under a 5-year, ¥1.5 billion ($19 million) umbrella project titled "Comprehensive Research on Construction of Risk Management Strategies for Global Climate Change" (see here for a rough English-language translation). As part of this project, the Ministry is considering support for efforts to incorporate both SRM and CDR geoengineering techniques into advanced integrated assessment models. Final decisions are expected soon, with the project scheduled to begin in April.