Australian emissions proposal divides Copenhagen

One thought on “Australian emissions proposal divides Copenhagen”

  1. biosequestration can be difficult to accurately measure but reasonable estimates are probably not that difficult
    it’s better to have biosequestration in Australia where we have greater ability to verify it accurately than buying carbon credits from developing countries where verification is often impeded by weak institutions and powerful vested interests
    a bigger problem for australia is the desire to access one side of the carbon accounts ledger – biosequestration – while demanding that we be excluded from the negative side – deforestation, bushfires and drought
    However,with climate change, bushfires and drought will get worse, making it ever harder for australia to show positive net sequestration under LULUCF
    I can’t see how we could have an ETS in australia that excludes agriculture on the emissions side but includes it for biosequestration – and still champion LULUCF to the rest of the world without being accused of rank hypocrisy

    Like

Leave a Reply to interested spectator Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s