New opportunities in a carbon economy
Why has the Rudd Government been so dismissive of the potential of biochar and other new green carbon technologies which offer enormous economic and environmental benefits?
Ten years ago, few people imagined an economy where many people made a living buying and selling goods online. An economy where businesses may never actually see their customers or the goods they are selling. Businesses where a computer and a credit card are king. In the next ten years, we will see a new world where opportunities flourish in a carbon economy.
Australia saw a glimpse of this brave new world when Malcolm Turnbull outlined a vision for a Green Carbon Initiative recently. Malcolm promoted an exciting new technology being developed which could deliver enormous economic benefits as the world comes to grips with cutting carbon emissions.
By heating crop waste or other green matter in the absence of oxygen, much of the carbon content is converted into a charcoal-like product known as biochar. The process also produces biofuels which can be used to generate green energy. The biochar can be sown into soils and dramatically improve the productivity of crops, thus providing a significant economic benefit.
I recently joined Malcolm at the Crucible Carbon research and development facility in Newcastle to see how they make biochar and to learn more about its potential. It was estimated that biochar has the potential to absorb up 100 million tonnes of CO2 – or close to 20% of all of Australia's total emissions, every year.
Former Australian of the Year, Tim Flannery, recently described the development of biochar as "one of the most significant things Australia can do" to offset emissions and improve the productivity of farms.
Which brings me to the point that I encourage debate in this online forum: why has the Rudd Government been so dismissive of the potential of this and other new green carbon technologies? Why has it failed to back a technology offering enormous economic and environmental benefits?
The Minister for Climate Change, Senator Wong, dismissed the Coalition's Green Carbon Initiative on the grounds that "soil carbon (including biochar) does not fit within the scope of the current Kyoto protocol accounts".
The question for the Government – and which can be debated here – is this: does Senator Wong really believe that it is in the national interest to completely ignore low-cost, high-impact, job-creating opportunities to improve the environment simply because they fall outside her narrow focus on an emissions trading scheme?
Does Senator Wong really believe it is in the national interest to blinker herself and simply focus on a bureaucratic response for Australia to tackle climate change? Why not fight for a new technology which offers the capacity to deliver significant benefits in the new carbon economy of the future? Surely, it would be a win-win situation.
Biochar is an example of how Australia can contribute to a global response to climate change. We must move beyond reliance of the complex and negative option which the Rudd Government is proposing. We must work to develop and support practical solutions that can stimulate a carbon economy, not simply constrain it.
As the global economy braces for an economic shock, we look to constructive new ways to encourage and grow our carbon economy. Why, for example, would a Government actively work against incentives to take up solar energy? The introduction of a means test on the Coalition's $8,000 solar panel rebate remains the defining act of policy madness by a Government that broke its promise to support renewable energy in Australia.
I have spoken of plans to develop a vision for a solar continent in Australia. We need innovation, not confusion. Ask just about any solar supplier or manufacturer in Australia today, and they will tell you of their frustration and disappointment in the policy direction by the Government on solar. Its means test on the solar panel rebate program has had the impact of pushing down the average size of solar systems installed per rebate. Taxpayers are getting less bang for their buck for those that can still qualify for the $8,000 rebate.
Worse is to come. Soon, the Government will introduce a new and confusing solar rebate system based on the value of a renewable energy certificate. It is a system that was opposed by the solar industry. It is a system which will baffle consumers, due to the fluctuating market value of the REC and the differing values based on where you live or which unit you install. The solar industry is now an industry facing great uncertainty.
Ten years from now, Australia should expect to have a flourishing carbon economy. An economy where Australian innovation is actively supported and encouraged. But if this Government continues to place roadblocks in the path of such innovation in preference for measures such as blunt taxes or confusing rebates, Australia's carbon economy will struggle in the coming decade ahead.
The Hon. Greg Hunt MP, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water, Federal Member for Flinders
Greg Hunt was elected to Federal Parliament in 2001. He was as appointed Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water in September 2008 and Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Urban Water in December 2007. Previously he was the Parliamentary for Foreign Affairs and Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage. Greg is a Fulbright Scholar, has an LLB with First Class Honours from the University of Melbourne and a Master of International Relations from Yale University. He is married to Paula with a young daughter, Poppy.
Open Forum is a policy discussion website produced by Global Access Partners – Australia’s Institute for Active Policy. We welcome contributions and invite you to submit a blog to the editor and follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin and Mastadon.
Ellen
February 11, 2009 at 12:43 am
I agree that a more
I agree that a more positive approach to this issue is essential, on ALL sides of politics.
I think the recent Victorian Bushfires have shown that our climate is much more unpredictable than we imagine and we need to do all we can as soon as possible to manage our environment better.
Lets set aside petty political wrangling on this issue. The Australian public is looking for leadership that is clear-sighted, ambitious, collegiate and bipartisan.
Why not take the high moral ground and forge a solution that is palatable to your colleagues, the Government, the Australian Public and the environment. Imagine the kudos associated with that kind of move!
JEQP
February 11, 2009 at 6:30 am
The end of charcoal for breakfast?
I wouldn't call biochar a "new" technology — hasn't been used in the Amazon for about 2,500 years? We do need to look at all the different ways we can reduce the amount of carbon we release into the atmosphere, and biochar has the benefit of improving soil at the same time. When you say "close to 20% of all of Australia's total emissions, every year" where does the fuel for the biochar come from? Is that all agricultural and sewage waste, or does it involve planting crops specifically to turn into biochar? If it does involve planting crops, where will the land come from? Old-growth forests? I'm sure there's a way it can be used, but we need to be sure to mitigate any downsides.
Weren't the solar panels giving the polluting energy companies are free ride? The carbon trading scheme cannot be based on an across-the-board percentage reduction or limit: Some companies are already doing a lot to mitigate their environmental impact, and they should be rewarded for that rather than punished. Likewise, companies that (seemingly intentionally) pollute as much as they can shouldn't be able to get away with token cuts.
Does the coalition have any plans to develop the hot rocks technology?
If only you'd replaced Howard when you should have, maybe you wouldn't have the "shadow" in your title and could maybe make these policies…
MikeM
February 11, 2009 at 10:12 am
Is biochar economically viable?
Biochar may be an excellent way to sequester carbon but I am sure that Malcolm does not propose using taxpayer dollars to set up a Department of Biochar Manufacture and Burial. So how is a commerical climate to be created that provides incentives for businesses to produce it? As I understand it, that is the general thrust of the government's proposal for a carbon trading market – that, without government specifying any particular technology, it provides economic incentives for firms to reduce greenhouse gas emission.
The fact that biochar is not internationally accepted as a carbon reduction method means that Australia would receive no international credit for biomass carbon sequestered in this way, so neither is it presently recognised in the government market trading framework. However if Crucible Carbon is able to show, even tentatively, that there is potential for it to be commercially viable at expected carbon trade pricing levels, then the government should certainly lobby to have it recognised.
But I worry that the Opposition may be making an error that governments have too often made in the past: picking a solution rather than providing an incentive for the market to come up with the most cost-effective one.
Interested readers can find more detail on the method (although not on its economics) here.
MikeM creates greenhouse gas each time he breathes out. He apologises for this.
queenbee14
February 11, 2009 at 10:54 am
Think outside the square Kevin.
I think it is imperative that Australia not only meets Kyoto guidelines but also explores better technology for our future. Carbon trading is, in my opinion, a realistic way to reduce greenhouse gases. I had previously not heard about biochar, but I will be looking into it to see if it can be as beneficial as Greg Hunt suggests. If all that he says is true, we as a nation should be pushing the issue to save our environment, increase crop productivity and increase our economic security.
I believe the Labour government should think bigger and better than the liberals we left behind. Here is a real opportunity for our government to make REAL changes in Australia's future. Now is not the time to be conservative with new technologies, on our current climate, environmental and economic, new ways need to be paved so we can benefit from innovative ideas.
As for the solar power discussion, I am appalled that new houses are not required to have water tanks and solar panels as part of the building requirements. We live in a huge country, most of which is desert….we need to collect all the water we can. The sun is free and hot, a great resource for energy, why not look at long term solutions and start putting solar panels on schools and businesses? I know the initial outlay is the excuse, but that is just short sighted. Over time the excess energy is fed back into the grid and can be used, reducing carbon waste. It seems like no brainer to me.
What do you think?
Zacha
February 12, 2009 at 5:26 am
The focus of debate
I agree with JEQP that it's important to look at ALL the technologies available to combat climate change. Climate change is a massive, complex problem and I have trouble believing that focusing on a single, simple solution can deal with all facets of the problem.
While one could argue that it may be short-sighted of the government not to invest in bio-char, it strikes me as equally short-sighted to make bio-char the focus of the policy debate; thus drawing away debate from the issue of those emissions which are already going into the atmosphere. The more the opposition make this a central part of their climate change policy, the less time they have to focus on having their own amendments added to any emissions-trading scheme.
While I can see the argument for investing in bio-char research, I don't see the argument for this research drawing the focus of policy away from other methods of controling emissions. Not just sequestering technologies, but also the law and technology to reduce emissions in the first place.
The fewer emissions, the less there is of this immense and complex problem to solve. And the more time for technologies like bio-char to mature.
MikeM
February 27, 2009 at 9:54 am
Clean coal, anyone?
At the Huffington Post (a site of whose neutrality one needs to be wary), anti-coal group activist Brian Hardwick claims that over the past year a coal industry group, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, has spent nearly $40 million on radio, television and other advertising, promoting the public support for coal and fueling (sorry) fears that limiting its use will raise living costs.
He cites a report that claims that the coal industry is, though, less than enthusiastic about actually developing clean coal technology to the point of successful commercialisation.
In Australia we have heard a good deal of rhetoric about clean coal from the previous federal government. How close is the local industry to actually implementing an operational plant?
MikeM thought coal was already clean. Don't most coal mines already wash it after digging it up?
MikeM
March 9, 2009 at 10:46 am
According to a report
According to a report in Scientific American last week, geothermal power might be a far better horse to back as climate change mitigation technology than biochar. A report from Credit Suisse estimates that geothermal could yield electricity at a third less cost than coal. (The estimates do not include bio-char.)
Here are they are:
There are two different types of geothermal energy. One, already used in New Zealand and Iceland, taps the heat of rock near the molten magma layer below the Earth's crust (better known as the source of volcanic lava). The other taps heat produced by radioactive decay of elements naturally occurring in the Earth's crust.
At the Okla mine in Gabon, West Africa, radioactive ores were present in sufficient concentration to create several nuclear chain reaction events. These happened over a billion years ago and there are no known locations where such an event could occur today. Even so, radioactive elements can be present in some locations to a degree that, when water is injected into the rock, it becomes superheated steam.
One of those areas, and it is large, is South Australia's Cooper Basin.
The technology involves drilling one or more pairs of adjacent holes into a hot rock deposit. Water is pumped down one, percolates through the rock and steam rises from the other. There is already a tiny 150KW geothermal station operating at Birdsville, which otherwise relies on diesel-generated electricity. However it only provides a third of the town's electricity requirement.
A more ambitious project is planned by Geodynamics at Innamincka, South Australia. By August last year it had produced an Environmental Impact Report for initially developing a one megawatt pilot plant, followed by an initial 50 MW plant, to be expanded to 500 MW in 2016. Whether it goes ahead in this climate of financing scarcity we have yet to see. I know of no government subsidy for this technology but if it is lower cost than coal generation, introduction of a cap-and-permit trading greenhouse gas trading system should give it an enormous boost.
A few words of caution are needed though about Credit Suisse's estimated costs. Firstly, Australia has some of the world's lowest cost coal supplies. In particular Victoria's Latrobe Valley brown coal is unsuitable for export but generates extremely cheap electricity. Secondly, geothermal energy generation involves drilling to sometimes four or five kilometres or more below the surface. Depending on geological conditions and plain luck, well costs and consequently resulting energy prices may vary accordingly. Thirdly, we do not yet know the life expectancy of these plants. (There are none that I am aware of in major production.) The steam may contain corrosive minerals that attack the plant's machinery. The rock deposit may cool down faster than expected. So we don't yet know the depreciation rate to apply.
The final thing to note is that Credit Suisse rates the cheapest measure to reduce climate change not as geothermal energy, but as money spent on reducing energy consumption. This fact has yet to reach the top of the agenda for either the Government or the Opposition.
MikeM is not currently in hot water but he thinks it might be a good idea if the electricity generation industry was.
Kaleb N
May 6, 2009 at 10:44 am
This issue is critical in a
This issue is critical in a sense that this involves human lives. Well this Biochar is probably affecting the climate change that gives us a very big problem that in the future will cause the earth fully destruction. Well seems that we will sacrifice the environment just to stimulate again the economy that is quite impossible to happen. Believe it or not, a lot of employers will make credit checks when you apply for employment. What you do outside of work should have nothing whatsoever to do with work, but that would make sense. (Which isn't allowed, just ask Congress.) A late payment is something you want to avoid, even if it means a no fax cash advance to help out. It is better to get a payday loan and know you're safe than have to http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2009/04/30/repair-your-credit-old-debt-3/ repair your credit later on.