Planting for climate change – planning to protect the people
(0 votes, average: 0 out of 5)
Loading ...In a recent international poll as part of the 2007 World Environment review, 86.4% of Australians were concerned about climate change (GMI: 2007). There is now a high level of acceptance that ‘climate change is real’ and to ensure our own survival, we need to do something about it. The strong public consumption message around climate change is that it is up to each individual to make a difference.
Cue the climate change markets providing offsets for vehicle emissions, aeroplane travel, electricity and general consumption. There are a range of methods being trialled for offsetting carbon emissions, but probably the most popular is to offset emissions is to plant trees. People like the idea of planting trees, because not only do they offset their carbon emissions, but they also help put back some of the natural environment at the same time – a worthy cause. Greenfleet, one of the companies on the market has planted “more than three million trees since 1997” (Greenfleet: 2007).
The Australian Government also likes the idea of planting trees, announcing tax breaks for forests planted for carbon sequestration this week. According to the Australian Government, carbon sink forests are a “key element in addressing climate change.” (Turnbull, 12 September 2007)
But not everyone agrees that planting for climate change is the answer. Trees can let emitters “off the hook” an offset that allows people to continue on emitting carbon, safe in the knowledge that someone, somewhere is planting a tree to do something about it. Planting trees are good for people’s consciences, but not necessarily good at encouraging practices that reduce the level of emissions in the first place. As expressed by Jeff Angel, Director of the Total Environment Centre: “we would prefer that companies reduce their impact by switching to renewable power and implementing resource efficiency programs (reducing energy, water, and other materials),” he said. “This would demonstrate a change in organisational behaviour and a real commitment, rather than tinkering around the edges with dubious offsets and continuing to emit carbon dioxide.”
Trees are also risky, subject to fire, pestilence and drought, not to mention changes in policy that could lead to them being harvested sometime in the future.
But, the key question for the planning sector is where will all the trees go? And, what is that going to do to the landscape?<
Obviously, the lions’ share of the plantings will be in rural areas. This creates a number of issues, including the potential for further population decline in rural areas, as farming properties may be purchased for trees, as well as long-term on-going management issues for planted areas, which may not have been factored in to the arrangement between purchaser and provider.
Climate change presents further challenges for planners. It can be expected that over the next ten to thirty years, many of the areas where trees for carbon sequestration will be planted will be in increasingly hotter and drier areas, subject to more intense and frequent bushfires. Are the resulting risks to the safety of rural communities acceptable?
How should we plan to protect those that live in our rural landscapes and rural townships from the risks of tree planting for carbon sequestration?
And, what can be done (if anything should be done) to protect the vibrancy and diversity of rural communities against further population decline?
References
Australian Greenhouse Office. “Climate Change and Risk Variability” online Accessed: 9/9/07
Downie, Christian. “Carbon Offsets: Saviour or Cop Out?” Research Paper No. 48, The Australia Institute, August 2007. online Accessed: 1/9/07.
Global Market Institute Inc. “Top 50 Australian Climate Change Findings” in 2007 World Environment Review. May 2007.
Greenfleet Projects online Accessed 16/9/07
Total Environment Centre “Offset or Off Put? The Total Carbon Market Report” online Accessed 16/9/07
Turnbull, the Hon Malcolm MP. “Tax Break for Forests Boosts Greenhouse Savings” Media Release 12 September 2007.
Posted in Environment, Rural Planning |
Just lost 1.5 hours of blog response - beware forgetting to put the email address in, or you just lose the lot!
Anyway, this topic is a challenging one for planners, & raises some interesting questions for the integration of economic structuring & spatial planning. In terms of positive greenhouse outcomes, these are seen to be driven by market forces, rather than altruism – particularly as the activity is happening at a business rather than individual level. The economic viability of renewable energies relative to the cost of carbon offsets will be the biggest factor in shifting practices away from greenhouse gas emitting energies.
The issue of fires is an interesting one: controlled burning will be required in some situations, but this will itself create carbon dioxide & reduce the capacity of the forest to photosynthesise. To not do so will risk wildfire, with a greater diminished capacity for carbon sequestration & other environmental damage. Fuel loads in forest fires are high, & fires burn hot.
A key question is: what to plant & where? Plantation timber as a renewable resource has the potential for income generation oin regional communities, & the implications for fire management are minimal. One risk is that plantations will be located on agricultural land, where returns are easier, rather than arid areas, thus reducing further Australia’s food-producing capacity.
The planting of indigenous vegetation as buffer zones for wilderness areas is another possibility, but management of declared pests & fire will make this option more expensive.
Currently, the NSW system of greenhouse abatement Certificates provides for each abating a single tonne of carbon dioxide for 100 years, compared to a Kyoto-compliant credit, which is required to abate the carbon dioxide for only 30 years.
The scheme requires an eligible forest to be Kyoto-compliant, a minimum of 0.2 hectares (which is not much), with trees having at least 20% crown cover at maturity, and with the potential to reach a height of 2 metres at maturity. If the forest is cut for timber or burns down or dies due to drought, infection or whatever, reimbursement will be required. There are implications here for regulation similar to those of development response.
It is clear that landscape scale planning, as well as regional planning, will be required to implement the spatial dimensions of planting, built into the statutory planning process, with environmental impact assessment, zoning, & integration with other uses. However, I am not aware of these considerations being a part of future planning schemes at this stage.
At what scale this should happen is also debatable, with the Australian Greenhouse Office already offering Renewable Energy Certificates. These are produced by renewable energies such as Wind Farms, Hydro Power Plants etc. & represent carbon dioxide saving certificates. Administration & regulation of this system may need to be at a local governance scale, & what are the implications for land use planning by state & local governments?
Unless these questions are addressed, carbon sequestration will continue to be pie-in-the-sky thinking ’sold’ by government & indeed the industry sector without due consideration for its impacts (see http://www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au/cartoon_4430.html).
Scoffy - Note that, if you’re logged in, you don’t need to type in the fields above - the software will know who you are. Also, it’s generally possible to hit the back button in your browser and recapture old post data. Sorry you ran into problems.
Cathy
This is an interesting topic. As part of another subject (Rural and Regional Planning) I am currently undertaking some work in a rural area of Gippsland. As part of this work I went for a “field trip” there and met with some of the local council people. I was told an interesting story which I thought you might like to include in your Blog here. So here it is…
In the area there are an increasing number of small blue gum forests being planted. These are being planted by farmers who have decided they need another means of income and have seen this as a new opportunity. Unfortunately, this is not as simple as it sounds. Whereas, previously, the land now used for these little forests was grazing land it is now overtaken with rows of growing trees. As a result there are now local feral wildlife that have taken up residence in these plantations, finding them a nice, cosy home. These are considered pests by the farmers who are now culling these pests with appropriate shooting sprees. The problem now is that, across the road, the neighbouring farmer has decided to sell one of the farmhouses on the property and convert it into a B&B. Enthusiastic eco-tourists are now wanting to stay at these places for peace and wildlife viewing. As you can imagine, the shooting sprees across the way are causing them some angst and conflict between the B&B and plantation owners. A nice peaceful overnight stay is being ruined by noise and bloodshed; the exact opposite for the attraction of the visit.
So, apart from this change to the rural land use, there are unexpected problems arising from this initiative.
I guess it’s all about moderation in all things. In trying to compensate for logging of Malaysian forests, one can’t just “make up for it” by just planting wads of trees here in Australia.
Robyn
I’m not sold on the idea of carbon offsets. It’s as though we are allowing polluters to keep on polluting. However, it seems like tree planting for carbon sinks has been widely accepted by our governments (refer to http://www.greenhouse.vic.gov.au/). Therefore, planners should be seizing the opportunities it presents to create win-win situations. Following are three such examples.
A lot of land in Victoria is affected, or at risk of being affected by soil salinity. Tree planting offers a potential solution to this problem. Planners in these areas could be investigating and co-ordinating ways to get private and public land holders to partake in carbon offset tree planting schemes.
Furthermore, carbon offsets present an opportunity to strengthen regulations on land clearing and timber harvesting with in state forests. Victorian state forests cover an area of 3.4 million hectares with approximately 680,000 hectares being set aside for commercial harvesting of native hardwoods. However, even though this area represents a significant carbon sink I don’t think its potential will be realised unless it’s proven that revenue from carbon offsets will be greater than that of the timber industry. Furthermore, VicForest believes logging should continue because the volume of hardwoods produced in commercial plantations isn’t equal to state forest harvests. And, this is unlikely to change because short rotation pulpwood plantations, for obvious reasons, are favoured over hardwood sawlogs plantations (refer http://www.vicforests.com.au)
Spatial planning tools will help solve the problem of where, and weather or not, it’s worth planting trees for carbon sinks. COLE (carbon online estimator) is an online data base which maps user defined areas and then allows the user to input a number of variables like forest or crop type, site productivity (m3/ha/yr), the stand size, stand age etc which it then uses to calculate an estimation of sequestered carbon. Such an application could be adapted for Victorian planners and communities in order to assist them with crop location and account for carbon sequestered; additionally, such a tool has the potential to help these groups organise and develop markets to take advantage of industries wanting to invest in tree planting carbon offsets schemes.
References:
http://ncasi.uml.edu/COLE/
http://www.vicforests.com.au/ind-fr-home-frame.html
Further to your weblog dated 17 September 2007.
I can recall a community forestry project case study in Nepal from my undergraduate days. The Nepal Australia forest project was a success with its achievements being highlighted on the following web site http://www.nacrmlp.com.np/project_achieve.html. More projects like this could be supported by Australia whereby carbon emission contributors could advance funds to enable projects to commence or continue. Also using the Nepal example as a model - could establishing plantations in rural areas actually provide more employment opportunities and help sustain rural populations? I knew of a project in Hughenden which aimed to harvest prickly acacia to produce ethanol. This meant that pest species were removed, to allow native regrowth whilst producing renewable fuel.
Re-planting vast amounts of vegetation in degraded rural areas where farming has become unviable could be a means to regenerate these areas. Where cattle once grazed now stands 10, 000 eucalypts. Farmers could be granted incentives to carry out such projects. However education and practical training would need to be part of the package.
Land for wildlife is another area which could benefit from receiving trees or being buffered by sustainable and appropriately managed forestry. Land adjoining major highways could have planned plantations to ameliorate noise and emissions from farmlands and residential areas. The compact master planned community could have a percentage of balance land dedicated to offsetting the carbon emissions generated by its establishment - this would certainly encourage more sustainable design.
The Carbon Neutral Company (http://www.carbonneutral.com/shop/ ) provide a consulting service for carbon offsetting. The company also works on major carbon offset projects worldwide. The Carbon Neutral Company invests primarily in energy efficient technology and forestry. Their website is great with lots of information and even means for a carbon neutral wedding.
I think everyone will find the TV Commercial for SKY amusing download at http://www.carbonneutral.com/pages/skycarbonneutral.asp
Thanks to everyone for their comments so far. They are good, and raise some additional thought provoking ideas.
I particularly appreciated Scoffy’s references to ongoing management and placement of plantations. Robyn raises broader issues of multiple values and uses for rural land and rewa’s pragmatic approach of taking advantage of the positive policy environment for revegetation also has merit.
[...] AC wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThere are a range of methods being trialled for offsetting carbon emissions, but probably the most popular is to offset emissions is to plant trees. People like the idea of planting trees, because not only do they offset their carbon … [...]
There are many social and environmental problems associated with monoculture plantations under carbon sequestration initiatives. These impacts need to be considered in analysing the benefits of sink forests in offsetting carbon emissions. According to Jackson et al. (2005) “Carbon sequestration strategies highlight tree plantations without considering their full environmental consequences.”
Plantations have high water and nutrient demands which change the soil chemistry in ways that affect fertility and sustainability. Decreased stream flows and reductions in soil and water qualities are likely consequences of plantations for carbon sequestration, therefore comprehensive environmental planning is needed to manage land successfully and sustainably (Jackson et al., 2005). In Australia, the growth in the blue gum plantation industry has been environmentally beneficial in terms of reducing salinity. However, land-use change has had some negative effects causing a fall in the rural population, a loss of services and a shift in the “social constructions of rurality and community” (Barlow & Cocklin, 2003). Monoculture plantations tend to “enclose the landscape” and are typically owned by large multinational corporations and do not require a live in manager/owner.
The Federal Governments Legislation creating a tax deduction for the cost of carbon sink forests needs to be clearly defined in order to assess its environmental benefits. The Greens want the ammendent to specify the use of native trees, that the trees remain in the ground for 100 years and that plantations be subject to a water use assemessment (Peatling, 2007).
Peatling, S ‘Doubts raised over trees for carbon plan’, The Age 21/09/07
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/doubts-raised-over-trees-for-carbon-plan/2007/09/20/1189881683429.html, Viewed 07/10/07
Barlow, K & Cocklin, C, ‘Reconstructing rurality and community: plantation forestry in Victoria, Australia’, Journal of Rural Studies, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 503-519
Jackson, R, Jobbagy, E, Avissar, R, Roy, S, Barrett, D, Cook, C, Farley, K, le Maitre, D, McCarl, B & Murray, B, 2005 ‘Trading Water for Carbon with Biological Carbon Sequestration’, Science, vol. 310, no. 5756, pp. 1994-1947.
If only planting endless trees across Australia’s barren landscape was the solution to our carbon-hungry lives. A number of my fellow students have described the benefits of such programs (i.e. carbon sink forests) for rural and regional communities and yet I wish to argue that this is simply a ‘bandaid’ solution we should not bother pursuing for the benefit of short-term carbon offsets.
This is our reality….
Australia is the driest inhabited continent in the world; 70% of it is either arid or semi arid land. The arid zone is defined as areas which receive an average annual rainfall of 250mm or less. The semi arid zone is defined as areas which receive an average annual rainfall between 250-350mm (Desert Knowledge CRC, 2006).
Tony Wright’s article from The Bulletin March 6, 2007 states bushfires are a natural part of the Australian experience. Wright’s article goes on the explain that the bushfires of 2003 in Victoria and NSW alpine areas are estimated to have pumped 130 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere…equivalent to about one quarter of Australia’s entire annual greenhouse gas emissions target (2007:24). Interestingly, in the wake of the fires, new forest growth will suck up vast amounts of water: 20% more than normal…continuing for decades as new trees and other vegetation struggle to grow (ibid).
Wright argues that the parks [in Victoria in this instance] are being destroyed by the very ["lock up and leave"] policies that are supposed to save them for generations to come (2007:26). As Robyn mentioned earlier, these areas then become breeding grounds for feral animals and even fire trails are no longer maintained.
And finally, to water. As the driest inhabited continent in the world it should come as no surprise that the Federal Government only two weeks ago (25 September) announced that struggling farmers would be helped to quit the land and more small businesses will get welfare under a $714 million drought relief plan (The Australian, 2007).
At least for the short to medium term, carbon sink forests are likely to prevail. Planners must utilise their skills and (and often few) resources to do what they can to ‘protect the people’ and respond to the demands of those bashing down the door.
References
Desert Knowledge CRC Data Project (2006), “Resource material on desert Australia”, Desert Knowledge CRC (online)
Available: http://www.desertknowledgecrc.com.au/desert_information/desertmaps.html
[Accessed 8/10/2007]
Marris, Sid (2007), “Farmers to be paid to leave the land”, The Australian, September 25, 2007 (online)
Available:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au
[Accessed 8/10/2007]
Wright, Tony (2007), “Fires this summer in Victoria alone have pumped at least 40 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere”, The Bulletin, March 6, 2007 pp. 24-28
Leaving the questionable logic and science of planting native trees for carbon sequestration aside; the possibility of planting native trees in regional areas could be useful in the following ways:
provide habitat corridors,
mitigate the impacts of erosion on cleared land,
retain moisture in soil,
provide extra income for farmers,
reduce salinity,
rehabilitate marginal lands, and
provide employment.
The side benefits of planting native trees designed for carbon sequestration are very apparent; however the plantings require ongoing management and care. A criticism of some regional based landcare projects has been that they focus on outputs rather than outcomes (Farrelly, 2005). Meaning that the focus is on the planting of trees rather than the sustainable management of them to ensure they survive. Commonwealth funding of landcare projects has at times focussed on the number of plantings rather than the successful revegetation of areas.
I suggest that the planting of trees could be a significant benefit for regional areas, but its impact on carbon levels is questionable.
Reference.
Farrelly, M. - (2005) Regionalisation of Environmental Management: a Case Study of the Natural Heritage Trust, South Australia. Geographical Research, 43, pp393-405.
Cathy T, great topic!
There is large momentum at the moment for carbon sequestration projects as you mentioned in your blog, and you’re absolutely right, at the end of the day it doesn’t really solve the problem because the problem is largely a behavioral one – but in relation to climate change, what’s new! People subscribe to green power and think its then ok to leave every light on in the house, or buy a water efficient shower head and then stay in the shower for 40 minutes!
But anyway, I’m sure I’m just stating the obvious, so on to sequestration.This blog has triggered some healthy discussions as to the pros and cons of planting trees for carbon offsets, and from these discussion I think what rings true is that planting trees can have numerous benefits, not only for the purposes of capturing carbon but also for land reclamation and rehabilitation, but despite this, if not managed properly, the problems can quickly outweigh the benefits.
I think emmajanes comments about the existing “lock up and leave them” attitude in the management of national forests, highlights a very important point - by not undertaking proper fire management practices we are contributing to the enormous proportions of summer bush fires in this country, which release equally as large carbon emissions. The idea of planting trees to offset carbon only perpetuates this “lock up and leave them” attitude and could create more harm than good – I cant imagine too many Greenfleet customers being very pleased if they were told that their plantings were about to be set alight!. Perhaps as planners we need to remember that we need to be environmental managers also. Planning to prevent bush fires may seem like a good step in the short term, but its the long term effects of this which need to be considered more strongly also.
But back to carbon capture, the other thing we should consider in this discussion is the viability geosequestration. That is capturing carbon at the source and injecting it into geological formations in the earths surface. While geosequestration does not remove carbon already in the atmosphere, like tree planting, it captures the carbon at the source. Obviously, this is where we all think it would be best to just get rid of the polluting source, therefore eliminating the need for geosequestration, but we only have to look at the Victorian governments decision to extend the life of the Hazelwood Power Station to know that this is not likely to happen any time soon. Other advantages of geosequestration are that it has a a less fragile retention system than trees and it can also be used in areas that have become completely barren through salinity and such, and can no longer be remediated.
However, geosequestration also comes with its own set of planning challenges and no doubt barriers to its acceptance in the community. For example, to transfer carbon from the source to say a completely barren saline environment, or offshore, the construction of a large pipeline would be required. A potential planning nightmare!
Anyway, I just thought I should mention geosequstration as another interesting thing to consider. There is a good website which provides some basic info on carbon capture and storage which might be of interest http://www.co2crc.com.au/understandccs.html
Also, this document is a really good run down on fire management and some of the planning required around it http://www.environment.gov.au/land/publications/rangelands-fire/pubs/1-importance.pdf
‘It can be expected that over the next ten to thirty years, many of the areas where trees for carbon sequestration will be planted will be in increasingly hotter and drier areas…’
The Age ran an article titled ‘Egypt plans to ‘Green’ Sahara Desert on 8th October 2007- http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Egypt-plans-to-green-Sahara-desert/2007/10/08/1191695781422.html . Rather than for carbon offsetting, the proposed reclamation of the desert is aimed at creating agricultural land and creating new livable areas for the growing population. However, one of the issues with this process is the demand for water and its consequential affect on the ‘water politics’ of the Nile River.
In Victoria, there are already debates about the viability of the transfer and sale of rural water into city areas for aesthetic purposes such as the filling up of new swimming pools. The planting of trees in rural areas to offset the carbon omission of metropolitan businesses and homes would further add to this water conflict as these trees would use up further water resources. So not only will we be adding to the fire risks mentioned by Cathy, but such practices places demands on water resources and hence drive up water prices for the rural communities.
For the agendas of the two sides to be met, communicative planning practices would need to be implemented to ensure that the rural communities are able to voice their concerns. Planners would need to advocate Arnstein’s ‘degrees of citizen power’ where there is a partnership, delegated power or degrees of citizen control for the rural communites, rather than a ‘token’ participation. Without the empowerment of the rural communities, it would be too easy for the interests of the money crunching corporate carbon emitters to be privileged.