CARBON EMISSIONS

On 25/03/99, it was reported in the Financial Review, that "The emerging ; global market for greenhouse gases could be worth US$4O-100 billion p.a. and the demand for offsets is set to rise dramatically"... so advised Dr Trexier of the US firm Trexier & Associates Inc. However, in the main most still regard this topic as abstract and confusing

In order to appraise the situation in logical fashion we must retrace the steps to the first Greenhouse Gas conference in Kyoto (?November 1997). Here it was decided that mankind was unquestionably contributing to global warming and constructive action was required. It therefore set an international agenda for certain controls by reducing greenhouse gases and listed six (6) as being problematic. The two main ones were carbon dioxide; indexed as I and nitrous oxide as 310. Further, it subsequently recommended that one (1) tonne of CO2 equivalent be set as the standard of credit unit. Obviously the percentages vary from country to country but statistics show that 99.7% of the problem lies with 002, methane and NO. Here stationary energy (mainly electricity generation) is the principal culprit, accounting for 55% of emissions with agriculture (20%) & transport (17%) both heavily contributing.

It was envisaged that emission trading on a global scale was not only possible but absolutely necessary and would arguably be the precursor to a carbon tax or energy levy on industry. However, standards and targets needed to be set and a format was signed-off by most developed countries to reduce emissions to 95% of their 1990 levels by 2008-12. This momentum was continued in November 1998 in Buenos Aires although reticence by the US to ratify their own definitive guidelines in Congress has meant that most OECD countries like Australia are fence-sitting until some leadership is shown.

The concept of emission trading based on predetermined values was assessed as potentially having a powerful benefit to man kind. This is especially so when the negative "aftermath damage costs" as instigated by climate change were taken into account.

How does Paulownia fit into the equation? Well Forestry has been deemed a critical contributor, for as we all know - it absorbs carbon dioxide and returns oxygen to the atmosphere. In essence· it becomes what is now commonly called a carbon sink. Trading of CE credit would allow power generators to buy the right to emit greenhouse gases and hence somewhat minimise the impact on industry. Hence a fillip for afforestation and a catalyst for the evolvement of a Carbon Credit market.

Where are we at? There is no doubt that the present situation is both confusing and convoluted. There are few clearly defined boundaries that obtain consensus whilst the wide range of greenhouse products on show are problematic as to exact measurement.

Combine this with second and third world countries not included as such (at present anyway) and a solution seems daunting. Price per unit / cost per unit /who is in /who is out /who will monitor are relevant questions and in some cases great inhibitors to a solution. Further, in relation to forestry most certainly satellite technology will need to evolve as an effective measurement of vegetation cover.

In essence, we are in a state of flux, albeit with some positive signs on display. Although deemed nebulous by some, it is becoming more accepted that a carbon dioxide equivalent can be priced at between US$-lO permetric tonne and nitrous oxide possibly as high as USD95 per metric tonne. Further, there seems an inevitability of a system becoming law based on sheer pragmatism of survival. Good Corporate citizenship is becoming vogue exemplified recently by Toyota entertaining the donation of carbon credits to fleet buying customers of "low carbon emission vehicles" (e.g. geared especially to the petrol electrical hybrids). In addition, Toyota is also showing the way as a sign of things to come by joint venturing with Mitsui in a massive global tree planting program. The target is to remove 25% of all greenhouse gases emitted from the annual production of its 4 million vehicles. Power utilities and petroleum companies (e.g. Shell) are also reinforcing this trend and hedging their bets by developing extensive afforestation.

The catalyst to change? Perhaps the Liebermann Bill currently before the US Congress will be the trigger to a new age of responsibility. The potential balancing of "the true cost to humanity" by taking a balanced and objective view. Universally we must eradicate the short term, ignorant and subjective business notion that this is not a "today" problem but one that can be deferred. The pretext of current financial survival cost is no longer good enough for to remain oblivious to the problem will bequeath a horrific legacy to our children and progeny of the future

In the overall scheme of things, and as the "lungs of the world", forestry will continue to play a critical global role although it must only be a segment of a developed rnindset. The option "not to conform" will simply put us on an inevitable course of self-destruct.

In relation to this game plan Paulownia, because of its speed of growth and multitude of uses, can play an exceedingly important role. Under ideal growing conditions and prudent silvicultural practice, it has been proven that some Paulownia species can provide the same amount of cubic metres in a butt log at year 10 as most fast growing softwoods can provide at year 25. However, it is not the "panacea for all ills" although there is still no doubt that the Paulownia family has a magnificent future in the timber industry whilst playing an invaluable role for the survival of the human race.