Opposition to Climate Change?

In my last blog, I noted how ‘being green’, or ‘becoming carbon conscious’, had gone mainstream – especially overseas.  The implementation of carbon reduction schemes in a number of countries around the world is now leading to a call for an entire supply chain carbon emissions count.  This, in effect, would mean that customers can choose to buy products that have a low carbon footprint.

Of course, in Australia, businesses will ultimately face the same pressures as are appearing overseas.  We have already seen the beginnings of these international pressures affect our own country, especially on the political scene.  In recent weeks, both the Government and the Opposition have had a lot to say about the topic.  On the one hand, the Government had to deal with a number of embarrassing mistakes around energy efficiency schemes and actions against climate change that appeared in the federal budget, and big polluters vowed to challenge attempts to lower emissions, saying it will adversely affect their profits.

On the other hand, Tony Abbott performed an impressive back flip, saying that he now believed that human activity has contributed to climate change.  Of course, this was done on the back of an announcement that he would cut a host of climate-related programs should he become Prime Minister at the next election.  Meanwhile the Shadow Treasurer, Joe Hockey, conceded that an ETS is inevitable – even while suggesting that climate change itself is debateable.

While these ongoing debates, deals, back-peddling and negotiations have clearly shown that the issue is still a hot topic, it also highlights the fact that organisations need to start seriously considering what they are going to; should they begin monitoring emissions now, or wait until they have to?

While confusion reigns, taking a wait and see approach is becoming less of an option for many organisations.  When politicians start saying that an ETS is inevitable, every smart organisation will see the writing on the wall and start preparing to report on carbon emissions now.

But if the Australian political parties retain their desire to see what other countries will do before introducing an ETS, this approach may also be fast losing its appeal.  The United States has now introduced its much awaited Climate Change Bill into the Senate and regardless of whether it is passed, this Bill signifies the US’s determination to address this ongoing issue.

So, the question I would like to pose is whether you think you will act now or whether you believe it’s better to wait?  Do you believe it’s better to be on the front foot and preparing now for legislation we’ve been told is ‘inevitable’?  Or will you take a wait and see approach?

Back In Action

The Rudd Government’s recent announcement that it was shelving the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) until clarity was gained about other nations’ climate change commitments made international headlines.

There was the inevitable outcry over the government’s ‘backing down’ from its election commitment, but it did help to place carbon emissions and climate change back in the news.

A poll by the Lowy Institute found that 72% of people agreed that the nation should reduce carbon emissions before a global agreement was reached, although 33 per cent did not want to pay higher power charges and 25 per cent said they would only pay a maximum of $10 a month extra to help climate change.

When interviewed on ABC radio just after the announcement, Australia’s Chief Scientist, Prof. Penny Sackett, strongly advocated the government taking action against climate change now, before it is too late. There is obviously still strong support for some action to ameliorate the effects of world-wide temperature increases.

Of course, attention is being drawn to green issues internationally as the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico continues to contaminate land, air and sea, and the Icelandic volcano threatens further flight disruption.

So just how much is climate change on the radar? Reports from overseas illustrate that it is still very much an issue. CNN recently ran a story about whether Chinese citizens would be willing to ‘go green’ , with evidence suggesting that the answer is ‘yes’ at least in some areas. In London, Stella Artois has also been getting in on the act, running an advertising campaign for new bottles with the tag line “Less glass. Less CO2 emissions”. Beer drinking has clearly become an environmental choice!

Back in Australia, the topic of climate change is here to stay. Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, landed himself in hot water for his scientifically unfounded comments on climate change and the media is continuing to run stories about this issue.

The delay to the CPRS may be due to politics, but the topic – and the threat – is here to stay. We’ll be here, continuing to follow the action and keeping you up to date with carbon accounting, greenhouse emissions and climate change issues throughout Australia and the rest of the world.

Passing it down the line

Just when you thought the world was becoming apathetic about carbon emissions, the Eyjafjallajokull volcano in Iceland erupts and the skies go quiet. Hundreds of thousands of people (including me) were left ‘stranded’ all across Europe and Asia, as flights to and from most countries were either disrupted or cancelled.

It has now been suggested that this volcano has actually done us a favour, especially when people began saying that the cancelled flights would reduce carbon emissions, given that the estimates of CO2 that the volcano was spewing into the atmosphere were significantly less than the emissions saved by grounding so many aircraft. Of course, as I was trying to get some sleep while lying across two chairs in Changi Airport, carbon emissions were the furthest thing from my mind and I know for a fact that there were many people that suffered far more than I did.

Still, it did reintroduce carbon emissions to the public consciousness. And perhaps even more interestingly, the flight ban showed that the world doesn’t stop if we cannot take to the skies, and forced many organisations to look to alternate forms of communication to ensure their businesses continued to operate.

Some airlines are now claiming that they plan to seek compensation from their government for the losses they have made because of the flight ban. They even say that fares may have to rise in the future, and there are news reports daily of individuals paying vast sums of money to ensure they can get home. It’s a classic case of passing the costs down the line.
A TechnologyOne customer was recently talking about his experience reporting under the NGER Act and suggested that as thresholds decrease, more organisations will have to report and accurate information is going to become more important. Yet he suggested that the effects will likely be felt far sooner because it’s only a matter of time before organisations that must report under the NGER Act push the data capture and reporting requirements down the supply chain. This will mean that smaller companies contracting to larger companies will have to report carbon emissions, creating a ‘secondary compliance’ regime.

The whole idea of ‘secondary compliance’ is fascinating. If this kind of reporting becomes common, it might not matter what legislation is passed in Australia. Almost every medium to large business – and even some small businesses – will have to calculate their carbon emissions.

So, I would like to pose some questions. Do you think that passing emissions reporting requirements on will become commonplace for businesses? Will such a requirement end up making CO2 reporting as common as filing a tax return? And is anyone already implementing a ‘secondary compliance’ regime? If so, how successful has it been so far?

Carbon Cutting on a Global Scale

While carbon emissions have dropped off the political agenda for the time being, the issue continues to be of interest to other nations around the world. 

The beginning of April saw carbon emission reduction legislation take effect in the UK through the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) Energy Efficiency Scheme. Under this mandatory scheme organisations will have to actively reduce their emissions.  Each year the UK governing body will pass a league table ranking organisations according to their performance.  If an organisation does not reduce its emissions enough, it will face a financial penalty and will be publicly ‘named and shamed’.  Conversely, if the organisation does do well in reducing its emissions, it could receive financial incentives. 

There is already an effective emissions trading scheme operating throughout the EU, and in late 2009, the US introduced wide-ranging legislation into Congress.  Political pundits now predict that the climate change bill will be the Obama administration’s next major piece of legislation to be debated in the Senate and the House of Representatives.  It appears, at least for the moment, that the US government is determined to act to mitigate the effects of climate change. 

Movements in both China and India to combat climate change are also gaining momentum after both countries committed to action in December, although the extent to which they will be able to reduce their carbon emissions remains to be seen. 

A quick review of what is happening with regards to climate change around the world shows that reducing carbon emissions and halting the rapid pace of climate change is a priority for many countries.  When Parliament reconvenes in May and the debate on Australia’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme resumes, the importance Australia places on creating a low carbon emission future will be clear for the world to see.

Emissions continues to top political debate in 2010

Welcome to the new TechnologyOne carbon accounting blog. With the carbon accounting debate shaping up to be one of the hottest topics in 2010, TechnologyOne looks forward to bringing you the latest updates on the legislation debate, reporting and compliance requirements, and what it all really means for your organisation.

First, a brief reflection on where the carbon debate ended last year when the carbon crusaders suffered a number of blows. At the end of November the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) was defeated in the Senate for a second time, despite some major concessions, and Tony Abbot secured the Liberal leadership on the sole promise of opposing an ETS.

This meant the Prime Minister had to go to Copenhagen without the Australian legislation and the summit, which had been promoted as the successor to Kyoto, failed to deliver a binding global deal on climate change or emissions reduction targets.

What’s next?

So what can we expect in 2010 as both sides of the political arena muscle up for a federal election? Climate change will certainly continue to top the agenda, and Labor re-introduced the CPRS legislation into parliament, but we can only guess at how ‘round three’ will play out.

We can also look forward to the results of the first wave of reporting for the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act (2007). High emitters had to submit full reports on energy consumption, production and greenhouse gas emissions by 31 October 2009 and the Department of Climate Change has now released information on the first round of reporting, although the number of companies that did not comply is yet to be determined.

We will be keeping you up to date as it all unfolds through this new blog.  In the next few posts we will be taking a look at:

• How major economies are approaching emissions trading and reduction
• What’s already happening in Australia and how you can prepare
• How TechnologyOne is working with our customers on carbon accounting

In the meantime, we would welcome your feedback and thoughts on how you’re approaching emissions reporting, or topics you would like to see covered in this blog.