Firms 'Less Prepared' For Low-Carbon World

Just days before Labor's pollution price takes effect, a new survey suggests Australian firms are feeling less prepared now for a low-carbon future than they were 12 months ago.

The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) report, released on Tuesday, also finds only a third of respondents believe the opportunities created by imposing a carbon tax will outweigh the risks in the long term.
That's down from about 50 per cent in the inaugural survey in 2011.

The report says executives may have been overconfident before the details of Labor's scheme were announced in mid-2011.

Global uncertainty may also be behind the shift in sentiment, coupled with the fact that "corporate nervousness on the eve of the introduction of the carbon pricing scheme is bound to be at its peak".
But the Gillard government can take heart from other key findings.

About 85 per cent of directly affected businesses and two-thirds of all companies are already acting to reduce pollution.

"These findings indicate Australia's carbon pricing legislation has spurred firms to take action to reduce their carbon emissions," the report, commissioned by GE, states.

"This will ultimately reduce the country's overall carbon footprint."

GE ecomagination director Ben Waters is encouraged by the fact carbon pricing is already driving energy efficiency.

"We've been in the realm of opinion and policy advice but now we've got a law that's about to start," he told AAP.

"It's about getting into action, which is what business does best."

Almost three-quarters of the 136 senior executives surveyed by the EIU believe carbon pricing is here to stay - although almost half think a better regime will eventually replace Labor's current proposal.

That's partly because two-thirds believe the $23-a-tonne starting price is too high.

"It is likely that Australia, which is just about to take its first steps towards carbon pricing, will have to go through several years of discussion and trading before reaching equilibrium," the report states.

The Gillard government's carbon tax will transform into an emissions trading scheme in mid-2015.

The EIU analysis also suggests the corporate carbon agenda has shifted towards "cost reduction" in 2012.

Of the 300 biggest emitters that will pay the tax from July 1, more than half have set up dedicated roles or teams to identify greater carbon or energy efficiency measures internally.

Carbon is Key for Getting Algae to Pump Out More Oil

Overturning two long-held misconceptions about oil production in algae, scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory show that ramping up the microbes’ overall metabolism by feeding them more carbon increases oil production as the organisms continue to grow. The findings — published online in the journal Plant and Cell Physiology on May 28, 2012 — may point to new ways to turn photosynthetic green algae into tiny “green factories” for producing raw materials for alternative fuels.

“We are interested in algae because they grow very quickly and can efficiently convert carbon dioxide into carbon-chain molecules like starch and oils,” said Brookhaven biologist Changcheng Xu, the paper’s lead author. With eight times the energy density of starch, algal oil in particular could be an ideal raw material for making biodiesel and other renewable fuels.

But there have been some problems turning microscopic algae into oil producing factories.
For one thing, when the tiny microbes take in carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, they preferentially convert the carbon into starch rather than oils. “Normally, algae produce very little oil,” Xu said.

Before the current research, the only way scientists knew to tip the balance in favor of oil production was to starve the algae of certain key nutrients, like nitrogen. Oil output would increase, but the algae would stop growing — not ideal conditions for continuous production.

Another issue was that scientists didn’t know much about the details of oil biochemistry in algae. “Much of what we thought we knew was inferred from studies performed on higher plants,” said Brookhaven biochemist John Shanklin, a co-author who’s conducted extensive research on plant oil production. Recent studies have hinted at big differences between the microbial algae and their more complex photosynthetic relatives.

“Our goal was to learn all we could about the factors that contribute to oil production in algae, including those that control metabolic switching between starch and oil, to see if we could shift the balance to oil production without stopping algae growth,” Xu said.

The scientists grew cultures of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii — the “fruit fly” of algae — under a variety of nutrient conditions, with and without inhibitors that would limit specific biochemical pathways. They also studied a mutant Chlamydomonas that lacks the capacity to make starch. By comparing how much oil accumulated over time in the two strains across the various conditions, they were able to learn why carbon preferentially partitions into starch rather than oil, and how to affect the process.

The main finding was that feeding the algae more carbon (in the form of acetate) quickly maxed out the production of starch to the point that any additional carbon was channeled into high-gear oil production. And, most significantly, under the excess carbon condition and without nutrient deprivation, the microbes kept growing while producing oil.

“This overturns the previously held dogma that algae growth and increased oil production are mutually exclusive,” Xu said.

The detailed studies, conducted mainly by Brookhaven research associates Jilian Fan and Chengshi Yan, showed that the amount of carbon was the key factor determining how much oil was produced: more carbon resulted in more oil; less carbon limited production. This was another surprise because a lot of approaches for increasing oil production have focused on the role of enzymes involved in producing fatty acids and oils. In this study, inhibiting enzyme production had little effect on oil output.

“This is an example of a substantial difference between algae and higher plants,” said Shanklin.
In plants, the enzymes directly involved in the oil biosynthetic pathway are the limiting factors in oil production. In algae, the limiting step is not in the oil biosynthesis itself, but further back in central metabolism.

This is not all that different from what we see in human metabolism, Xu points out: Eating more carbon-rich carbohydrates pushes our metabolism to increase oil (fat) production and storage.

“It’s kind of surprising that, in some ways, we’re more like algae than higher plants are,” Xu said, noting that scientists in other fields may be interested in the details of metabolic switching uncovered by this research.

But the next step for the Brookhaven team will be to look more closely at the differences in carbon partitioning in algae and plants. This part of the work will be led by co-author Jorg Schwender, an expert in metabolic flux studies. The team will also work to translate what they’ve learned in a model algal species into information that can help increase the yield of commercial algal strains for the production of raw materials for biofuels.

Poll Shows Carbon Tax Needs Sale of the Century to Change Voters' Views

THE government's task of selling the carbon price to voters when it begins on July 1 remains difficult, with a poll showing entrenched negative attitudes towards the policy.

The latest Herald/Nielsen poll shows support for a price on carbon at 36 per cent, with 60 per cent opposed.

Just over half of voters - 52 per cent - believe they will be worse off, even though low- and middle-income earners will get $15 billion compensation to cover cost-of-living increases.

Another 39 per cent believe it will make no difference to their cost of living, while 5 per cent feel they will be better off.

The poll of 1400 voters was taken from Thursday night to Saturday night last week, after Labor's crushing defeat in the Queensland election.

The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, sought to implicate Julia Gillard's broken promise not to introduce a carbon tax as a factor in that defeat.

The numbers in the latest poll have barely changed in more than a year. Before Ms Gillard announced the carbon policy in February last year, the poll found support for putting a price on carbon evenly split. After the announcement - and opposition claims she had broken her promise - support fell to 35 per cent and opposition rose to 56 per cent. The levels have altered little since.

In July, the government revealed details of the household compensation, which will be worth $15 billion in the first four years. It would be paid as tax cuts and welfare and pension increases. In many cases, those on very low incomes would receive more in compensation than their increase in cost of living as estimated by Treasury.

The Herald poll taken then showed 53 per cent felt they would be worse off, 37 per cent felt there would be no change and 6 per cent felt they would be better off. These numbers are almost identical to the latest poll.

Ms Gillard has rejected calls from business to reduce the impact of the carbon price by cutting the fixed starting price of $23 a tonne roughly in half, to bring it in line with the carbon price in Europe.
Yesterday, she said voter anxiety with her government had been fuelled by the Coalition's ''hyper-partisanship''. She said it had ''force-fed for many months a diet of completely outlandish scare campaigns about what carbon pricing is going to mean''.

She repeated that employment would still grow, the cost-of-living impact would be less than 1 per cent and the compensation would be in place.

Mr Abbott has promised that, if elected, his first act as prime minister would be to unwind the price on carbon. Ms Gillard told Channel Ten's Meet the Press program this ''chest-beating'' would ''prove to be incredibly hollow''.

By next year, the carbon price would be a year old, the economy would have started to adjust and ''people would have got the money in their hands''.

''Mr Abbott, I think, will find it very difficult indeed to pretend to the Australian people that he is going to seriously dismantle all that,'' she said.

Independent MPs back mining tax

The Federal Government has secured the support of key independents Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott and Andrew Wilkie for its mining tax.

The independents have secured a $200 million program to examine environmental concerns over coal seam gas mining and an increase in the tax threshold from $50 million to $75 million for small companies.

But the passage of the bill is by no means assured.

The Greens, who have threatened to block the legislation if the tax threshold is increased, are insisting the foregone revenue of $20 million a year be made up by other means.

However the support of the independents is a big boost to Julia Gillard's Government, which is trying to get the tax through the Lower House before Parliament rises for the year on Thursday.

It has been buoyed by Labor Party-commissioned research showing 56 per cent of people do not think average Australians are benefiting from the resources boom.

The Government has agreed to a demand by Mr Wilkie to lift the tax threshold at which the tax will apply to $75 million from $50 million and phase in another increase to $125 million.


Mr Wilkie had expressed concerns about how the tax will affect small miners, a concern shared by Western Australian independent Tony Crook.

The Tasmanian MP says 20 to 30 companies will pay the tax when it reaches the $125 million threshold.

"That will go some way to making for a fairer tax for the small mining companies," he said.

"At the end of the day they are the companies that are going to become the big companies."

Mr Wilkie said he was unable to negotiate any change to the depreciation provisions, but accepted the Government had negotiated in good faith.

But Mr Crook says he will not be supporting the tax and argues the Government should consider amendments to protect small miners.

"Some companies may choose to put their projects on the backburner or not proceed at all," he said.

"This will have a massive detrimental affect. There should be every inducement to keep these mining companies going and keeping people employed."

Sticking points
One of Mr Windsor's key sticking points was a commitment that any decisions about coal seam gas projects are based on rigorous scientific evidence.

The Government has agreed to his request.

Greens leader Bob Brown says his party will not budge from its demand that any amendments deliver a revenue-neutral position.

He said it was now up the Government to "get creative" to fund community services that would suffer from the $20 million decrease.

"Twenty million is 200 or 300 nurses or teachers sacked off the payroll. Andrew Wilkie might explain that to the nurses at the Royal Hobart or the teachers at Ogilvie High," Senator Brown told reporters.

"Giving a free $20 million back to the mining industry - and these are corporations turning in a profit of over $100 million a year - isn't something we are going to entertain.

"It's up to them to make this a revenue-neutral arrangement and it's part of a stand we're taking here for average Australians."

Internal friction
Earlier today, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott refused to respond to press reports that some in his party now favour the tax, despite the Coalition’s pledge to repeal the measure if it wins government.

The Sydney Morning Herald quoted an unnamed Liberal MP as saying there is a growing view within the Coalition that the tax will be needed to fund the party's promises.

West Australian Liberal Mal Washer has already publicly supported the tax - but says he will not cross the floor to vote with the Government.

Asked twice about the rumblings within his own party, Mr Abbott this morning would only say "this is a bad tax from a bad government".

After the second question, Mr Abbott told reporters to change the subject.

"I've made it very clear what our position on the mining tax is - if there are other issues we want to deal with today, that's great."

Like Carbon News on Facebook

Like Carbon News (Carbon tax News) on Facebook for all the latest news and information about Carbon Tax in Australia and the push to implement the tax scheme (a carbon price worldwide).

Qld Taxpayers Warned about Carbon Tax

Queensland taxpayers will pay the price for state-owned power generators being devalued by the federal carbon tax, a Senate committee has been warned.

A committee scrutinising the proposed federal tax sat in Brisbane on Monday, where Queensland Resources Council chief Michael Roche argued Australia should not adopt a tax ahead of its international competitors.

The Bligh government has estimated the asset value of state-owned generators will decrease by around $1.7 billion.

Mr Roche said Queenslanders would likely have to prop up the generators after write-downs, although Premier Anna Bligh later told reporters that was a "furphy".

"In the case of government-owned generators, there's only one source of equity and it's the Queensland Treasury, it's the Queensland taxpayer," Mr Roche told the committee.

"Or other programs will be cut to fund the injection into the government-owned generators."

Mr Roche said the carbon tax was expected to comprise up to half of the operating costs of the state-owned generators.

But Labor senator Doug Cameron attacked the ACIL Tasman modelling Mr Roche quoted, saying it had proven unreliable.

The other potential impact on taxpayers was a predicted $1 billion loss in coal royalties to the Queensland government by 2020 due to the premature closure of mines, Mr Roche said.

"I would have thought that the Queensland government would see the risk for their single largest source of revenues outside of grants from the federal government," he said.

But Ms Bligh told reporters the industry had a "very strong future", with almost $60 billion worth of mining applications in the pipeline.

She said federal treasury modelling showed an expected 47 per cent growth by 2020 would only drop to a 45 per cent growth at worst.

"Let's be realistic here, the Queensland coal industry has taken some 40 years to get to where they are now and they expect to increase by almost 50 per cent in the next eight years," she said.

"I think the bigger question frankly is whether the industry itself, with or without changes in federal government regulations, is capable of that sort of expansion."

The committee heard Queensland Chamber of Commerce polling shows the tax will make 10 per cent of the state's small to medium-sized businesses unviable by raising power, transport and supply costs.

"Anybody with a power point, with an engine, with a gantry crane, a mig welder, will pay more for what they do," the chamber's David Goodwin said.

"Right across our economy we feel very, very exposed.

"We're not an economy which sits with a lot of head offices, sitting in buildings, working on computers.

"We are an economy which actually does stuff, and because of that we will be in the eye of the storm."

Senator Cameron ridiculed the chamber for relying on its own surveys rather than Queensland Treasury estimates, which predict strong growth after the recovery from summer's floods and cyclone.

"You're the Tony Abbott of the business community, you're the weathervane, are you?" he said.

Suffocating the Economy One Tax at a Time

If implemented, Julia Gillard's proposed carbon price starting at $23 per tonne will push us closer to economic stagnation.

If the Government wanted to make the 159 million tonnes saving in 2020 it seeks, it would not attempt to do this with a domestic tax. According to the Government's Securing a Clean Future report, half of the saved emissions are domestically derived.

If the price is $30 per tonne this will involve an annual cost of $2.385 billion incurred in overseas buying. The cost of achieving the emission reduction locally if the price is $30 per tonne is incurred on all the remaining emissions (336 million tonnes). That comes to $10.08 billion. This begs the question that since carbon dioxide is the same the world over why not buy all our emissions overseas? At $30 per tonne, 159 megatonnes of emissions costs $4.77 billion, which is far less costly than striving to do it with the mix of local ($10.08 billion) plus overseas ($2.385 billion) giving a total of $12.465 billion.

Even without a carbon tax, Australia's energy price regulator has reported an expected increase of 30 per cent in electricity prices over the next three years, largely due to higher 'poles and wires' costs. For New South Wales, the state's pricing tribunal has announced a 17 per cent electricity increase for next year, a third of which is for "green schemes".

Against this backdrop last month's Productivity Commission (PC) report, Carbon Emission Policies in Key Economies examined over 1,000 abatement reduction schemes across eight countries. These are overwhelmingly focused on electricity, and the PC converted them into carbon tax equivalents.

The PC's analysis illustrates that taxes are high and substantial abatement is taking place in the European Union (EU). In Germany and the UK carbon dioxide emission programs bring increases of 12-17 per cent in electricity prices (though the recent slump in the EU carbon price will reduce this considerably).

For Australia and New Zealand the emission control programs currently bring electricity price increases of 1-2 per cent, while in China, US, Japan and South Korea the effect is negligible. And Australia's main scheme, the 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target, is only just gearing up to cost levels that by 2020 will be perhaps tenfold those of today.

Australia's trading rivals are among the 170-odd other countries which the PC did not examine. In fact, exporters of fuel and raw materials in Canada, South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, India and the Middle East face negligible carbon abatement costs and already have tax advantages over Australia's exporters. Carbon taxes figured prominently in the Canadian Liberal Party's platform in that country's recent election and the party suffered its worst defeat in a century.

Although no country has a carbon tax, the PC's material demonstrates that cap-and-trade market mechanisms offer cheaper means of bringing about abatement than specified regulatory measures like renewable programs. Thus Germany's costs under the European Union's cap-and-trade carbon tax were about $20 per tonne of CO2 (for shifting from coal to gas) but costs under specific measures requiring wind and solar use on average $137 per tonne.

Australia's schemes involving feed-in tariffs for small scale renewable systems come at a CO2 price of up to $425 per tonne. Wind farms cost $37-69 per tonne.

The PC estimates that a carbon tax set at $9 per tonne could replace all existing Australian measures and notes that a tax is less inefficient than 'direct action' approaches favoured by the Opposition.

However, the current abatement measures requiring renewables are also direct action approaches and the Government wants these to be retained alongside a carbon tax. Moreover, it is negotiating for another direct action proposal, involving closure of Victoria's Hazelwood power station. That closure could reduce emissions by 3 per cent but only in the unlikely event that the station's output is not replaced by output from other fossil fuel sources.

The Productivity Commission estimated the cost of Australian emission reduction programs at $473-694 million in terms of total subsidy equivalent. But this excludes direct government subsidies. The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) provides an "A to Z" of (Commonwealth) Government initiatives. Ranging from Advanced Electricity Storage Technologies to the World Bank Clean Technology Fund, these comprise 93 separate programs. DCCEE put Australia's budget expenditures on abatement measures totalled $1.069 billion in 2009/10. The Government's package budgets for $4.2 billion in 2014/15 in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and other supports for green energy and conservation.

In addition to excluding direct budgetary spending in estimating Australia's carbon tax rate, the PC also does not count the effects of a range of standards. A previous commission report had put the annual costs of greenhouse abatement measures embodied in the national five/six-star building standards at $3 billion a year.

Clearly Australia outlays much more than the $473-694 million the PC used to estimate Australia's greenhouse abatement costs. Our expenditures are much higher than those of our competitors and the carbon tax would further increase the baggage we have to carry.

The outcome would be a spiralling down of our living standards relative to those of other resource rich countries.

But the carbon tax is only the latest blow. To restore the nation's competitiveness, a future Coalition government must both revoke any carbon tax that is introduced and purge the economy-killing measures that have been gathering moss over the past few years.

To start this ball rolling, the O'Farrell Government is calling for the repeal of the Commonwealth's 20 per cent Renewable Energy Target. And the Nationals Senator Ron Boswell has made similar moves in the Coalition party room by seeking to have support for the target reviewed by a policy committee.

With his 'direct action' approach Tony Abbott expects to achieve the Government 5 per cent reduction in emissions but at a lower cost than a carbon tax involves. That is implausibly optimistic. But more significantly he has announced a review of policies for 2015, an action which foreshadows an unwinding of the green juggernaut.

Alan Moran is the Director, Deregulation at the Institute of Public Affairs.

Carbon tax: Heat rises as voters reject Julia Gillard's plan

ANGRY Australians have vowed to vote Julia Gillard from office at the next election after yesterday's controversial carbon tax announcement.

Scores of voters rejected the plan soon after details of the $24.5 billion package to tackle climate change were revealed, with more than 80 per cent who voted in a national News Limited online poll saying Australia shouldn't have a carbon tax.

Almost 100,000 people voted across four polls in the national plebiscite by 5pm yesterday, with 87.1 per cent saying they planned to change their vote at the next election in light of the tax.

More than 70 per cent of voters, or 15,866 people, said they now planned to vote for the Coalition at the next election while just 8.51 per cent said they would support a Labor government.

Just 13 per cent of voters said they wouldn't change their vote at the next election.

Despite government claims that 90 per cent of Australians would receive compensation, and that 40 per cent of households would be overcompensated, voters said Julia Gillard had signer her fate at the polls.

"They're calling it 'Carbon Sunday' but I like to refer to today as 'Suicide Sunday' for a PM and three independents,'' one reader wrote.

"I cannot wait until the next election. The Labor Party the Greens and the Independants will answer to the Australian people for what they are inflicting upon us. Revenge is a dish best served cold,'' wrote another.

Eighty per cent of voters described the tax as "disgraceful'' while others said it was "inadequate''.

Just eight per cent of voters said they were confident it wouldn't affect their hip pocket.

An anti-carbon tax group said its website crashed after being overwhelmed with people trying to sign up to a campaign rejecting the tax.

The organisers of the site, no-carbon-tax.org, said the site crashed because of the "sheer numbers of people signing up.''

Andrew Wilkie Says Julia Gillard Must Improve Carbon Tax Sales Job to Regain Public Confidence

TASMANIAN independent Andrew Wilkie has told Julia Gillard to improve her carbon tax sales job amid plummeting public support for the measure.

As fellow crossbencher Rob Oakeshott played down the latest Newspoll - showing only 30 per cent support for the tax - Mr Wilkie said the government had to do something to restore public confidence in the measure.

“Clearly the government does need to do a better job at selling a price on carbon if it is to regain the broad-based support it enjoyed last year,” he told The Australian Online.

Today's Newspoll survey reveals 78 per cent of Australians believe in climate change but 60 per cent oppose Labor's proposed carbon tax.

Mr Oakeshott urged voters to recognise the “economic opportunity and economic importance” of the carbon tax.

“No-one in this business is trying to do anyone any harm,” he said.

“We are trying to do public good in the long term and sometimes that requires some difficult decisions along the way. Everyone is trying to do a public good here.”

Mr Wilkie also offered conditional support for the tax.

“I continue to support a price on carbon so long as the settings are right,” he told The Australian Online.

“Most relevant to me is that Tasmania's overwhelming reliance on renewable energy, and capacity to lock up carbon through forestry, be properly factored into the settings being developed.”

The government will need the support of both MPs, plus independent Tony Windor and Green Adam Bandt, if its carbon tax is to get through the House of Representatives.

As the government seeks business support for the plan, Nationals Leader Warren Truss today accused it of leaving families and small businesses out in the cold.

Mr Truss said the Prime Minister's dinner invitation to big polluters at Kirribilli House tonight showed she was increasingly out of touch with the needs of everyday Australians.

“While Julia Gillard cosies up to the big end of town tonight, wining and dining big business to woo carbon tax support, small business and families are on the outside looking in,” he said.

“Ordinary Australians are already struggling with rising household costs and now they face the prospect of a double whammy from the carbon tax and looming interest rate rises.”

Responding to a Newspoll survey in The Australian yesterday, which showed Labor's primary vote at 33 per cent and her own satisfaction rating at a new low of 38 per cent, Ms Gillard conceded she had “a lot of hard work to do as Prime Minister”.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, whose satisfaction rose six percentage points to 42 per cent in the past month, said the poll was “field evidence” of people's carbon tax concerns.

“I think it's the good sense, the common sense, of the worker which is coming to the fore here,” Mr Abbott said.

The Prime Minister seized on Newspoll's finding that 78 per cent of respondents believed climate change was real.

“What today's poll shows - and I don't normally comment on polls - but I'll say this if you look at today's poll it shows clearly that Australians believe climate change is real,” Ms Gillard said in Sydney.

“That's a pretty big contrast with Mr Abbott, who has said in the past it is absolute crap.”

She said she understood major reform made people anxious, but the public would soon have better information upon which to judge the plan.

“In the middle of this year we will be able to give everyone full details of how the carbon pricing system will work,” she said.

“They will be able to sit at their kitchen table and work out all of the dollars and cents for them.”

Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey said plummeting support for the carbon tax was “Labor's own handiwork”.

“The Australian people are smart,” he said.

“They look at a carbon tax and they say, yes, that means higher costs for me and everyday life. And the Australian people can see through the Labor Party. This is all of the Labor Party's making.”

theAustralian.com.au

Credits Trader: .Controversial climate sceptic Lord Monckton Set to Speak at National Press Club

CLIMATE sceptic Christopher Monckton has been offered a prime speaking slot at the National Press Club in Canberra on July 19, despite a spate of cancelled public appearances.

Lord Monckton - who recently accused Julia Gillard's climate adviser Ross Garnaut of “fascist” views - is set to debate the Australia's Institute's executive director, economist Richard Denniss.

Credits Trader: .Controversial climate sceptic Lord Monckton Set to Speak at National Press Club

Andrew Wilkie Sets out Conditions to Support Carbon Tax

JULIA Gillard can secure the final vote she needs to pass the carbon tax if she promises to protect a zinc mine in Hobart.

Tasmanian MP Andrew Wilkie last night met the Prime Minister to discuss his terms after she won support from the Greens and independents Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor for the package.

Mr Wilkie also wants to make Tasmania a renewable energy hub and guarantee compensation for low-income earners.

Should there be an election over carbon tax? Tell us below

Ms Gillard last night called premiers to postpone a planned meeting next week on health reform. It will allow her to go on a national tour to sell the carbon tax.

Government MPs and staff yesterday were briefed to be on a "war footing" for a major campaign after the package was unveiled on Sunday. The PM will make a televised address to the nation on Sunday night.

Ms Gillard said she would spend next week directly answering questions from the public.

"I will be wearing out my shoe leather, literally," she told Parliament.

Victorian Liberal Kelly O'Dwyer, from Higgins, challenged the PM to attend a town hall meeting in her electorate.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said the PM was "running away from scrutiny" by refusing to announce it before Parliament began a five-week recess tomorrow.

He wrote to Ms Gillard and urged her to recall Parliament next week.

Liberal climate spokesman Greg Hunt said: "When it comes to cost of living, this will be Sunday bloody Sunday."

Source

Australia Releases Rules for CO2 Credits from Culling Camels

Killing camels to earn carbon credits might seem an extreme way to fight climate change, but the Australian government on Thursday issued detailed rules that will help investors do just that.

Adelaide-based Northwest Carbon, a carbon project developer, has developed the rules, or methodology, governing a strict camel culling programme that would also cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Like cows and sheep, camel digestive tracts produce large amounts of methane, a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, with adults producing about a tonne of methane a year.

With no natural predators, camels now number more than one million in Australia's desert centre and the population is growing quickly.

The methodology is one of many being developed under the government's Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI), the country's first nationally regulated carbon offset programme that aims to reward farmers and investors for steps that cut greenhouse gas emissions on the land.

The government, which supports Northwest Carbon's 63-page methodology, released the rules for public consultation on Thursday.

Legislation for the Carbon Farming Initiative is being debated before parliament, and it is likely to be approved. The scheme is far less controversial than a separate carbon pricing programme the government is struggling to win support for.

Camels, introduced in the 19th century, have become a major pest in Australia. They trample large areas of vegetation, damage water holes and compete with native species for food.

Camel culling under the methodology could generate up to 18 million carbon credits, with more than 650,000 created per year during the initial three to five years, Northwest Carbon said in a statement on Thursday.

Cutting methane from landfills, better management of grassland burning and tree plantations are also approved methods under the CFI, in addition to feral animal management.

Once the CFI is running, polluters will be able to buy offsets from approved projects or they can be sold overseas. But the scheme is expected to start off slowly until parliament also passes the separate laws that put a national price on carbon emissions.
Agriculture can comprise a large portion of a country's greenhouse gas emissions. In Australia, it is about 15 percent, while in New Zealand dairy farming, sheep grazing and other activities generate about half the country's total, mostly methane from livestock. One cow can emit 1.5 tonnes of methane a year.