From Snarkus in a comment:
The final twist of the bureaucratic knife is the suits who signed Paris agreement for Oz agreed that bushfire CO2 doesn’t count but controlled burn CO2 does, so more green tape is produced.
Yes, I can imagine that is true.
From Snarkus in a comment:
The final twist of the bureaucratic knife is the suits who signed Paris agreement for Oz agreed that bushfire CO2 doesn’t count but controlled burn CO2 does, so more green tape is produced.
Yes, I can imagine that is true.
I believe that, in the past, the same logic has been applied to hydro power not being classed as renewable. Presumably because it actually works properly.
France (70% of leccy supplied by nuclear) tried to get nuclear classed as green at one of those COP conferences. Can’t remember if they succeeded.
Perverse incentives much?
I have a problem with the word “renewable” in relation to power (and other things). Once you used the power from one batch of sun’s rays or water through a turbine, that’s it. You can’t use it again.
Sustainable has similar limitations. In other words, it’s all smoke and mirrors.
Indeed so, P-G. They’ve introduced an incentive for those in power, who must have people advising them that controlled burns are essential, to have people cause “accidental” fires which, by necessity, must be uncontrolled and dangerous to property otherwise it’d give the game away.
Yes, that is fascinating, isn’t it?
Similarly, when I was our council’s dogsbody for environmental services*, the Gov changed the rules so that obtaining energy from waste was not “recycling”. Nonagintimated our recyling levels overnight.
*The pinnacle of my time there was pushing through a policy that funeral pyres were just a type of cremation, so go ahead.
“in the past … hydro power not being classed as renewable.”
I gather that is still the law in New York State.
‘France (70% of leccy supplied by nuclear) tried to get nuclear classed as green at one of those COP conferences.’
That DOES sound too sensible a policy to be approved, philip.