Letters, feedback, get it off your chest: 9 March 2011
The sales debate may have finally wound down, but readers are still wound up over James Cryer’s carbon commentary. Why not write in and let us know your thoughts, too.
Re: LIA carbon debate heats up the industry
This time I agree with most of what James Cryer has to say about the simplistic carbon-reduction schemes and the debate surrounding them.
However, since this is the get-it-off-your-chest section, let me unload the following:
1. The choice between a fixed price or a market-driven mechanism is a bit like the choice between turning left or right in a car that is hurtling towards a cliff.?
2. The political reality is that, when you want millions of voters to make a decision, it has to be a simplistic choice or nothing happens. Yes, pollution in general is bad, and there are some worse molecules out there than carbon, but carbon is the one we realistically have some control over.?
3. No thinking person could see any of the proposed remedies as a “quick fix”. We have known about this problem for some forty years now. Unfortunately we have left it so long to do anything that even the most heroic measures will take another forty years to have a significant effect.?
4. It gets my back up when I hear people pitch the issue in terms of “saving the planet” (not you, James, by the way.) The planet will get along just fine, as it always has. What we are trying to prevent is a future in which our grandchildren struggle for existence in an environment where floods, droughts, wildfires and cyclones of ever-increasing frequency and severity ravage farmland, residential areas and the economy of every country in the world.
Peter Lawrance
We are interested in reading Mr Cryer’s comments about 'LIA Carbon Debate' in the recent Print21 bulletin. The editor’s comment in relation to Mr Cryer “sowing confusion” is, in our minds correct, unfortunately it is “confusion” that is not helping the industry.
We would like to comment on his reference to a ”local paper supplier and Life Cycle Analysis” with some facts:
1) To have Australian Paper’s carbon neutral papers certified we first had to determine the total emissions impact of the process of making, delivering and final disposal of the paper (to either land fill or recycle) in a full Life Cycle Analysis (LCA). This includes all material and energy inputs to the process. The common parlance is scopes 1, 2, and 3
2) This is not our process, but one that is directed by the Australian Government under its National Carbon Offset Standard (NCOS)
3) NCOS mandates the process that has to be followed in order to determine the total carbon footprint of our carbon neutral papers and we must follow a series of ISO standards, including ISO14064 (Quantification of Greenhouse Gases) and ISO14040 (Life Cycle Analysis). The emission levels are finally offset against NCOS approved offsets.
4) To get to the point where we can claim “Carbon Neutrality” for our papers, we have gone through a rigorous process of investigation to determine a total mass and energy balance that is used to calculate the carbon emissions for our business. This took many months. Once complete, the documents and calculations were then independently audited by Ernst and Young. Following that, the documentation was then verified by a Government approved verifier – in our case Perenia, before final approval by NCOS.
5) As well as taking well over a year to complete, the cost was many tens of thousands of dollars.
It is therefore of great concern to us that your article dismisses this process in a demeaning way, and I am sure that the Government agency that developed the National Carbon Offset Standard would feel similarly aggrieved.
Colin Hinde