What a Con!

By Paul Oates

So called ‘Developed’ countries could well note a report in PNG’s The National. The PNG Environment and Conservation Secretary, Dr Wari Iamo says PNG will reduce it’s carbon emissions by 60% in 10 years and by 100% in 40 years. The methodology to achieve this reduction must surely be revolutionary. Exactly who is in charge of measuring PNG’s carbon emissions and how this would be done was not detailed however.

Elsewhere, it was reported that ‘Carbon Cowboys’ have now created a scam and tricked German Carbon Creditors into releasing their confidential data base details and diverted some of the millions on offer into false bank accounts.

The process of buying carbon credits appears to some to be a simple equation. Electricity producers can continue to produce electricity from coal but buy carbon credits from those selling them to ‘offset’ the carbon dioxide so produced and being releasing into the atmosphere. Exactly how this will reduce the overall carbon emissions is unclear and the cost of ‘buying’ carbon credits will just be passed onto the consumer as a simple, new impost.

Those ‘selling’ carbon credits don’t seem to have any guaranteed methodology of ensuring that the ‘credits’ they are selling can either be verified or audited. Those nations who still have rainforests were very quick to reject any external auditing of their forest resources proposed at Copenhagen.

So can someone explain how carbon credits and emmissions trading schemes will effectively guarantee any reduction in carbon dioxide emissions or future greenhouse pollution? The whole process seems to be a sham of the greatest proportions. With electronic bank transfers and offshore bank accounts, those operating these carbon credit schemes seem to have an open door to manipulate the consumers and those with forests and play both sides off against each other while making millions in the process. What a con!
________________________________________________________

PNG ready to submit carbon targets to UN
Source: The National
By PATRICK TALU
PAPUA New Guinea has formalised its emission reduction targets (ERT) to comply with the Copenhagen Accord in reducing carbon emissions by 60% come 2020 and 100% by 2050.
Environment and Conservation Secretary, Dr Wari Iamo, said PNG was ready to submit its ERT to the UN together with its emission mitigation action plans.
Dr Iamo told The National yesterday by phone that PNG was focusing on the reduced emission on deforestation and degradation (REDD) initiative.
“To facilitate the REDD initiative, the Annex One nations (industrialised nations) have already committed K3 billion – K5 billion to the coalition of rainforest nations, including PNG.
“These funds are going to be used to create awareness, establishment of institutional capacities financing and technology transfer, pilot projects, laws and policy framework for REDD initiative and other necessary works,” Dr Iamo said.
Meanwhile, the EU last month formalised its support for the Copenhagen Accord on climate change and presented its commitments for ERT to the UN.
In a statement released from the EU country office in Port Moresby on Monday, a joint letter signed by the Spanish presidency of the council and the European commission has formally notified the EU’s willingness to be associated with the Accord and submitted  information on EU’s established greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for 2020.
Commission president José Manuel Barroso said: “The EU is determined to move ahead rapidly with implementing the Copenhagen Accord to make progress towards the agreement that we need to hold global warming below 2°C.
“The accord provides a basis on which to build the future agreement and I therefore urge all countries to associate themselves with it and notify ambitious emission targets or actions for inclusion as we are doing.”
The accord was the main outcome of the UN climate change conference held in Copenhagen from Dec 7 – 19.
The accord was negotiated by 28 developed and developing countries and the EC which account for 80% of the GHG emission.

__________________________________________________________

Hackers Steal Millions in Carbon Credits

* By Kim Zetter Email Author
* February 3, 2010 |

Credit card numbers are so passe. Today’s hackers know the real powerhouse data to steal is emission certificates.

That’s exactly what hackers went after last week when they obtained unauthorized access to online accounts where companies maintain their carbon credits, according to the German newspaper Der Spiegel.

The hackers launched a targeted phishing attack against employees of numerous companies in Europe, New Zealand and Japan, which appeared to come from the German Emissions Trading Authority. The workers were told that their companies needed to re-register their accounts with the Authority, where carbon credits and transactions are recorded.

When workers entered their credentials into a bogus web page linked in the e-mail, the hackers were able to hi-jack the credentials to access the companies’ Trading Authority accounts and transfer their carbon credits to two other accounts controlled by the hackers.

Under environmental cap-and-trade laws, there’s a limit to the greenhouse gases companies can emit. Companies that exceed this limit can purchase so-called carbon credits from entities that produce fewer greenhouse emissions than the limit provides them.

The scheme has produced a robust market for the trade of credits. More than 8 million tons of CO2 emissions worth $130 billion were traded in Europe last year.

According to the BBC, it’s estimated the hackers stole 250,000 carbon credit permits from six companies worth more than $4 million. At least seven out of 2,000 German firms that were targeted in the phishing scam fell for it. One of these unidentified firms reportedly lost $2.1 million in credits in the fraud.

The credits were resold for an undisclosed sum. The buyers, who likely believed the transactions were legitimate, haven’t been named.

The German Emissions Trading Authority has suspended access to its databases for a week while an investigation is underway.

The fraud is the latest example of hacks aimed at gaming environment controls. A year ago, hackers penetrated the Brazilian government’s quota data for Brazilian rain forest products – allowing the illegal poaching of more than 1.7 million cubic feet of timber.

Advertisements

50 thoughts on “What a Con!

  1. Either some pretty slack journalism (typical for The National) or a ministerial statement that wasn’t proof-read (typical for PNG). 100% reduction in Carbon emissions by 2050 – wow! This means no cooking fires, no transport, no power and presumably no people or pigs – as these all produce carbon emissions. Must be some real powerful puri-puri going on here!

  2. OK – let’s be more constructive.

    THE GREENING OF MORESBY?

    Here’s a radical thought for Governor Parkop, the Vice Chancellor at UPNG and others to consider…

    Carbon Credits can be gained not by just preserving old-growth forests, but by creating new ones. I am saddened by the sight of the bald, dry, brown hills surrounding Moresby which once were carpeted by beautiful Savannah forests, with roaming herds of wallabies, abundant wildlife etc. Now they are denuded, always on fire in the dry season, and what little soil is left running down the hills and out to sea every wet season.

    Why not re-create the forests?

    Set up a scheme with the local landowners to plants trees on all the empty hills in NCD. Get some sponsorship (surely not hard), employ local lads to help with the planting and maintenance, and reforest the hills around Port Moresby.

    There would be many advantages…

    – Moresby becomes a greener more pleasant place.

    – You can employ local people to do the work – thus providing useful employment for youth who might otherwise become rascols.

    – You stabilise the soil, reduce the run off and erosion and make life a lot easier for NCDC engineers and local residents.

    – You can claim carbon credits for the new forests when they mature – (yes it’s a long term plan.)

    – Moresby becomes much more beautiful (compare to Cairns) so more tourists, more holiday-makers etc.

    – Residents have more pride in their city and don’t just cut down everything growing for firewood.

    – You reduce carbon emissions, and provide a useful source of revenue for future generations through carbon credits.

    How about it Governor Parkop? I suppose it’s too sensible to be considered, but here’s hoping!

  3. hmm…very good post here by again by Paul & Peter. The story on hackers stealing giant corp carbon credit certificate is very insightful at the same time suggesting some loose ends that needs tidying up.

    PNG’s carbon cowboy is merely a broker, self claimed business expert on carbon credits. Any experience & assurance would be good.

  4. Hi Peter and Kafu,

    thanks for the feedback. Peter’s idea has a lot of merit. Planting trees is a simple logic that aught to be done wherever trees have been previously cut down. In fact it should be a vital part of any logging process. The process of logging forests and not replanting and regenerating the trees is currently ruining millions of people’s lives thoughout the world and many generations to come.

    I know from bitter experience that to try and regenerate a forest or even a savannah is not as easy as it looks. While I am currently planting the same species as was originally in my region prior to logging taking place, once the trees are gone, the ecology that supported those trees quickly changes. The longer the gap between the felling of trees and their replanting, the greater the task in regeneration.

    The problem in Moresby on those now barren hills is who will ensure that any regeneration program is policed? The local people need to see that they can benefit and become stakeholders in the project. Then comes the problem of those who are not local landholders and don’t have anything to lose. This is where leadership is required. Could Mr Parkop be prepared to initiate such a project as he did with say, the public fountain?

    Now there’s a question to put to Mr Parkop.

  5. Interesting comments from Natasha Loder of The Economist newspaper who has been following the REDD pantomimes around the world.

    Good question – what HAS happened to the investigation into the PNG OCC?

    “So the United Nations “REDD” agenda (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) looks to be fatally holed beneath the waterline. But if REDD is dead, it may also be a case of long live REDD.

    There is still a lot of activity in various fora, so it is not at all clear where things are and there are still likely going to be huge sums available for various forest-related activities. I’ll blog about this a bit this year, with the tidbits I pick up here and there. The bad news is that things are looking messy, which is not what everyone wanted at all. More soon on this. I’d be interested in anyone’s thoughts on this.

    To those of you who have written, and for whom I have failed to blog particular items or respond, my sincere apologies. I have a day job, and many other responsibilities, and time can be hard to find.

    As for Papua New Guinea, I think it is time the government announced what it wants to do about its failed investigation into the Office of Climate Change. Last year, a scandal emerged involving forest carbon credits that appeared to have been endorsed by the government, on behalf of the United Nations, and issued to a private company. Besides reports by Ilya Gridneff and myself, there have been two television documentaries about the carbon cowboys.

    A film is being made about deforestation and climate change called Two Degrees, which features PNG.

    Everyone has been waiting for the report from this committee, but it looks like it may never come. I understand that all the key documents have vanished.

    It is time that the international donors, the Australians, the Norwegians, the British and the World Bank, read PNG the riot act: clean up, or we will move out. If the report never appears, and the previous head of the office of climate change is merely bumped on to a cosy job in some quiet corner somewhere, perhaps in the diplomatic service, then the donors need to be ready to walk away. The point about getting a good deal is that you have to be prepared to walk away if the other side isn’t playing by the rules. If there is no credible threat of a deal failing, then there is no chance of a credible deal.”

  6. Paul,

    You set up so many straw men just to shoot them down I don’t know where to start.

    The scam with the Europeans has been a problem for the major banks since the start of the internet. A former colleague at work was sent a dummy email supposedly from a major bank asking her to reconfirm her details only to have her account emptied within hours. This isn’t unique to ‘carbon cvowboys’ and hardly an argument against carbon trading. I don’t imagine you support shutting down the world banking system because there are some scammers sending fake emails?

    You seem to have a tenuous grasp on the whole carbon trading issue. The concept of trading carbon is quite sound. The concept goes by putting a cap on the quantity of emissions in an economy and requiring permits to be surrendered companies can no longer treat greenhouse gas emissions as an externality that is not factored into the cost of production. I.e. since the industrial revolution companies have been making a profit while polluting the air we all breathe for free. Sure the cost is passed on to the consumer but there will reach a point where the price becomes high enough for consumers to change behaviour and not purchase that product or less emission intensive energy sources or products become price competitive.

    Now to offsets. This merely allows the abatement to occur at the cheapest cost. By allowing the trade of permits between companies in an economy if one company can reduce emissions more cheaply than a neighbouring company they may sell the ‘credits’ that were created from their saving.

    The reduction comes from the regulator (government) who is setting the cap. Once the framework is in place the cap can be lowered year on year. It is actually a very simple concept.

    International offset trading has been taking place under the UNFCCC CDM for years. If a factory in Thailand for instance can capture methane emissions more cheaply than a western corporation can build a new plant why not allow the western corporation to pay for the abatement in Thailand. A tonne of greenhouse gas emitted in London or Thailand has the same effect on the atmosphere. The UNFCCC has strict rules regarding additionality so that it must be demonstrated that the Thailand factory under normal operating conditions would not have captured the methane and that it would not make sense to do so from a financial or regulatory standpoint without the addition of carbon finance. You say there is no verification or auditing: can I suggest you check the UNFCCC CDM website and have a look at the processes and methodologies and familiarise yourself with some project documents; they are very rigorous.

    Maybe I am taking you out of context and you were only referring to REDD methodologies and auditing etc. In this case you would be right there is no mechanism but that is why they are not yet being traded. The methodologies, auditing etc will come and the UNFCCC has spent two years working on the complexities of how to measure, monitor etc. Admittedly it is very slow going but I think they will get there eventually.

    Finally the 100% saving business could be achieved with a contribution from reafforestation i.e. sequestering carbon. Great idea by Peter re Greening Moresby!

    For the record I don’t think your ‘project developer’ I keep reading about has much of an idea about the real carbon trading industry either.

    1. Hi dh,

      whoever you are, thanks for your observations.

      When it comes to what each person believes about carbon trading, I guess that’s in the eye of the beholder. People will believe what they want to believe. If some believe that by trading so called carbon credits it will save the world, that’s fine. To believe that carbon trading is the answer to saving the world in the period of time the human race has before it overpopulates the world, that is another question. Governments around the world constantly look for issues to divert their voter’s attention away from the real issues that they have no answers for. It’s a common trait. By claiming that ETS, Carbon Trading or any other form of what I believe is subterfuge or smoke and mirrors effectively stirs up an emotional response with those who either conveniently or otherwise, aren’t prepared to consider alternatives. Today’s Neilson poll in the SMH is reportedly predicting that the Oz government’s conjecture over carbon dioxide is fast evaporating like so much hot air.

      If some believe that by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by a few parts per million is going to save the world and justify the enormous cost of doing so, that’s great. If some believe that by the so called developed countries paying so called developing countries to develop is beneficial, that too is great. My conjecture is that there does not appear to be any clear and commonly agreed benchmark that can be applied to these notional claims that can be transparently operated and uniformly audited.

      Why are we constantly being berated for using coal and oil based technology? Because over the years, those in government haven’t been able to bring themselves to make courageous decisions that might offend their backers. It’s like we had some alternatives on offer to use. People have been inventing new, non polluting forms of transport for years yet no one is prepared to fund this development and legislate to make it happen before now. Excuses are two a penny.

      Governments have recently fallen over themselves to divest their publically owned coal and oil powered electricity generators and sell these public assets off to private business. They claim this will pay the public back for their investments (garbage), and reduce the price of electricity (more garbage). What has actually happened is the businesses who bought the generating plants naturally raise the cost of electricity to make a profit and the governments then wring their hands and decry what is happening. But wait! There is an answer. The governments can claim it’s all to the good of the people really because we should stop using too much electricity. Like how much is too much and did they specify this level before they sold the power plants and used the proceeds to fund their election promises? So if people use less electricity, won’t the now privately owned power generators lose out? No way! They have been promised large increases in charges on the premise that it will stop people using more of their product. Low income users will be subsidised of course. I suppose ‘dh’ you will tell me this too isn’t a ‘con’? Australia has 300 years of coal available even when we sell lots overseas. We have about a third of the world’s know uranium yet will only sell that too overseas. PNG is likewise about to enter the carbon export age with the LNG projects. Does this mean that we shouldn’t use coal and natural gas reserves but only sell it to others to use? Apparently we are supposed to swallow this idea in order that our governments can reap the royalties and taxes from the sale of these CARBON producing resources.

      Decisions concerning the design of new forms of transport and generating electricity from uranium rather than coal have been deferred for years due to irrational and emotive arguments. No one is going to stop the Chinese or anyone else from continuing to use coal to produce the electricity they need to become a world power. Copenhagen proved that. It just took a lot of huge, individual, national carbon footprints to demonstrate what everyone should have known in the first place. Some here have just celebrated the sale of $68b of coal to the Chinese. Like that’s OK for the Chinese to use our coal but not OK for us to use it? What a load of old cobblers!

      A recent report suggest that trees will grow faster when the amount of free carbon dioxide increases. Wow! Like that hasn’t been known for years. Glasshouse operators have artificially increased CO2 in their glasshouses to promote the growth of tomatoes and food crops, etc. for many years. A recent report from the US has found that trees planted recently are increasing in growth faster than trees planted years ago. Revolutionary! The problem is to find places where trees will grow and make sure they are properly looked after. Then find the funding to actually plant more trees. Like that’s going to work on the East Coast of Africa for example, where trees have been virtually wiped out in some places by starving people.

      If people were REALLY sincere about this whole issue, they would have to make world governments legislate and have a viable and transparent balance between the amount of carbon dioxide produced by power generation equalling the amount of growth in forest populations and tree growth. If some believe that will happen before the world overpopulates itself, then good luck to them. No national government in any non democratic country (and there are quite a few more around than people believe), will ever let that happen. It just doesn’t have a priority. These governments clearly know, as apparently the so called developed world was supposed to swallow, that the whole argument is a South Sea Bubble of greenhouse gas. That’s the real ‘con’.

      So ‘dh’, with respect, if you believe that the production of a ton of carbon dioxide can be effectively and uniformly measured and monitored around the world by an unimpeachable and non bribable team of UN experts paid from a fund derived from only the developed countries, I take my hat off to you.

      My concern is really for those in PNG who may not have the opportunity or access to the available facts and as I maintained under another subject on this blog, could potentially be hoodwinked into being ‘spived’. I will be quite happy to be proven wrong however those who are ridiculing and threatening me for maintaining this view aren’t apparently prepared to come clean about who they are, where they are coming from or who they actually represent. Without transparency, how can there be understanding and acceptance?

      1. Paul,

        You are fine and thanks for holding fast to your line and running very hard for us (Papua New Guineans).

        I have always had a very simple argument since the carbon trade debate started on this blog last year. And that argument is that whatever people tell us about carbon trade is simply garbage if their claims can not be independently verified by a third party.

        Legislation must, therefore, be introduced to compel these cowboys’ activities to be independently audited (by whom?? I don’t care – if the industry is big enough as we are led to believe, then surely there must a large enough pool of knowledgeable people to drive it) so as to give us some comfort that our interests will be protected. These middle men can claim to have the best intentions for us, but what is the guarantee that they won’t quickly escape behind the scenes to think up whatever number of schemes there are to defraud us when carbon moneys start pouring into the coffers?

  7. I am feeling confident that I know more about this subject and thanks to you Emmanuel for this forum platform & those that contributed most often on this debate on carbon trade. The truth cannot be surfaced without questioning & being skeptical on what’s given by environmental focus and the mainstream media.

    I have been asking on “carbon-crusader-or-carbon-cowboy” topic to explain their system of voluntary carbon credits. Now I’ve learnt that there is “cap-and-trade law” on this where companies are restricted to a certain amount of greenhouse gas emissions. If they breach this law, then they must buy credits, this is where I think Nupan Ltd is hoping to sell forest owners credits to, and also these giant corps can buy credits from their fellow entities that produce less harmful gases. In terms of economics and the mathematics of this subject, I guess many PNGeans are yet to grasp this new commodity carbon, but I have a few queries.

    Now, the economists are predicting that the cap-and-trade law is going to be successful similar to those applied to reduce ozone-depleting gases. CFCs & HCFC’s etc are said to be more damaging to the ozone layer, now carbon is said to be retaining most of the heat & hot air from the earth, hence the earth is heating up causing the ice to melt, increasing the sea levels and so fort and so on. Contrary from the further you go from earth, it gets cooler blah, blah, anyway the query is… surely control and measurement of these gases are arbitrary?, and if so, subjects on environmental doom & gloom are seemingly popularised (for some gain, hope not). Its like “give and take”.

    Money, money money!! As a forest owner, I might benefit in this carbon commodity. I’ll just wait for the right moment!!!

  8. Anyone see this report in yesterday’s PC?

    – A full scientific team?
    – Mapping all the forests?
    – Consult all the landowners?
    – Plan future social and community infrastructure development?
    – Last weeks before international verification is promised?

    And the whole process is taking two weeks!!!?

    Sounds too good to be true to me. EG Who are the scientists and experts? What methodologies are they using (I believe there is still considerable argument about how you measure carbon in forests)? Who has identified the landowners and by what process?

    Anyone know any more?

    “Carbon trade experts to visit Gulf

    A full scientific team from Australia, supported by hundreds of locals, will travel to the heart of the Kamula Doso forest in the Gulf Province this week. They will start scientific and technical field work required to map the carbon trading project that is in the last weeks of international verification.
    The team spent two weeks in the country, mapping out the work that needs to be done and consulting the local authorities and landowners on how best to achieve the desired outcome.
    “We want the knowledge and skills required to manage and complete this project transferred to the local villagers so that they can maintain their forests in years to come.
    “For the project to work, we have to have data collected every month and be audited annually for the continued issue of carbon credits. From what we have seen so far, everyone is very enthusiastic to contribute and learn as much as they can. We look forward to a great success,” Nupan (PNG) Trading Corporation, which is leading the scientific team said.
    Nupan chief executive officer Kirk Roberts said the scientific and technical fieldwork was expected to take a week and it is the last stage required for the international validation and verification of the Kamula Doso carbon trading project, the first of its type in the world.
    He said the project was being verified and validated as an improved forest management project (IFM), under the strict Voluntary Carbon Standards (VCS) protocols.
    Mr Roberts said this would produce the highest quality of forest credit and promote the development of environmental services and social projects, that would include education, health, transport, and communication projects throughout the area. “

  9. Thanks Peter,

    Aside from all that has been said on this site and elsewhere, what offends me is that the Guria claims this ‘team’ comes from Australia.

    While Roberts is reportedly still an Australian who it is understood, has marital ties in PNG, just who are all these people that make up the ‘full scientific team’ from Australia?

    Husat isave a?

  10. Paul/Peter and others.

    Wait till you read today’s (17/02) Post Courier reports about the confusion these cowboys are creating for the Pangia people.

    People know that the money that was dished out to Apenda villagers sometime back was nothing but bribes and they themselves have now come out and said so in the Post Courier today.

    Apparently, one can con some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.

  11. Here is the report –

    Carbon trade hijacked

    By FRANK RAI

    The carbon trade deal in the Ialibu Pangia district of Southern Highlands Province has not gone down well with local leaders.
    They claimed that their illiterate fathers and Integrated Land Group (ILG) chairman had been cheated by representatives from a company, claiming to be a consultant for Nupan (PNG) Trading Corporation Limited.
    Local leaders Milo Timini, Paul Windi, Pundia Kange, Henry Yakura, Rodney Kapu, Anthony Waira, Alex Aipa and Jim Tame from Maiya, Mele, Alia, Molo, Undeyapu and Tengal villages in East Pangia local level government (LLG) area claimed in a press statement that the carbon trade deal was heading in the wrong direction.
    “We the genuine landowners and leaders of East-Pangia local level government are seeking interpretation on the recent media propaganda on carbon trade in the area. We as landowners question that there has been some suspicious and fishy deals in the carbon trade,” spokesman Jim Tame said.
    He said a group’s move to strike the carbon trade deal in the district was not in the best interest of the people of the ditrict and province, claiming the motive of the deal was unscrupulous.
    Mr Tame said the first incident among other deals was the distribution of cash to youths and young men at the Apenda village in front of a packed crowd, witnessed by armed police officers from Mount Hagen.

    1. Expect Natasha Loder from The Economist to investigate further

      And more today.

      “Imposter claims to be leader
      GENUINE landowners in East Pangia are seeking legal interpretations on what they see as “media propaganda” by a man who claims to be their leader. He and his Australian associates are forging ahead with carbon trade related issues. Tiyembo and Associates chairman Timothy Tepi had, in recent media reports, claimed that Nupan Trading Corporation Ltd had signed an agreement with more than 300 chairmen of incorporated land groups (ILGs) and leaders. Mr Tepi claimed he represented more than 100 clans which made up about 20 tribes in a population of 50,000 and told other locals and Parliamentarians not to disturb the agreement. Leaders from Maiya, Mele, Alia, Molo, Undeyapu, Tengal and Ialibu said the recent distribution of cash by Mr Tepi and Nupan officials in public without any consultation with the locals is very suspicious. The leaders said police from Mt Hagen and two helicopters were hired to conduct cash distribution in a public market in Pangia which also saw young men, who were not chairmen or leaders, sign the agreement.”

      1. By Gum Peter,

        did that article mention a TIMOTHY Tepi? Now where have I heard that name before? Sounds awfully familiar?

        Since it appears you have to be a member of the The Economist’s Club, can you keep us up to date with any more info. that becomes available on this subject?

        Thanks mate.

  12. Whether a cap and trade system looks fine in theory, it must be questioned whether it would ever work in practise in reducing the world’s total output of CO2, which is supposed to be the aim of such a system.
    “dh” is right in theory, but in fact cap and trade fails immediately through one factor the theoreticians who support it refuse to consider; a market is not a mechanism to control and reduce production of something, it is a mechanism for people to exchange goods and for the smartest and nastiest to maximise profits.
    The notion of governments each setting their own caps is ludicrous — caps would have to be the same worldwide for the worldwide market to work. That’s not going to happen. But even if it did, pretty soon people would start corrupting the market, e.g. by developing derivatives that could be traded whether or not they actually had any substance behind them.
    That’s how the global financial meltdown happened in fact — through the global trading of “mortgages” on property. Mortgages on property are perfectly valid financial vehicles, but the problem was a whole lot of near valueless mortgages were packaged up and sold in bits and pieces … which weren’t really the mortgages and weren’t related to the reality of the mortgages.
    The world financial system damned near collapsed, and the people who caused it are still running the financial system and paying themselves big bonuses for good work … after governments had to bail them out~!
    Exactly the same thing would happen with carbon credits. While traders made money, carbon production around the world would not be reduced.
    The doubts expressed about CO2 retention in forests are right on the ball. No-one knows and no-one really has any idea how to measure it. In addition, Climate Change itself adds another variable. In northern Australia, rain forests were PRODUCING CO2 during recent very dry and hot periods, instead of using and storing it. What was occurring was that trees were dying back and as they did, and began to rot, the carbon stores in trees began to return to the atmosphere as CO2.
    On the other hand, growing new trees in currently poorly treed areas is a great way to go.
    The bare hills of Port Moresby~! Oh yes~! My friends, I planted a mango tree in Tokarara in 1973, and in a few days I will be back in Port Moresby (from Australia), and will startle some innocent householder in Tokarara by wandering up and asking if I can see “my” tree (I can see it on Google Earth). Then I will get busy planting more trees.
    The great thing about planting more trees in a built-up area is not only the CO2 storage, it is the shade. Trees actively cool by giving off water vapour and providing shade. The more trees we can get going, the cooler and happier we will be, even in Port Moresby.
    And instead of cap and trade, we can just put a straight carbon tax on everything, locally produced and imported, and use the money collected to start new carbon-friendly industries, and to provided alternatives for carbon production industries (including home electricity generation).
    Lau mai, egu gabuna, lau mai haraga haraga.
    Cheers, Harry

  13. For those who are interested, check out the information on this site:

    http://www.probeinternational.org/node/6958

    I found only one reference to PNG and it involved Lihir Mining.

    Lihir Geothermal Power Project Geothermal2007-03-0552,388Papua New
    GuineaUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

    But there is an interesting article about banks pulling out of the carbon credit arrangements and another about carbon credit scams.

    http://www.probeinternational.org/carbon-credit-watch/next-big-scam-carbon-dioxide

    What a pity The National and the Post Courier aren’t running these stories? One can’t but wonder why?

  14. Hello Paul
    Australian is knee deep in carbon and tree growing or land clearing scams — we never see much in the papers here about them either.
    A pox on all of them.
    Lau mai haraga haraga momokani~!
    Cheers, Harry

  15. The ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) is currently investigating misleading and deceptive investment information in Australian carbon trading companies. See –

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/surge-in-greenwash-complaints-20100125-mui9.html

    I wonder if they will turn their attention to Carbon Planet – the ones behind Nupan?

    http://www.carbonplanet.com

    They will sell you carbon credits offset against forest REDD projects in PNG.

  16. Sorry I spoke too soon.

    It seems like Nupan have cut all ties with Carbon Planet. I wonder if they jumped or were pushed? Anyone know more about this?

    From CarbonWontok…

    Nupan not represented by Carbon Planet
    Date: 18 Feb 2010 Comments: 0

    Nupan (HK) Trading Corporation Limited, and Nupan (PNG) Trading Corporation Limited, today announced that they had severed all relationships with Carbon Planet Limited. Kirk Roberts, in a statement released to the media at 1200 hrs ESST, said the following, “Carbon Planet Limited and all and any companies and staff related to Carbon Planet Limited have no right to represent themselves as our Agents, Initiators, Marketers, or Sellers, effective immediately. Any agreement previously entered into by them in their name as it relates to our business or the business of our Clients, is not considered valid by us, and while we are happy to renegotiate any agreement on proper commercial terms directly with any Client company, we are not bound and will not support any commercial activity Carbon Planet Limited may or may not have entered into or concluded in its name while alluding to represent us.

    1. Thanks Peter.

      The strongest indication yet that Nupan, Carbon Planet etc etc etc are in it for the money. What a confession!

      Exactly the reason why we’ve been calling for the establishment of a proper check and balance mechanism that is backed by legislation to protect our rights.

      Beware PNG.

  17. A bit off-topic (maybe Emmanuel can start a new thread), but a bigger con is the climate denialists who infest some other sites, especially those associated with New Ltd publications.

    There is growing and disturbing trend in parts of the (mostly) western media to deny that the global climate is changing or if there are any changes to deny that it is caused by human activity, despite huge amounts of scientific evidence and a consensus amongst around 95% of relevant scientists. What is worse is that the climate-change deniers attack anyone who posts evidence of change in often a most vitriolic and offensive manner. On other web sites I have engaged in discussion about climate change in a polite manner and have been abused and denigrated as ignorant, stupid and even communist!

    I trust my friends in PNG have a more balanced and informed view, so what are your views on climate change from a PNG perspective?

    Just from my own experience in this part of the world I can offer some examples of climate change affecting PNG.

    1. The Mortlock and Carteret islanders have had to be relocated to the mainland because rising sea levels have inundated their homes. I worked at the University of PNG and we had a fundraising drive to help provide support for the families of some University staff and students who were suffering great hardship because of this.

    2. The incidence of malaria in the PNG highlands has increased many hundred-fold over the last decade. My wife comes from Simbu province (over 5,000 feet in altitude) and when she was a girl malaria was unknown in her district. Now it is a major problem. The medical staff at Kundiawa and Goroka hospitals say they now have many 100’s of cases of malaria to deal with each week, which was virtually unknown a decade ago. Their conclusion (supported by UN WHO studies) is that rising temperatures mean that malaria-carrying mosquitoes are able to move to higher altitudes.

    3. There used to be extensive ice fields and glaciers on the highest mountain in New Guinea – Puncak Jaya in West Papua – which have all but disappeared in a generation. Wikipedia has photos of the ice fields taken in 1936 and 2005 –

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puncak_Jaya

    The geological evidence is that these rare tropical glaciers have been there for many thousands of years, but will disappear completely in our lifetime.

    4. Many of my PNG friends remember seeing snow on the top of Mt Victoria (14,000 ft) visible from Port Moresby and also on Mt Wilhelm (15,000 ft) visible from Madang. Snow has not been visible on these mountains from these locations for many years now.

    5. Australia has just had he hottest decade since records began. That is a climate fact, not just a weather oddity.

    I know that these are anecdotes rather than scientific evidence, but they are telling and directly affect the lives of local people. And there is ample scientific data to back up the claims that these events are due to global warming.

    To my mind because humanity has been pouring toxic chemicals and gases into the air and sea since the industrial revolution began it stands to reason that we will suffer the consequences. If you keep fish in an aquarium and never clean it out, the fish will die from their own pollution. The earth is a similar closed system, just on a bigger scale.

    Do other people have more evidence of climate changes affecting PNG?

  18. The plot thickens.

    It has now been claimed that the trees in East Pangia that Mr Roberts has identified will be used in his Carbon Credit scheme have already been earmarked for felling by the timber industry. (sigh) I suppose my detractors will claim I’m just being misled or supporting a political agenda again? Tim and Greenie Cap, where have you gone?

    I refer to the following article in ‘Sky News’:

    http://www.skynews.com.au/eco/article.aspx?id=433310

    ‘Carbon cowboy’ in PNG legal spat
    Updated: 20:54, Thursday February 25, 2010
    ‘Carbon cowboy’ in PNG legal spat

    Australia’s self-proclaimed ‘carbon kingpin’ Kirk Roberts is being investigated by a Papua New Guinea government agency for allegedly misleading villagers in deals he hopes will net millions.

    Mr Roberts, a former disqualified Australian horse trainer who also ran a Philippines cock-fighting business, once said he was ‘the most beneficial foreigner’ for PNG and has travelled across the country promoting carbon trading.

    Mr Roberts shrugs off widespread criticisms and is adamant he represents numerous landowner groups who want lucrative carbon projects developed under a voluntary system.

    But PNG authorities are worried Mr Roberts is undermining existing forestry laws, possibly misleading landowners in remote areas all while exploiting PNG’s lack of national carbon trade legislation and policy.

    East Pangia, in PNG’s rugged Southern Highlands region, is the latest focus of various conflicting opinions that have flared as Mr Roberts promises what many villagers call ‘sky money’ – because he appears to be selling air.

    PNG’s Forest Authority (FA) managing director Kanawi Pouru has taken out a newspaper advertisement reminding Mr Roberts and landowners that East Pangia has already been allocated for logging.

    Mr Pouru told AAP the Forest Management Agreement (FMA) was one of 10 agreed projects identified for development by PNG’s government in 2002.

    ‘Roberts’ operation obviously raises concerns for us,’ he said.

    ‘Our lawyers believe we have grounds to proceed against any moves that prevent an already existing forest plan.

    ‘A commercial agreement with landowners has been entered.

    ‘They can’t sign rights away then reassign them to someone else like Roberts.

    ‘We are not against carbon trading but we are being cautious because there is still a very high risk involved and so many rules that have not been sorted out.

    ‘We need to understand the business first.’

    The East Pangia FMA still existed and the logging operation would commence as soon as the agreement was executed next month, Mr Pouru said.

    ‘(Mr Roberts) is being investigated and will be dealt with accordingly,’ he said.

    Last week Mr Roberts was in East Pangia mapping out a carbon project.

    He did not answer (emailed) questions regarding the landowner’s sudden switch from forestry to carbon trading, or the scientific credibility of his team.

    Kuson Waku, a local landowner representative, told PNG’s Post Courier newspaper: ‘I want to benefit from all the forest.’

    The story, supporting Mr Roberts’ carbon trading plan, was accompanied by a photo of two locals each holding dead bush rats and tree kangaroos, with a possible implication that wildlife was under threat from logging.

    PNG’s Department of Environment and Conservation, Environment Ministry, NGOs and the environmental-law community have all raised concerns about Mr Roberts.

    But Mr Roberts is no stranger to controversy.

    Last year he was linked to the sacking of a top official after receiving dubious ‘sample’ carbon credit documents. And Mr Robert’s company Nupan is tied to an ongoing government investigation of PNG’s embattled, mismanaged and now bankrupt Office of Climate Change.

    Adelaide-based company Carbon Planet, eyeing a potential billion dollar carbon trading market, in 2008 gave Mr Roberts $1.1 million for projects in PNG but now refuses to comment on their relationship with him.

    In December last year, Carbon Planet’s founder and chief operating officer Dave Sag walked out of an SBS television interview when asked about Mr Roberts and their PNG deals.

    1. Paul you have been very quiet has the wind left your sails?

      The boss wants me to pass on to you the needed distrubution discussions , have you any useful comments please?

  19. Hello,
    East Pangina will not be logged as the the owners of the forest contracted Nupan to Carbon Trade their forests in March 2008.
    Ilya’s bullshit keeps going around in circles with you a-holes following behind him.
    The PNG developer dares any Government office or induvidual to challenge the forest owners in any court anywhere.
    The PNG Government was contacted today regarding an “investigation” on ‘Roberts’ with nothing to declare.
    Ilya constantly writes misleading articles for AAP, law firms have been contracted to defend ‘Roberts’ of the constant media slander.
    The ‘ Carbon Credits for east Pangia and Kamula Doso are being now calculated and contracted prior to registration.
    Tim is in Europe and I am travelling to the USA, Roberts is prepareing to originate the next 3 projects one being ‘April Salome’ in East Sepik.

    Sorry for not participating on your blog as I am are far to busy as is Tim at this point of time, but as your PNG developer said’s. ‘the show must go on’
    to ‘all’ the tyre kickers “chins up”

  20. There is some serious confusion here. Check this information –

    http://www.redd-monitor.org/2010/02/26/png-update-logging-carbon-trading-and-missing-documents/

    This highlights a serious problem: Nupan appears to be promising income for local landowners through carbon trading, without addressing the fact that the forest is already allocated as a logging concession. In fact, vast areas of PNG have been allocated as logging concessions…

    This highlights the real problem in PNG. While the government talks about REDD and reducing deforestation, it is doing little or nothing to actually reduce deforestation, thus creating the perfect environment for carbon cowboys. As long as UN-REDD and the other aid agencies operating in PNG fail to address this problem, they are complicit in creating Papua New Guinea’s REDD shambles. At the very least, the aid agencies need to be transparent about what they are doing to address the situation.

  21. Before I leave, The answers to your comments are as follows:
    The confusion is with Ilya and the media constant rehash;
    Redd monitor is a prime example, for the record ‘Roberts’ does not express money sky money or promote expectations , through his awarenes and consultations at the villages, I am present as is verifiers and International authors contected with media at all the locations transported by Roberts chartered aircraft.
    Again, the arragement with Nupan and the forest owners is ‘Incorporated’
    which is ‘commercial in confidence’.
    Un-Redd, World Bank, ‘Governments’ media all who ever do not belong to this business as they are incompentent as recent UN discussions have exposed.
    Simply the forest people are working and managing their assets properly, which will keep their tradional way of life, and they and we believe will be our part of helping the planet.

    Regarding East Pangia and PNG Forestry the people of East Pangia and extentision have mandated a irrovocable instuction not to log.
    The FMA does not excist unless the people ‘agree’ essential clauses of the FMA a in doupt.
    Logging is not benificial or viable to the people, the people through consultation since July 2oo6 and media stories TV documentaries have relised that logging is not good for them their children or their enviroment or the worlds enviroment.
    It is important to understand and appreciate the peoples instructions.
    There is “NO” carbon cowboys in PNG , just one originating developer called Roberts who has completed the process before any Government or world leader organisation.
    Questions from media or who ever regarding how this has been done this or that and how distrubution will be structured again is commercial in confindence,
    however when the project is contracted with approval and the irrovocable paymaster order is in place and the verifying process is completed then restricted questions will be answered.
    Until then the developer saids mine your own business.

  22. Well I’m glad that’s all cleared up then.

    Clearly everyone mentioned by ‘Greenie Cap’ except his champion Mr Roberts, has got it all wrong. Clearly the advertised statement (that I have read) in the Post Courier of the 23rd of February 2010 from the Managing Director, Mr Kanawi Pouru is fraudulent. Mr Pouru claims that the East Pangia forest owners have already signed over their forest for logging and that this contract is legally binding.

    Obviously, Mr Roberts has been singlehandedly able to enact a commercial ‘coup’ by entering into a legally binding contract to use the East Pangia forest as a ‘carbon credit’ even though there is no PNG legislation allowing this to happen. Absolutely amazing what can be done when you think about it.

    Now ‘the developer’ Mr Roberts, through his self appointed mouthpiece, has suggested we all mind our own business. This is ‘commercially in confidence’ we are told. So let me see if I have this right?

    Mr Roberts has successfully negotiated a legally binding contract (where no PNG law exists) with the East Pangia people that effectively nullifies a previously legally binding agreement recognised by the government under PNG law. Mr Roberts doesn’t need to explain any of his arrangements to anyone as these arrangements are commercial in confidence. Mr Roberts and a certain ‘Tim’ and ‘Greenie Cap’ are now flying out of PNG to sell these carbon credits on the open market to buyers who believe they are buying genuine credits for trees that will remain in the ground. Mr Roberts and one assumes, his aforementioned associates, will then return to PNG and distribute all the money they received for selling these credits to the forest owners of East Pangia. Yep! That’s clear.

    What isn’t clear is how Mr Roberts and his associates have the gall to claim they are able to sell credits on trees that are already have the axe hanging over their head. What isn’t clear is how Mr Roberts et al will stop the government legally authorising the logging of the East Pangia forest. What isn’t clear is what security the forest owners have over Mr Roberts and cronies not disappearing with any money so gained on their behalf as many have apparently done before, elsewhere in the world. What also isn’t clear are the arrangements Mr Roberts has supposedly set up to manage a forest that is ready to be cut down.

    Finally, there appears to be just a tad of reluctance on behalf of Mr Robert’s supporters to reveal who they are? There also seems to be a modicum of doubt as to why the PNG government hasn’t yet arranged legislation to cover carbon trading when AusAID has reportedly already allocated funds to help set up an Emissions Trading Authority.

    So thank you Mr Greenie Cap. Enjoy your overseas trip to errr.. where was it again? It will be interesting to see if the forest owners of East Pangia ever see you, Mr Roberts or a full report of what arrangements are entered into on their behalf or what funds are actually generated in a full and transparent account as is required of any legal business.

    One can but wonder what the PNG government is doing about this situation or what might happen if the ‘buyers’ of any of Mr Roberts so called credits want some verification? Presumably Mr Roberts will the produce his reported wad of Power of Attorney as proof of his bona fides?

  23. Applause, once a DH always a DH.

    Paul.
    More dribble, Yes no PNG Law or Internatinal law,
    but we have a robust standard with a methodology and a PDD which will create Government policies.
    Regarding the forest and the chop, wrong again Paul, do your self a favour dont believe anything you read in the papers, especially if it was written by a AAP prize winning journo
    .
    East Pangia forests will not be logged.

    Although you seem to be supportive of logging and forestry incompatence, around 100mil which may not be right although 40 million is a 100% right , did you get a lick Paul?
    You go on as a spoiled little toad in which you probably are, with touch of bitch in you.
    Roberts will tell you nothing for as long as he can, as ‘loose lips sink ships’ Paul.
    Oh Paul be careful what you write, because most of the time you are wrong, your comments make you out to be a bigger DH than you already are.

  24. There are many reports critical of REDD schemes in PNG that are nothing to do with AAP. The Economist, SBS, Chris Lang, The Durban Group, Mal Kela Smith, Greenpeace and many others have supported the points made by Paul above.

    Greenie Cap – you are a stooge of Kirk Roberts and when people disagree with what he is doing and issue warnings you resort to abuse. Shame on you.

    Saving forests is great, but is REDD the way to do it?

    REDD scheme carbon credits are pollution licenses for western companies. They could actually see a net INCREASE in carbon pollution to the detriment of countries like PNG. In the process local landowners are getting ripped-off, and the PNG Government is so moribund they will receive no regulatory protection of their rights.

    Read this from Simon Butler…

    “The promise of REDD is that owners of forests in the global South can be paid to stop deforestation as a way of reducing carbon emissions.

    In theory, each tonne of forest carbon thus “saved” can be sold as carbon credits to companies overseas to “offset” their company’s carbon emissions. This will supposedly ensure that it is more profitable to keep forests standing than to cut them down.

    Copenhagen ended without an agreement on REDD. But countries such as Australia may decide to go it alone and strike bilateral carbon trading deals with countries such as PNG and Indonesia.

    The federal Rudd government’s proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme allows 100% of Australia’s emissions cuts to be meet in carbon projects overseas. REDD projects could be among cheapest ways for Australian business to avoid cuts at home under the CPRS.

    The idea that rich countries should pay for preserving forests in the global South isn’t a bad idea. Deforestation is a big contributor to carbon emissions.

    But REDD critics, such as REDD-Monitor.org’s Chris Lang, have pointed out that a market-based scheme using forests in the South to offset First World emissions would simply allow the rich countries to claim emissions reductions on paper while polluting as before.

    A January 7 statement by the Durban Group for Climate Justice coalition also condemned REDD as an “ineffective and unjust solution to climate change”.

    “REDD’s focus on the mass production of pollution licenses for industries in rich countries would inevitably neglect the needs and rights of ordinary people throughout the world.

    “In the South, REDD would transform the carbon in living trees into private property so that it can be awarded or transferred to private corporations in the North.

    “In the worst case, it could inaugurate a massive land grab.

    “In the North, meanwhile, REDD credits would enable fossil fuel-related corporations to maintain business as usual, to the detriment of communities affected by fossil fuel extraction and pollution.”

    Even Marc Stuart, a founder of the British carbon trading firm EcoSecurities who supports an international forest carbon trading scheme, posted his own concerns about REDD on Cleantechblog.com last May.

    “REDD … is the most mind twistingly complex endeavor in the carbon game. The fact is that REDD involves scientific uncertainties, technical challenges, heterogeneous non-contiguous asset classes, multi-decade performance guarantees, local land tenure issues, brutal potential for gaming and the fact that getting it wrong means that scam artists will get unimaginably rich while emissions don’t change a bit.”

    The governor of PNG’s Eastern Highlands province, Mal Kela Smith, told SBS the carbon traders are “just coming up from Australia looking for a quick quid and they see that they can get in with a few people and make some promises”.

    “As far as I’m concerned, they are not very genuine people and they’re not really interested in the Papuan New Guineans.

    “Most of the deals I’ve seen, the landowners are completely ignorant of what’s happening.”

  25. Peter I will not allow AAP or Ilya to make up stories which have fuelled Paul and the above, also remember Mal Smith, Greenpeace, SBS and Australian controlled media outlet and all of the above have their own agendas in different formats,personally, politically in Nation and abroad.
    For instance some time back Mal Smith submitted to run the Climate Change office but was rejected etc etc, his association with the Australian Government and opposition could also be his reasons of involvement.If he is not a landowner then what other reasons would he have other than his own agenda.Their are no other ‘Carbon Traders” in PNG from Australia that I have seen, infact no other developer in the world is as advance in the origination process as Roberts,(see VCS)and wait for the International media releases.
    The world has its own agendas through REDD and its global conservation plans, this is the only rip off Landowners face.
    The landowners of PNG do not need bilatteral deals full stop especially with the Australian Government who cannot look after their own back yard especially ETS.
    However the Australian Government has accepted ‘Forestry Carbon Credits” as a ligtimate carbon offset.(see July 2010 approved bill)as has Japan.
    The landowners of PNG will simply originate their assets through their developer ‘Nupan’ under Incorporated Law and its act.
    The Incorporated land groups are fully informed and are being trained to monitor, reseach their forests, and are heavly involved with distrubutions, which may I add is strictly ‘commercial in confidence’ with the seller and the buyer, and the Forest Incorporations and developer will not discuss this and numerous incorporated issues with the media.
    Correct REDD is now a myth(it had the right ideas at the start but greed diverted it), like or framework or Government policies it is a form of control and designed vechile ‘how much money do we get” (UN , WW, IN country Governments, local Provincial, National)
    The rest of your comments re Chris Lang etc is not constructive or productive, it is or very well of you and media bitchen instead of understanding the realities and like Ilya going around in circles and rehashing rubbish to fuel personal and who evers agendas.

  26. greenie cap, I’ve got hand it to you. You keep turning up like a bad penny. Unfortunately, your arguments appear to be undermined by the facts.

    I think its about time someone presented reality to you. Firstly, I have never met Ilya and I don’t have any association with any of the authorities you claim to have ‘other’ agendas. My only previously stated agenda is to hopefully help the people of PNG not get ripped off once again.

    So here is how things seem to stand:

    On one hand there is an award winning journalist who uses his own name and has enough guts to investigate and write about issues that for some reason, seem to have slipped through the cracks. Anything he writes must be verified with facts otherwise his integrity is on the line and he can be taken to task for manufacturing information. No one has been able to dispute anything Mr Gridneff has written or that has been published by a number of sources except by the PNG Post Courier newspaper, for some ‘obscure’ reason. Why the Post Courier hasn’t chosen to present an even handed news reporting service on this issue seems to stand out like a country toilet. Another aspect that also seems to stick out like the proverbial ‘dunny’ is that for some glaring reason, the PNG government doesn’t seem to be looking after their own people and protecting them with legislation and assistance.

    On the other hand, we seem to have a couple of ‘bloggers’ who are not prepared to use their own names and hide behind pseudonyms or ‘nom de plumes’. These two bloggers have attacked the integrity of others, called them names and disputed anything that doesn’t support a certain champion who apparently can’t be bothered to speak for himself.

    It doesn’t take ‘Blind Freddy’ to work out who has the most credibility in this debate now does it?

  27. Looks like Nupan and the Pangia REDD guys are up against Beldan Namah and some powerful foret logging interests!…

    From todays PC…

    Carbon is a cargo cult: MP

    By TODAGIA KELOLA

    “CARBON trade is a cargo cult,” so said the Forest Minister Belden Namah yesterday.
    Mr Namah made the remark during the signing of the East Pangia Forest Management Agreement between the National Forest Service and the developers, Madang Timbers Limited.
    He said right now there was no legal framework for carbon trading and there was no guarantee that carbon trade could bring in the tangible development and services that are lacking in the East Pangia area, unlike the timber project which was real and had an agreement for the developer to honour certain obligations covered in the agreement.
    He also stated that the project was one of only two in the country that would allow for downstream processing and the people of Pangia should be proud that their timbers would be used in the LNG projects and other Highlands provinces.
    He said he too was a forest landowner and had experienced the benefits brought in by the developers and urged the landowners to support the project.
    Before the signing a group of East Pangia landowners expressed disappointment that certain processes and procedures were not followed by the National Forest Services and urged their leaders not to allow the signing (see separate report).
    Minister O’Neill who is also the local MP for the project area, said carbon trade did not have a paper which stated that hospitals, roads and schools will be built unlike the timber project which is all in the agreement.
    Governor Anderson Agiru supported the project, saying it would bring services to his people but urged the National Forest Services to ensure that a clause should be provided for landowners to one day become developers in their own area.
    Logging will benefit the local people more than carbon trading.

  28. Read the papers regarding the above article in the next week,
    Look out for the re shuffle and criminal investigations,

    as for east Pangia 385 ILG’s have signed for Carbon Trading , 15 O”Neil cronnies havent.

    The IlG’s own the forest areas of east Pangia, and have decided not to log their forest.

  29. Carbon Planet’s prospective merger partner m2m drops deal with Carbon Planet and signs up directly with Nupan. Looks like Carbon Planet got shafted.

    From TVNZ report March 2nd –

    ASX-listed m2m Corporation Ltd has dropped a $10 million merger with Carbon Planet and gone into business with a man accused of running a carbon “cargo cult” in Papua New Guinea.

    Former disqualified Australian horse trainer and Philippine cock-fighting syndicate operator Kirk Roberts, and his company Nupan, is now working for technology investment group m2m to develop carbon trading projects in PNG.

    At a volatile meeting between PNG government and forest landowners on Monday Roberts, who is also under investigation by the PNG’s Forest Authority (FA), was accused by PNG’s Forest Minister Beldan Namah of promoting a carbon “cargo cult”.

    But Roberts, who received $1.1 million from Adelaide-based Carbon Planet in 2008, shrugs off widespread criticisms and is adamant he represents numerous PNG landowner groups who want lucrative carbon projects developed under a voluntary system.

    PNG authorities are worried Roberts is undermining existing forestry laws, possibly misleading landowners in remote areas all while exploiting PNG’s vacuum of national legislation and policy covering carbon trading where companies can offset emissions by supporting forest growth.

    East Pangia, in PNG’s rugged Southern Highlands region, is the latest carbon battle ground as Roberts promises what many PNG villagers call ‘sky money’ because he appears to be selling air.

    At Monday’s meeting with divided Pangia landowner groups some argued for Nupan’s carbon trading, some argued for logging while a raft of government officials and ministers criticised Roberts’ carbon scheme.
    Advertisement

    PNG’s FA managing director Kanawi Pouru last month took out a newspaper advertisement outlining an investigation into Roberts while reminding landowners Pangia had been allocated for logging since 2002.

    In July 2009 m2m announced a merger as a way for a back-door listing for Carbon Planet but the deal fell through in January this year, a month after m2m announced that Roberts’ Nupan would become their “rainforest developer”.

    “It is very important for shareholders to note m2m’s existing carbon credit business will not be affected by the Carbon Planet transaction not proceeding,” an m2m statement said.

    Nupan will generate about 10 million scientifically approved and verified carbon credits from 15 forestry projects in PNG over the first half of 2010, m2m said.

    “Completion will allow m2m to recognise about $1 million in revenue in the first quarter of next year (2010). Further trading from the 15 projects is anticipated to deliver in excess of $4 million revenue by December 2010 and positive earnings,” another statement said.

    Ian Clarkson, m2m executive chairman, said he would call back with a response but did not.

    Paul Barker director of PNG’s think tank Institute of National Affairs said PNG does not need any more carbon trade scandals.

    “One would like options for the landowners other than logging operations, which have ruled the roost for years with many bad results,” he said.

    Roberts is linked to last year’s sacking of a top PNG climate change official and is tied to an ongoing government investigation of PNG’s now defunct Office of Climate Change.

    Carbon Planet has replaced former CEO Jim Johnson with Dr Ross Williams while executive director Dave Sag declined to comment on recent developments “due to the confidentiality clauses that persist in our contracts”.

  30. I have been told to pass on that ‘Roberts’ has never been a syndicate cock fight operator as Ilya has written.
    Roberts was disqualified from horse racing for a period of 6 months, while other Trainers received $500 fines for the same positive blood test.
    Then 6 months for giving his personal vet instructions to supply evidence to the inquiry for the horse in question only.

  31. Suck eggs,
    Mike , Paul, Peter, Emmanuel, Ilya, Harry, John, who ever you might be.

    with the amount of weidos and unbalanced people around it is has been well advised to keep to ourselves.

    Unfortunlatly I am not Roberts , I note your coming clean comment for what ever reason. It seems to me your posting is a dull grey colour.
    have you anything usefull to add or say? at least Peter , Paul come up with some useful comments, mostly from re-hash ups of Ilya’s.

  32. Good to catch up again… lively debates here

    The fanatical “greenie cap” has finally revealed his real agenda; he’s a business partner with or supports Roberts of Nupan Ltd. Purely money craving goon. You are a waste, the sooner you become CO2 gas yourself will be good.

    Explain the rationale of marketing carbon credits on CO2 emissions reduction, bearing in mind the definition of “marketing” in commercial terms.

  33. The PM is whingeing that REDD schemes haven’t yet brought in any money. Do you think the leaders of Gubon and Guyana are leading authorities for PNG to be siding with? I think he sees a cash cow that has just run dry. (A dairy farm reference – look it up).

    From the PC. –

    “Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare and two African counterparts have blasted developed countries for making “empty promises” and “failure” to honor climate change funding commitments.
    The trio said international mechanisms designed to deal with REDD had largely failed to deliver any real progress.
    Sir Michael’s two other counterparts are the President of Gubon, Ali Bongo Ondimba, and Guyana President Bharrat Jagdoe.
    The comments were made last Thursday in New York when Sir Michael with the two co-hosted a reception to promote support for REDD before the Climate Change meeting in Cacuum, Mexico, in November.
    The three leaders described pledges made by developed countries as “mirages” despite meetings after meetings with the promises that went with it.”

  34. Mauswara bilo husat sif?

    Currently on an extended overseas tour, PNG’s PM has lashed out at so called developed countries on their ‘failure’ to honour climate change funding commitments. PM Somare and his two friends from Gabon in Africa and Guyana in South America have described the World Bank and the United Nations as simply confusing the issues. So called developed countries should pay for countries like PNG to keep their trees in the ground the PM inferred and presumably, prevent the sale of PNG’s trees for a short term gain.

    But is the PNG PM able to claim the high moral ground on this issue? There
    are many media reports that suggest the current and previous PNG governments are only too happy to sanction the sale of timber rights to externally owned timber companies who make no reportable attempts at reforestation and only make limited contribution to the local economy. Over felling of PNG’s native forests by foreign timber companies have been allowed to happen for many years in many areas.

    Quoted in the local media, Sir Michael said: “And as developing countries
    move closer to implementing our plans, we can contribute to the battle
    against climate change. “We must realize the dreams for a sustainable future that we had for our children when we first embarked on this journey.”

    So exactly how has Sir Michael demonstrated his zeal to provide a
    sustainable future for PNG children? Approving the felling and extraction of
    his country’s rain forests seems to be diametrically at odds with his
    recently quoted sentiments.

    Even if funds become available to pay for forests to be left alone, exactly
    how will this be policed and by whom and for how long?

    1. Spot on Paul.

      Somare will never be able to speak with authority on the subject of carbon trading when his right arm doesn’t know what the left arm is doing. How can he talk forest conservation when he is allowing PNG’s forests to be depleted at will with minute returns to the forest owners?

      Somare has lost all credibility on the subject and will never win support for his carbon trade ideas unless he demonstrates to the world community a genuine commitment towards rainforest conservation. But the opportunity is still not lost on us. We just need a credible voice to lead us on this subject at the world stage.

      1. David, its not a voice it is an obvious accurate action , and what that action delivers back to forest people and the people of PNG.

        The PNG government is the biggest ‘threat’ to the PNG forest peoples Rain Forests.

        The only way to make PNG carbon trading work for the future is to create a “ligitimate tenable instrument ” to trade on the International market….. the PM is still thinking down the road of aus or USA aid or EU handouts.
        he and is advisers have absolutley no idea.
        Instead he keeps flying around everywhere wasteing his time and the money of PNG, trying to organise handouts to be banked via him.

      2. Imagine if all that wasted money on that climate Change office had gone into just developing proper waste management plans for our cities in Port Moresby???

      3. You are right greenie cap. We should work on our own backyard and start creating the appropriate legal structures around how this new opportunity should be managed. But it is also equally important that we get the politics of it right at the world stage. Hence, my suggestion to get a credible voice to represent us in that arena.

        Of course the credibility of that voice will be judged by his/her commitment to forest conservation. The business case is quite simple. We can’t sell a product we don’t have. Unless we stop depleting the carbon sinks, we won’t have any left to cash in on once Somare is done with his globetrotting in his sexy jet.

  35. Kirk Roberts through the guidence of his father started this exact process some years ago for PNG , actually a long time before the VCS and CCBA or REDD was ever heard of.
    He was actually mandated by the PM office in 2007 to find the best possible solutions,you can find that mandate on AAP website in which Illya Gridneff used to make a mockery out of PNG and the boss.
    Since, the PM and his advisers have been fed so much BS from the UNFCCC , who have been promising the PM and PNG billions and millions to inforce REDD and now REDD+ to secure land tenure of PNG , for countries like USA, Australia, Norway etc to provide payment for the forests in a ‘aid’ package.
    The boss told the UN and World Bank people for years through out the world that this REDD structure can never work in PNG.
    He explained to them in Europe 2007 till now that PNG has over 800 customs and languages , every forest area has its own ‘rights’ and those rights belong to those people.
    Example the PM or Wari Iamo are not forest owners and how can the PM talk for forests that he does not own, what do forest people care of the PM he is not from their area, this is the simple truth. However we think the PM has finally woken up on this issue, his statement in Washington the other day fell on death ears, and he knows that.
    Each forest is owned by its ILG’s these ILG’s are structure under a Incorporation which is within and act of PNG.

    Politics has nothing to do with Carbon Trading, it is a Incorporated business of the ILG’s and for their people.
    David what you are suggesting has been created some years ago , please vist http://www.carbonowontok.org

  36. Emmanuel,
    Waste management is a very big problem in PNG .

    I will never foreget driving west from Hagen to the Jimmi area and passing through villages covered with red plastic bags for as far as you can see.
    The problem in PNG the people dont have respect for themselves let alone their enviroment.
    You will be happy to learn that my boss is putting so much time in working out , what has to be done instead of talking about it and this is one of his objectives.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s