UKC

I read this:

https://calderaenvironmentcentre.org/stop-native-forest-biomass/

The point is that the Australian government has changed the law to facilitate environmental destruction.

Now look at the principles of UK/Australian trade agreement: agreement:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-australia-free-trad...

The section on Environment states the agreement:

 "confirms the right of each country to establish its own levels of domestic environmental protection and its own priorities relating to the environment, and the right to establish, adopt or modify its environmental laws and policies accordingly"

Question? 11% of the UK energy comes from biomass. Are we about to commit to an agreement that replicates the EU/ Australia agreement ? and if so, no one has noticed this particular environmental disconnect between our actions, the Paris agreement and COP26 in Glasgow.

If we cannot make a value judgement ourselves about environmentally sustainable products from abroad or find a way of defining sustainable  and blocking imports when we do business with  wilfully careless governments,  would we not be complicit in environmental destruction on a massive scale in any uncritical deal with say Latin America or the Asia Pacific region?

I'm not clear what specific points you are trying to make.

There is no question that the current Australian government has a poor record on environmental matters; no argument there.

To which agreements are you referring?

The Eu have opened up a trade agreement with Australia.

The UK has just agreed in principle to a UK Australia trade agreement.

The UK may look to replicate the terms and conditions relating to environmental products like timber or even products that have an element of Asia Rainforest product.

Governments like Scott Morrison, distort the word sustainable, change the law. Others accept this change of the law as a right for a country to define its own notion of sustainable.

Our trade agreements often accept these distorted definitions.

The result is that ,in the stroke of a pen, demands creates untold environmental damage outside the UK through imports.

e.g.A company like Drax is looking, for instance, to double its biomass purchases- it may claim that Australia defines its biomass as from sustainable sources, it may source them from there because we do not question the definition of sustainable by these careless unenvironmental leaders of certain countries.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/31/drax-to-double-wood-pellet...

This article above from the Guardian shows the problems for a company like Drax:

If Canadian pellets become too controversial to import, if an Australian/UK agreement allows it, a company like Drax could turn to Australia for the importation of this product. It has happened in the European agreement with Australia.

Strangely enough, I have experience in Importation costs from Australia to UK - and distance belies cost.  I'm not completely up to date,  but to import goods from Australia in containers was about the same price as importing goods from Spain.

Ok thanks for all that. But I think I'm still lacking context. What are the details of the 'appalling EU/Australia biomass deal' you refer to in the subject of the post?

Thanks.

https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1843 

and also

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-eyes-tighter-rules-renewable-biomas...

I suspect that a critical eye on a deal may not be cast amongst the  UK Conservative party negotiating our Australian deal - unless it becomes a very public cause for debate and criticism here.

This is the text of the Australia/UK deal in principle from .

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-australia-free-trade-agreemen...

The disconnect is the laws of Australia allowing for ecological destruction and the UK assenting to a government's own defintiton of "sustainable". We see the argument in the EU now raging to tighten up the concept of carbon neutral and sustainable based on more scientific information. As we know Politics and science do not wed up necessarily.So we could come to accept Scott Morrison's definition of "sustainable". As the opening statement showed, the Caldera Environment Centre in New South Wales Australia has highlighted the change of laws in that state to enable environmental destruction of native ecosystems on an industrial scale.

"4.2 Environment

Australia and the United Kingdom commit to a chapter on trade and environment that will contain provisions affirming commitments under multilateral environmental agreements including the Paris Agreement, and to maintain and effectively enforce domestic environmental laws and policies across a broad range of issues. Both countries commit to undertaking cooperative activities, including those targeted at key technologies in the transition to a low carbon and climate resilient economy. The chapter will also contain provisions to encourage trade and investment in environmental goods and services that support shared environmental objectives.

Commitments in the environment chapter will include:

provisions that commit the UK and Australia to maintain and effectively enforce their domestic environmental laws and policies

provisions that affirm commitments under multilateral environmental agreements

provisions to encourage trade and investment in environmental goods and services which support shared environmental objectives

provision which affirms commitments by each country to tackle climate change, including under the Paris Agreement and acknowledges the role of global trade and investment in these efforts

provision recognising the right to regulate of each country, based on the language used in the CPTPP environment text with the addition of a reference to climate change, that confirms the right of each country to establish its own levels of domestic environmental protection and its own priorities relating to the environment, and the right to establish, adopt or modify its environmental laws and policies accordingly

provisions that affirm commitments to combating illegal wildlife trade, conservation, marine pollution and protection of the Ozone Layer

provisions with commitments on several areas of environmental protection including fisheries, biodiversity, combatting illegal logging and wildlife trade and conservation

provisions that recognise the importance of, and to cooperate on, sustainable forestry management, circular economy, marine litter and air quality

all substantive commitments in the chapter to replicate the CPTPP formulation to the greatest extent possible unless otherwise decided by the UK and Australia

new areas proposed by the UK that are not in the CPTPP environment text to contain no new substantive commitments

replication of the CPTPP consultation and enforcement provisions with minor amendments, including to ensure alignment with the dispute settlement provisions of the whole agreement

So far I've questioned the defintions of sustainable native forest management vis a vis biomass- how people like Scott Morrison can allow  sourcing native forest ecologies for biomass and call it sustainable.

Another website questions the concept of biomass as "renewable"

https://physicsworld.com/a/biomass-energy-green-or-dirty/

So that leads to the question what for the  UK is  a truely "renewable" low carbon energy plan?

https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/renewable-...

In the run up to COP26 and in the light of negotiating the detail of an Australian / UK deal and in the light of the fact the UK wants to double its biomass energy souces as a form of renewable energy, we need to watch out for the distortions of that word "renewable" when soucing biomass material and be careful of the terms and conditions of our international trade agreements.

https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/axedrax-campaign/

This article shows that biomass can be sourced from places far far away from our prying eyes. Surely we need to watch this ?

https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/axedrax-campaign/

This article shows that biomass can be sourced from places far far away from our prying eyes. Surely we need to watch this ?

https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/axedrax-campaign/

This article shows that biomass can be sourced from places far far away from our prying eyes. Surely we need to watch this ?

https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/axedrax-campaign/

This article shows that biomass can be sourced from places far far away from our prying eyes. Surely we need to watch this ?

Posting four times wasted yet more electricity.

Thanks for all that. I think you raise serious concerns.

Certainly, we can't necessarily trust the definitions of 'sustainability' produced by other governments (specifically, here, the Australian government, or the various Australian state governments.) And we need the same scepticism in respect of the UK's own governments.

I don't think that's a new thing though.

One question: how in detail is this all related to the recently-announced UK-Australia trade deal? Specifically, would the UK have been unable to import so-called 'biomass' products from Australia before this trade deal had been formulated?

The OP raises a concern that they are clearly invested in.  When asked to they go to quite a bit of time and effort to provide context and evidence that supports their view, along with links you can follow from what looks like reasonable sources..  They back this by providing their own interpretation and deliberations on them.

None of this means you necessarily have to go along with the views.  Doesn't mean you have to even read the arguments provided, or follow the links, if it's something you aren't interested in.  But at the very least you might respect that some time and thought had gone into the postings.

You response is a childishly snide comment.  You increasingly come across as a bit of a jerk on here, which is a shame because you clearly have some useful skills and knowledge to contribute otherwise.

Humour alert!