The “RFP Particulars” should be made publicly available; we are all stakeholders when it comes to climate change
Update (Sep 20, 2019): Nova Scotia asking for input on carbon credit opportunities
Stuart Peddle in the Chronicle Herald, Sep 19, 2019
Update (Sep 17, 2019)
As issued on service.ariba.com on 13Sep2019:
Thx to Halifax Examiner/The Morning File for this one.
Says Tim Bousquet:
We won’t successfully address the climate change emergency without rapid and radical institutional change. And that means real government action, and not meaningless sloganeering and false action like buying carbon offsets
…Even if we do change course and use our forests as a carbon sink, the forests shouldn’t be seen as an “offset” to further GHG emissions. We need to both build carbon sinks and reduce GHG; there’s not a potential tradeoff of one from the other.
Some further comments, Sep 17, 2019
I tried to access the “RFP Particulars (Appendix D) (the “Deliverables”)”. They are not publicly available. You must be a company registered via Ariba.
There is good reason to believe that as currently operating on a provincial scale, forestry/forestry products is a huge net generator of GHGs, even though the balance for forestry/forestry products + unmanaged forests may look much better.
We need credible, transparent carbon (GHG) accounting for our forests and forestry and forest products in NS, including modelling of how GHG balances would be affected by changes in the way our forests are managed and in the product streams on both macro and micro scales.
Credibility and transparency should include making “RFP Particulars” publicly available.
If the RFP Particulars are well thought out and vetted with a full range of stakeholders, there should be no downside to doing so. There are a lot of upsides given the controversies surrounding forest biomass energy/clearcutting and rising public concern about climate change.
We are all stakeholders when it comes to climate change.
View NSFN Pages on:
View Posts under these categories: