Email

Countdown to emissions scheme

By David Crombie

Posted July 22, 2008 08:28:00
Updated July 22, 2008 08:32:00

Outlining its preferred Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), the Australian Government's green paper recognises the unique complexities that impede agriculture's coverage.

We note that that Government has taken on board many of the National Farmers' Federation's key concerns.

The Government's green paper does not impose an arbitrary date for covering agriculture. Instead, it identifies a target date of 2015 - pending the need to first overcome practical impediments of measuring, monitoring and verification of carbon emissions - with a decision on inclusion, or exclusion, to be considered in 2013.

That analysis is consistent with both Professor Ross Garnaut's and the Productivity Commission's findings.

But pivotal issues of concern remain unresolved and must be dealt with ahead of agriculture's possible inclusion.

Firstly, the current Kyoto rules fail to fully account for agriculture's ability to store carbon in soil, crops and pastures. Further, that agriculture's emission profile under Kyoto is detrimentally linked to things beyond anyone's control, like bushfires and drought.

The green paper accepts the need for 'Kyoto II' to change to better reflect Australia's unique circumstances and the potential opportunities based on science.

Secondly, the potential increase in major farming costs - namely through fuel - will be offset for agriculture. This takes account of the cost pressures already be felt at the pump, and will alleviate farm costs, pressure on food security and prices at the checkout.

Thirdly, the Green Paper also highlights limited commercially-viable carbon abatement opportunities for farmers. That is, sensible cost-effective ways to further reduce emissions across all agricultural sectors simply do not exist at this time.

This is a clear signal that a new stream of research and development must be in place and delivering workable solutions before agriculture can be considered for inclusion in any scheme. Importantly, we must avoid cannibalising productivity-based research and development in the process.

Fourthly, and importantly, the Government has emphasised the essential need to work in close consultation with agriculture to overcome these problems and to develop appropriate responses.

Farmers maintain that we are willing to play our part in meeting Australia's, and the world's, climate challenge. We are committed to finding workable new solutions to reduce our carbon footprint, to build on our already leading contribution to cutting emissions, on an equitable basis.

We must pursue these opportunities, in partnership with Government, to be able to achieve this in a measured and sustainable way - ensuring that food production, and our national economy, are not threatened.

David Crombie is president of the National Farmers' Federation. This week he is leading a delegation of Australian agricultural representatives in Geneva.

Tags: environment, climate-change, rural, agricultural-policy, greenhouse-gas, australia

Comments (84)

Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.

• Geoff:

  22 Jul 2008 8:55:24am

  My fear is that this will be just another way of raising a tax, and that it will be like the GST, totally wasted by not using it as it is/was intended.
  
  The older I get the more I realise governments lie. I knew that years ago, but now the realisation and frustration is more intense. The problem now is what to do about it, as there is no alternative, vote for someone and it only encourages them, vote for the donkey, and you still get a politician.

  Agree (2) Alert moderator

  • j:

    22 Jul 2008 9:59:13am

    I agree with Geoff that it will be another tax. The government of the day will then spend the windfall in ways which help to ensure its re-election. Why not do something more direct than carbon trading to reduce carbon output? Say, large tax incentives (not penalties) to reduce carbon outputs? Or major investment in cleaner technologies? Or renting everyone's rooftops for solar power generation? There are a million ideas in existence.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • ram:

      22 Jul 2008 2:57:10pm

      I agree with J and Geoff, it is just another tax. And it will not do anything to reduce emissions. In fact it will probably make things worse by employing more paper shufflers in more offices to waste everybody elses time and energy.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • PeterM:

      22 Jul 2008 8:16:56pm

      Good God J, do you realise you are talking common sense here?
      
      To paraphrase from Black Adder, 'Because the big stick approach with fines and taxes has never worked before that's exactly while we'll do it again this time. The public will never expect it!'
      
      I too believe the carrot approach needs to be used. For years compainies have benefitted through profits from their products/services. The responsible thing for a company to do is invest in R&D for the future. If they haven't then they carry the R&D burden alone. Tax incentives for R&D etc. are all workable solutions to getting companies to want to change.
      
      The simplest definition of leadership I have ever heard is this:
      
      Leadership is getting someone else to want to do what you want them to do.
      
      The big stick approach doesn't foster this. Sadly most politicians are void of leadership skills and have even less imagination.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • David G:

    22 Jul 2008 11:04:34am

    Geoff we have to give this our best shot and stop delaying action.
    I am glad the NFF have at last broken their silence after the Howard decade. Their members have so much to loose because of that decade of inaction supporting the USA stance when our emission increases were amongst the worst in the OECD.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • chewbacca:

      22 Jul 2008 2:15:18pm

      Trouble is they are not giving it the best shot. Too many exemptions and free credits to industries that will use them to make more money as has happened in Europe. I wouldn't mind being taxed so much if there was a chance that through this "Garnaut-Lite" programme, emissions would actually come down, but they won't! So as dumb consumers we have the double whammy - increased costs and the very real possibility of no reductions. Even if we make some headway in emissions reduction, no such programme will exist in China for the foreseeable future so we will be handicapped for no meaningful global result (why can't people see that even reducing our 1.5% of global emissions to zero will have minimal impact if China is not in????). Oh well, we can all feel good even if it costs us and makes us less competitive. Good onya Kev......

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • David G:

        22 Jul 2008 3:39:49pm

        Chewbacca, I agree we do need to give it a far better shot. But we have to be amongst the OTHER countries ALREADY trying to make a difference (remember we are not going to be out there alone), rather than wait for China who understandable wants us to show the way and wants our help. Over 75 per cent of the emissions that we currently have in the global atmosphere are caused by the industrialised countries, so we have a special responsibility to take the lead here.
        
        27 other Kyoto ratified developed countries have emissions similar to our 1.4% (together they add up to 30%). If these countries followed Australias self serving example it would cause significant increases to global emissions.
        
        Australias stance for the past decade has been an international embarrassment and ignored many recognized principles of polluter pays, ability to pay and any other test of a fair go.
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Geoffrey_Chaucer:

    22 Jul 2008 12:22:25pm

    I don't think they are lying, Geoff. They said they want to introduce an emission trading scheme and they are doing it. As to what it will achieve, that's another story.
    
    According to "them", when we all go back to the horse and cart and have dinner by candle light, the polar ice cap will immediately stop melting, rain will fall in abundance on the food belt and all will be well again. Trust "them", they know.
    
    I can easily believe it could take 20 years or so for the hundred of thousands coal miners and the million or more people in the automotive industry to become redundant and available for re-employment in the "CLEAN" energy industry.
    
    We will need all of them to blow on those wind-turbines on calm days and to hold candle-sticks in front of those solar arrays every night.

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • Sam Guest:

      22 Jul 2008 6:34:20pm

      Or they transition into geothermal or install solar panels that have been properly subsidised by the Government to make it viable to consider, as for the automotive industry, changing to electric and hydrogen powered solutions are already being pursued by multiple car manufacturers, but far better to focus on hurdles rather than looking at solutions, hey Geoffrey?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • warshawski:

    22 Jul 2008 4:21:00pm

    Unless the money raised by this new tax is used to fund realistic low carbon technology it is just anothe tax grab by the government. Spending on jobs for the boys projects like clean coal will be proof of the hypocrocy of the government.
    At this stage the only realistic technology to produce lots of power without lots of CO2 is nuclear but the government refuses to look at it. Even though the economics have changed with the masive increase in oil, coal and gas prices making nuclear even more attaractive still the Labour governemnt refuses to even look at the option.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Sam Guest:

      22 Jul 2008 7:05:14pm

      Geothermal and solarthermal or even solar panel launched into space could all provide baseload power without the drawbacks of transporting toxic waste also nuclear would take an eternity to actually get up and running.(not that I agree with it anyway) how about funding renewables as anything that is a limited resource is inherently short sighted.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• fishace:

  22 Jul 2008 9:06:35am

  As an ecological engineer, I am very aware of /integrated farming systems' that have been practised in Asia for centuries. Less intensive in their approach, but more diverse in organic production. Algal biofuels, are also very promising, particulary as our country has an abundance of sunlight and saline water. Add Biogas digestion, solar thermal energy and then start to connect nutrient and energy flows together and we are heading towards carbon reduction and sustainable agricultural solutions.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Susan:

    22 Jul 2008 9:37:58am

    My biggest gripe is the reduction in the subsidy for the installation of solar panels. This should not be a 'welfare' issue. For every family that reduces/minimises their use of fossil fuels in the household, we are all better off. It seems to me that we are getting taxed at higher and higher rates for 'green initiatives' (note to politicians, where were you 30 years ago when I was already practicing my own 'green initiatives' & why do I have to pay extra tax now just because you have finally realised there is a problem?). Instead of removing incentives - I think the government should be spending MORE money on assisting people to instal alternative supplies of energy and water. It's certainly better than spending billions building a nuclear power plant, or flooding another valley to create yet another dam which will only be half full. The cut off of $100k is ludicrous anyway - if it is a dual income household then the household is earning under the 'average wage' so why reduce subsidies? I think the government has not thought through these issues adequately, and just seems to be making up policy on the run.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • G:

      22 Jul 2008 10:11:26am

      I don't think it's running at all, dawdling.
      I don't think it's making policy - it's being dictated by the coal and mining industries.
      
      Probably the best thing that we can do to screw the arrogant, self-serving and ignorant coal industry is to cut them out of the loop altogether.
      
      Maybe it's possible to develop a solar power coop or something - install solar panels on the roof of your apartment block - or pull together buying power from your street block and try to pool resources.
      
      I haven't got a solution, but it seems to me that we are being served as pigs by the coal industry - time to cut them lose, and if the government is too stupid, lazy and gutless to do it, then it's time to do it ourselves.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Baz:

        22 Jul 2008 10:37:17am

        >>>time to cut them lose, and if the government is too stupid, >>>lazy and gutless to do it, then it's time to do it ourselves.
        
        I guess you'll be the first to cut off your electricity then.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Bullfrog:

        22 Jul 2008 10:48:07am

        I'm in the power industry, and worked in both coal and the hydroelectric aspects.
        
        For an average house, you need at least $20000 of solar panels / installation cost / etc to make yourself 'independent' of the power grid. So, if your annual power bill runs at $1500 per annum, then you 'break even' in 8 years (if you actually look at the opportunity cost, it's closer to 12 years). To be fully independent, you'd need closer to a $25000 system (the $20,000 relies on the power grid to back you up during low sunlight periods, although you still end up neutral on power import / export).
        
        7 million homes (roughly). So around $140,000,000,000 to install . . . and you only remove around 40% of the country's demand for power.
        
        Assuming you shut down only coal burners in response to the reduced demand, you still only save 15% of the annual emissions per annum (coal is 80% of all power produced, and 30% of all CO2 emissions).
        
        I'm all for some alternatives, I'm just painfully aware that many are extraordinarily expensive, unproven (particularly to industrial scale), or both.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • L:

      22 Jul 2008 10:20:42am

      Well said. I find it hard to accept that we have already overshot the Pareto Optimality when it comes to the proportion of people installing solar PV. They look like they don't know what they're doing. There is certainly no evidence of any econometrics beyond what Garnaut and the Climate Institute have done with ANU.
      
      Geoff raises a valid point that if they don't know what they
      re doing when it comes to implementing policies such as taxes, we'll all be worse off. An election will come around soon enough, they'll make a bunch of stupid promises to buy more swinging voters and we're worse off.
      
      If only we could distract the policy makers from their core business of winning elections and get them to develop and implement good policy, but sadly that's just their theoretical role. No doubt all the big business that spotted the bill for the election platform wants the influence that they paid for.
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Bezby:

      22 Jul 2008 12:34:05pm

      I totally agree Susan. Out household earns more than $100K, and we have a certain amount of 'discretionary funds' to spend and were all for a solar installation. But without the subsidy, our discretionary funds don't cover the cost. Very dissapointing Mr Rudd!

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• twobob:

  22 Jul 2008 10:25:57am

  "a clear signal that a new stream of research and development must be in place and delivering workable solutions"
  
  Vast amounts of carbon can be sequestered in the soil and drought or flood will have little impact upon it. This link http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/content/full/100/1/178 describes how we can do this using charcoal. The upshot of it all is that it is win, win, win with a positive energy outcome, carbon permanently sequestered and increased soil productivity. Spend some of our taxes on this and we could really transform our country, help feed the world, make more from agg exports and decrease atmospheric carbon. Its worth a thought.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Tory:

    23 Jul 2008 7:04:18am

    u do know how charcoal is made, right?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• R G Hay:

  22 Jul 2008 10:35:56am

  There are many other GHG's than CO2, and if the world succeeds in reducing CO2 emissions significantly, then they will become much more important, by being then relatively greater in their effect.
  Of particular interest to farmers are methane from ruminants and anaerobic decompostion of vegetable matter generally - relevant to some open field water storage, and even some green manuring, and disposal of wastes from feedlots - and oxides of nitrogen from fertiliser reactions. On the other hand, increased organic matter in the soil is a carbon store.
  Of course, farms store carbon in the crops they produce - it is those who consume these products who then release it.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • David G:

    22 Jul 2008 11:14:20am

    R G Hay, I think you will find that we are talking about CO2 equivalents which includes the methane you are very rightly concerned about since it has 21 times the Global Warming Potential of CO2.
    The Green Paper states it covers All greenhouse gases included under the Kyoto Protocolcarbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbonswould be covered from scheme commencement.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• dragon:

  22 Jul 2008 11:08:33am

  The price of every human comsumable item will rise and the biggest whingers will be the tree-hugging-hippy-environmentalist that pushed and cheered for the 'white elephant' Kyoto protocol to be signed. Well it's signed, and now you are dragged into a cleaner world where we are all going to pay through the nose. The ETS will be abused by the big megacorporations and in the end it will be the end-user consumer that will bear the brunt of higher taxes !

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Shane:

    22 Jul 2008 11:57:10am

    The price of oil, coal, metals and grains have all increased multiple fold in the last few years *world wide*! Regardless of whether or not your country signed this or legislated that. But that wont stop people wasting years going on witch-hunts over who is to blame for rising prices.
    
    Peak oil, and the flow on effects in all our mechanised industries, is only just beginning to show its effects as demand stretches ahead of supply and inventories of everything are drawn down.
    
    We are only a few short years away from world wide reductions in the amount of oil flowing out of the ground and into our economies. That tide raised all economies world wide for the last hundred years and is about to turn. It is too late to assume our governments are going to do anything meaningful to manage the coming crises. Time to start thinking and acting for yourself.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • David G:

    22 Jul 2008 12:45:45pm

    Dragon, I know this may be hard to understand and consider, BUT what are the consequences if YOU are wrong. Please consider this for 1 minute. Simple risk management demands effective and rapid action now. Please dont drag the rest of the world down with your attempts to delay action simple because you can not understand the complex interactions involved in climate science.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Mark:

      22 Jul 2008 12:58:45pm

      Complex hey? Sun heats up earth heats up, sun cools down earth cools down - it is the strongest correllation of all the data.
      
      Now David G, Lets extrapolate out the scenario the other way assuming climate change is false (all good risk management would look at both sides of the story) - We introduce a scheme that may cripple our economy, we have hundreds of thousands of deaths due to starvation, crime rises as people look for ways to feed families etc. The result can be just as catastrophic the other way as well.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • David G:

        22 Jul 2008 1:12:21pm

        If you believe that is the extent of the complexity I fully understand why you think this is not an issue. Please get informed because you may be able to help rather than hinder.
        
        It is the ADDITIONAL forcings to that which are upsetting the system. Maybe you should think about all the other positive and negative forcings.
        What climate scientists are saying is that, in the last part of the century, CO2 and other greenhouse gases has become the strongest influence beyond the base level of solar. By comparison, additional Solar, ozone, volcanic activity and sulphates from pollution have become less influential in either positive or negative forcings. (Meehl et al. (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727.)
        
        In addition to these forcing factors, climate change is superimposed on natural climate variability.
        One of the major internal sources of climate variability is the El Nino Southern Oscillation.
        So we wouldn't expect every year to be warmer than the previous year simply because carbon dioxide levels are increasing each year.
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Baz:

      22 Jul 2008 1:00:46pm

      Australia can do as much as it likes and there will be absolutely no effect on the total situation. All we will do is wreck our economy and cause people a lot of pain for no gain.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • dragon:

      22 Jul 2008 1:04:17pm

      No one will give a toss about climate change when Petrol hits $5 a litre or that a loaf of bread will cost $10. I'm not saying nothing should be done just that whatever is done needs to factor in what the average person (and I'm including global village here, not just the rich educated) will have to pay for !

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • David G:

    22 Jul 2008 1:02:49pm

    Just a thought, but maybe you can avoid these *taxes* by consuming less emission intensive products or next time you have to buy something make it a very efficient product. Might be worth a try to beat the system you fear so much.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Lean:

  22 Jul 2008 11:24:49am

  Kyoto is dead and about to be buried. Kyoto 2 is history repeating itself. It is just a symbolic icon and proven not working. Have a good look at the results its got so far.
  
  Its time people name it something else and get the big polluter countries agree to it.
  
  Instead off making the carbon trade system (or new tax) so complex for anyone to understand (not sure anyone from current government does), which the Labor government needs to spend million dollars on ad very soon. They can consider increasing the GST by a mere 0.5-1% to cover the carbon tax and people can move on with their life.
  
  By 2010 we are still debating about this issue and going no where.
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • David G:

    22 Jul 2008 2:06:00pm

    Lean is right that we need to remember the consequences of Ineffective action.
    Mark above is definitely right that we need to look at both sides of risk management. Crippled economy you say.
    For Australia, even with the most stringent cap, the recent economic growth rate is reduced from 3 per cent down to something like 2.7 per cent in 2050. That's hardly a recession. (Modelling by Monash University in June 2007).
    Now look at the other side. If we do not take action Garnaut reports we may see GDP
    fall from the reference case by around 4.8 per cent, household consumption by
    5.4 per cent and real wages by 7.8 per cent by 2100.
    SEEMS OBVIOUS ON THIS COUNT WE MUST TAKE RAPID ACTION
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • David G:

    22 Jul 2008 2:25:19pm

    Thinking more on the consequences of INeffective action. Mark above says if we take action ... then hundreds of thousands of deaths due to starvation, crime rises as people look for ways to feed families etc.
    Consider this: unless strong preventative action is taken, by 2050 climate change will increase the number of displaced people globally to at least 1 billion
    Consider CSIRO and IPCC estimates of 150 million displaced people from our neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region if we reach 4C increase, entire regions experience major declines in crop yields with mass human migrations in search of food with escalating world conflicts if we reach 5C
    SEEMS OBVIOUS ON THESE COUNTS WE MUST TAKE RAPID ACTION
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • insideps:

      22 Jul 2008 5:33:29pm

      There have been times in the past when it has been cooler than now, and times when it has been warmer.
      
      Historically, ALL the past times of warmth, such as now, or warmer, have been times of relative peace, plenty, growth, happiness.
      
      Historically, ALL the times of cold have been times of want, famine, death, starvation, wars, suffering.
      
      Therefore, if history is any lesson, just what makes everybody so sure that, just this once, in all of history, if it gets a bit warmer the sky is going to fall in and things are going to get so very bad?
      
      History teaches warm = good, cool = bad - end of lesson.
      
      Sorry I don't have a woopy doo "computer model" to "prove" this to all you Chicken Littles out there - just this once we're just going to have to rely on actual, factual, real, recorded history.
      
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • David G:

        22 Jul 2008 9:53:59pm

        Oh PLEASE get informed and take a few more lessons because we need your help, not hindrance.
        Your may be referring to some comparatively slight changes in the last 7,000 yrs. We are talking about predicted temperatures never seen for last seen 250 million yrs when 95% of life on earth wiped out with mainly fungi surviving. So yes it has happened before, BUT the point is we, each and every one of us, have the choice to send the planet back to those conditions. You may be able to look children in the eye and say TO BAD, but that sort of morality is usually not something to aspire to.
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • G:

    22 Jul 2008 3:08:25pm

    Lean -
    we ARE one of the big polluter countries.
    Yes, australia.
    We have the highest pollution per capita, not china, not india, not the UK, Australia.
    In fact you, yes you personally, are more responsible for pollution than anyone else in the world (outside of australia!).
    
    So yes, the big polluters do need to do something - and Australia, which hosts the biggest polluters on the planet, should not be pointing the finger at anyone but themselves.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • bjh:

    22 Jul 2008 4:09:50pm

    how does increasing the taxes on every item add a cost to carbon alone.
    
    yes prices will rise, specifically the cost of items that are directly contributing to global warming.
    
    Product A (climate-bad) goes up in prices due to the ETS, Product B (climate-good) stays the same.
    
    Consumer C notices the price rise and CHANGES THEIR BEHAVIOUR by buying Product B.
    
    Producer D of product A sees whats happening to their sales and CHANGES THEIR BEHAVIOUR and produces product A in a more climate friendly way.
    
    While the devil might be in the detail this is not economic rocket science. People think with their back pocket

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Sinekal:

  22 Jul 2008 12:40:30pm

  The tradeable nature of carbon credits is going to result in the biggest bankroll taking financial control of potentially sensitive national industries and then having a monopoly.
  
  Drive a private car, no cost in carbon. Heat a domestic home no cost in carbon. Grow crops and meat for that domestic house or supply energy to that domestic house and be prepared to bid for your right to pay a tax on their output.
  
  The methane gas produced by cows is the second largest polluting source in Australia. I now know what is largest... Build a plastic bubble over Canberra and all our energy could be provided from the gas.
  
  Simple solution. Buy a car or a house, then pay a fee for agroforestry to offset the carbon cost. Once off, productive, and no parasites feeding on it for twenty years.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• spud:

  22 Jul 2008 1:05:21pm

  David Crombie is wrong when he says that farmers lack the means to reduce GHG emissions. They/we do not; it is just that agricultural industries generally have turned a blind eye to what can and should be done for years.
  
  Try improving pasture quality for example, and you can reduce methane emissions by up to 50%. Australian pastures generally are absolute rubbish, and our consequent per head of livestock CH4 emissions are roughly double international averages. If we brought our pastures up to international benchmarks, that would have the same effect as removing 80% of cars from our roads. This pasture improvement is not new technology that needs a lot of R&D, it is available right now. However, most farmers at the behest of their self-interested advisers are so busily cropping the guts out of their country (and their businesses; but of course the banks, fertiliser, chemical, machinery and service providers all keep pushing them to do so) that they don't even think about their pastures or their future at all.
  
  It is time for farming to come into the 21st century, and Crombie and the NFF should be providing the lead, not gloating that they have managed to convince the government that they should be allowed to stay firmly entrenched in the good old days of 20th century.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • trev:

    22 Jul 2008 3:20:49pm

    Spud, I think you have missed the point here a bit.
    You say quite rightly that there is room for improvement in Australian pastures, no argument there, but you are assuming that the missing ingredient here is knowledge & the will to do so. This demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of Australian agriculture. Whilst that is true of European-style agriculture, Australian agriculture's most limiting factor, generally, is water. No farmer in his right mind is going to go out & invest in improved pastures if he does not have the security of moisture to establish it & give it a productive future. It is easy to compare Australian farmers alongside European farmers & compare apples with oranges. You are looking at fundamentally different circumstances. Most European farmers, in my experience, don't even know how much rain they get in a year because they never worry about it NOT falling. Even our NZ brethren are blessed with some of the best grass-growing country & climate in the world, but in Australia its different. The majority of our livestock production is done in a rangeland environment, not the European environment. As I started saying, there is room for improvement in pasture production & in grazing management, but it is a simplistic nonsense to suggest that we can wave a magic wand & it will all be hunky dory.
    As far as farming coming into the 21st century, I think that if you looked, as I have, you will find Australia is leading the world in many areas of agricultural production & farmers from other parts of the world are coming here to how we do things & to learn from us, in the same way we used to go to Europe or the US to learn from them.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • G:

      22 Jul 2008 3:51:17pm

      Interesting trev,
      Is the rumour, that cotton is a very and unneccearily water-intensive crop, true?
      
      If so.... why are we still growing it?
      Are we still on our backs for companies like dupont?
      Are we so pathetic that we, as an entire nation of 22 million people, can't stand up to a single, rich company?
      
      I'd challenge anyone, anyone at all, to put show me why cannabis is not an effective crop - and don't deluge me with silliness such as "cannabis is a lethal drug" - because that is just dupont rubbish propaganda. I also don't want to hear things like "because we don't have the infrastructure" - because that is a non-argument; we also didn't have the cotton infrastructure before it was built..
      
      So - come on folks, particularly those associated with the cotton industry. Show me why we're still on all fours for dupont.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • spud:

        22 Jul 2008 4:44:50pm

        Has been tried G, but without much success. Did not compete for returns with cotton. And the rumour about the water requirements of cotton being unneccessarily water intensive is not really right. What is a far greater issue is that cotton is an annual crop being grown for one years returns with water that could be used to keep perennial and tree crops alive and capable of producing for decades into the future.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • spud:

      22 Jul 2008 4:14:49pm

      trev
      
      We are carrying only just over half the number of sheep/pasture ha in the wheat sheep zone compared to 1990. The figures then weren't flash either (eg average carrying capacity was then only about 40-50% of rain-limited potential) It isn't drought that has caused that (numbers have actually been more or less static since 2000), it is declining pasture production and quality. There are new technologies around that can reverse that very easily and reliably, even though we do have unreliable rainfall. I will not advertise how, but try googling a few relevant phrases and you can find out. It doesn't involve magic wands either.
      
      And by the way, yes farmers (and scientists) are coming here to find out about things. I know because I have entertained more than a few myself. The trouble I and they have is that there aren't many farms they can go and visit that are actually using these 21st century systems and techniques; at least not yet!

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• sidleno:

  22 Jul 2008 1:21:01pm

  I noticed, like I'm sure many others, that there's an article about the 80% growth of Organic farming in the last 4 years, during a drought. Organic farming increases storage of carbon in the soil due to organic composting and mulching. I feel that this storage should be give carbon credits and thus will encourage other non-organic and hopefully industrial farmers to switch there methods. It will mean increased employment in the sector (fossil fuel powered machinery use will be cut down - can't pull those pesticide sprayers with a tractor anymore) and therefore when fuel carbon offsets are reduced and hopefully removed altogether, the impact won't be so bad for farmers. They should even get paid for sequestering carbon into the soil!
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • spud:

    22 Jul 2008 2:09:59pm

    Actually it is not at all simple. GHG emissions from organic farming can be higher than for conventional farming per hectare, and very much higher per unit of production. There is much heavier reliance on tillage to control weeds, and this results in higher fuel use and greater rates of emission of nitrous oxide (N2O) from soils. Many organic systems also reduce soil organic carbon levels; again due to tillage, lower productivity levels and conversion of large quantities of soil organic matter into very small quantities of N (nitrogen for protein) to supply soil microbes and plants with sufficient N and other nutrients to live. This N and organic C loss can be counteracted by addition of manures, but these are themselves significant sources of N2O and CH4 (methane); and then there is the large fuel use required to break up and spread the large quantities of manure that are needed to maintain these systems.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Jeff Poole:

      22 Jul 2008 2:24:38pm

      No that's wrong spud. For a start organic and conventional yields are basically the same (after conversion taking about three years).
      
      Conventional systems use oil-derived fertilizers and create 'new' atmospheric nitrous oxide (with a greenhouse factor 296 times that of CO2) created from an industrial process while organic systems use 'old' pre-existing nitrogen - from manures and seaweed etc - that's already part of the nitrogen cycle and add no new emissions.
      
      Cheers
      Jeff
      
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • spud:

        22 Jul 2008 2:44:31pm

        Jeff
        
        Yes N2O is emitted from fertiliser and this is far more the case for fertiliser N than for natural N derived from legumes for example. However, N2O is emitted during mineralisation of all organic material, including legumes, and tillage accelerates this process quite dramatically. More N is lost in this way in organic systems than in conventional systems. Further, manure itself, like N fertiliser is a source of N2O, albeit generally less than for chemical fertilisers, (eg avg 0.2% vs 1.0% N lost as N2O) but nevertheless, it cannot be discounted; as you point out N2O is a very potent GHG. Methane emissions from manure (both during storage and transport and after spreading) is also a significant addition to GHG emissions in organic systems; and a lot of manure is needed to maintain productivity at similar levels to conventional systems. In most cases the cost of doing so is too great, and soil is simply mined of nutrients instead. Then in a few years we have the Mesopotamian organic system; the "Fertile Crescent" that was the cradle of agriculture and the bread basket to the world and which is now the Arabian Desert. You can see the results every night in pictures from Baghdad. It ain't a rainfall drought there, it is an organically mined out nutrient drought.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Jeff Poole:

        22 Jul 2008 3:00:37pm

        If you think modern organic farming is the same as primitive farming in the fertile crescent five thousand years ago you're really coming from a different planet.
        
        The industrial farming that you are advocating has destroyed gigantic swathes of viable land the world over in a mere fifty years and lowered nutrition. A good example is India where fifty years into the 'Green Revolution' the average Indian is now less well nourished than s/he was before the conversion to industrial farming.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • spud:

        22 Jul 2008 11:02:12pm

        Jeff, I can tell you that while there are some differences, and some exceptions as I have pointed out previously, there is still the same basic problem in most modern organic systems as caused the demise of farming in the fertile crescent. That is; nutrients being taken out of the system are greater than nutrients being put back in. Soil nutrients are not magic puddings; they don't come again after they have been cut; or at least not in this ten million years or so. It was so then, and it is still so for most organic systems today. A properly run, sustainable organic system is one which accounts for all nutrients taken off or lost(including via N2O) and replaces them. Most don't and most also are way below replacement with what little they do put back. That is simple maths.
        
        Also, I must dispute your claims/beliefs with respect to the green revolution. The facts are entirely different. For example, the green revolution is responsible for feeding about 3 billion out of the 6 billion people on this earth. It also improved nutrition, not lowered it. That is why India used to import a lot of food, but is now largely self-sufficient; even though she now has more than twice the population. You don't increase, far less double a population if it is malnourished to begin with.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Fred:

      22 Jul 2008 4:11:00pm

      Actually spud, you are wrong on several points in your assumptions about organic farming producing more greenhouse gases. Quite the reverse in fact.
      
      For a start, studies show that organic farms have higher carbon levels in the soil than nearby conventional farms. Sure organic farmers use tillage to control weeds in broad-acre farming - but they also use extensive fallow periods and cover-crops which typically build-up the soil carbon to a greater extent than conventional farming - and hence the higher soil carbon means more sequestered carbon from the atmosphere. A clear plus.
      
      Also, a large percentage of conventional farmers still don't use minimum tillage methods.
      
      Also. because of the higher soil carbon levels in organic farm soils there is greater retention of nuitrients in the soil.
      
      And synthetic fertilisers, especially nitrogen based fertilisers, use a lot of fossil fuel to manufacture. Whereas, organic farming techniques use legume cover-cropping and soil microorganisims for sources of N. So again there's a lower energy input with organic farms.
      
      Also, synthetic pesticides are energy consuming to manufacture. Ecological methods of pest control uses much less energy.
      
      As a general principle in organic farming, there is less off farm inputs, and hence less being transported to the farm site. Less transport also means less fossil fuel use.
      
      But I think a comparison for energy inputs between organic farming and conventional farm would be a worthy study. But watch-out if you are expecting a typical conventional farm to be more energy efficent - you might be embarrassed!

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • spud:

        22 Jul 2008 7:42:04pm

        They are not my assumptions at all Fred. They are data obtained from scientific studies, from the Australian Greenhouse Office and from the IPCC among other sources, plus a long professional life in this field.
        
        Just one of a string of "facts" you need to check is your (apparent) assertion that fallow periods build organic carbon levels in soils. They don't. Neither do they preserve nutrients; they simply spread out nutrient mining over a longer period.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Jeff Poole:

    22 Jul 2008 2:12:29pm

    The Rodale institute in the USA have been studying organics and conventional farming systems side by side for thirty years.
    
    They've shown that 1 hectare of organically farmed land can permanently sequester 7 tonnes of carbon per year.
    
    http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/Rodale_Research_Paper.pdf
    
    If we made a start now agriculture could be earning huge carbon credits in three years - the time it takes soil to recover from industrial farming - and sequestering up to 60% of our current emissions. Not to mention growing healthier food that's not dependent on oil based fertilisers and pesticides who's price has tripled in the last year...
    
    Cheers
    Jeff

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • spud:

      22 Jul 2008 2:28:17pm

      This is theoretically possible, but is unfortunately based on reduction of essential nutrient pools, leaving organic carbon intact by slowing the rate of microbial activity and the consequent recycling of C into the atmosphere as CO2. It is also short term, because eventually plant production will fall, and that will be followed by the organic carbon levels. Also note that such levels of sequestration you quote are way beyond what can be achieved here; despite some recent but totally outlandish claims made in this respect.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Jeff Poole:

        22 Jul 2008 2:52:46pm

        Interesting that you talk about production falling in organic systems when it's conventional systems that are plateauing - and have been for more than a decade due to the loss of micronutrients, soil carbon and soil structure that is caused by industrial farming.
        
        It isn't organics that have caused the global rate of desertification of farmland to equal the rate of landclearing for agriculture for almost two decades. Its the exhaustion of soil by industrial techniques.
        
        A glance at the UN's 1995 biodiversity report confirms this.
        
        The fact is we cannot continue with industrial farming and willy-nilly global distribution for much longer
        1. because globally we are running out of land to clear
        2. because we've passed Peak Oil and oil-derived agrichemicals are already skyrocketing in price
        3 because Peak Oil and Carbon price setting will make transport over long distances unviable
        
        Frankly conventional systems have stuffed up food production all over the world - substituting quantity for quality in an unsustainable way - and the chickens are coming home to roost. Time to start looking at systems which produce food locally and improve soil quality. That means organics.
        
        Cheers
        Jeff
        
        

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • spud:

        22 Jul 2008 3:23:28pm

        All power to you Jeff. I must declare a vested interest; if what you say is the case then I will be more than happy and will retire a very rich man in a few years.
        
        However, while I do agree on some points (as does the science and field data by the way) the reality on others is somewhat different. Firstly conventional agriculture has not plateaued in production. Refer to ABARE stats. (that doesn't mean there hasn't been a lot of soil nutrient mining, so I agree on that point) Secondly exhaustion of soil nutrients is far more of a problem in organic systems because the cost of nutrient replacement via manure (legumes only replace the N part) is so high that most skimp on it even more so than their conventional bretheren skimp on it in conventional systems. (There are notable exceptions. There is a huge organic farm in Colorado I have been on which supplies huge amounts of organic "produce" (veges and greens) to large supermarket chains right across the US that is not exploitative of soil nutrient reserves. However, that is because it has a very large number of feedlots and dairies around it that muck out directly into its paddocks for free.) Thirdly I wouldn't rely on anything that comes out of the UN. There is no other organisation on earth that is more suited to people and countries pushing personal agendas with no consequences for when they get it wrong.
        
        That said, what you say about peak oil is correct. That will change things and we can expect to see a lot more emphasis on reduced chemical use, better rotations, legumes, etc. and that will be a good thing.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Jeff Poole:

        22 Jul 2008 3:46:51pm

        I'd trust the UN Environment Programme - a disinterested scientific body - rather more than that bunch of industry hacks who pay, what is it $20,000 a year? to sit on ABARE...
        
        Cheers
        Jeff

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • spud:

        22 Jul 2008 10:43:04pm

        Jeff
        
        ABARE (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics) is a completely professional and independent body that is run by the federal government to be so, and to analyse stats and data collected by the ABS among other things. It is certainly not run by "industry hacks"; I have no idea where you get that idea, because it is plain wrong.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Brad:

  22 Jul 2008 2:07:56pm

  If farmers started sequestering carbon using agrichar (http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s2012892.htm) they could make money on carbon trading. The process is energy positive and carbon negative, and improves crop yields when you plough the agrichar into the soil.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• CHERIE L CURRAN :

  22 Jul 2008 2:25:12pm

  Tuesday, 22 July 2008 2:25PM AEST
  
  
  If Kevin Rudd and his government think they can fleece the populus for it's ideas, to remain in Office: this is a futile attempt.
  
  I think anyone, assigned to look after the entire inhabitants of our Australian Continent should, at least, be versed with a little more insight. Would the ABC not agree?
  
  WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME, don't you think the ABC could relax it's bias, enough to save all Mankind or at least make an attempt to help. Or are you going to continue along your relentless path of ignorance and damnation?
  
  Can it be that the ABC is afraid to publish my comments, I will find someone, who is not bias and afraid.
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • somedood:

    22 Jul 2008 3:35:08pm

    I'm not sure you can be versed with insight. Luckily the ABC has published your comments in order that this question be finally brought out into the open.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• David:

  22 Jul 2008 2:41:09pm

  PROTECT OUR CARBON SCHEME AFFECTED INDUSTRIES with a CARBON TARIFF on imports from countries who do not have carbon emission reduction schemes in place! If those countries won't act to reduce their emissions then we should make their products less competitive in our (and the world's) market.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • David G:

    22 Jul 2008 3:45:34pm

    David has a reasonable idea here rather than trying to include more industries in the free handouts. If you apply a carbon tax at the border then emission INTENSIVE imported products become LESS competitive. Just the same as a ETS makes emission intensive products LESS competitive in the domestic market within our borders. You then have incentives to drive down emissions within Australia and also internationally with countries that want to export to Australia.
    This will make industries more energy efficient nationally and internationally. The WTO needs to start pushing this.
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • David G:

    22 Jul 2008 4:07:02pm

    I do not understand why do we give such massive support to industries that only produce 0.6% of our GDP and only 0.17% of our jobs to the DETRIMENT of industries that produce more than 30% of our GDP and jobs. If the high polluting industries carried out their fake threats and moved off shore they would then become more efficient because simple economic foresight and planing would necessitate their new infrastructure would be more efficient. Why kill 30% of our GDP to save 0.6%?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Alan:

  22 Jul 2008 3:11:47pm

  There seems to be a great amount of polarisation on this issue and so there should be.
  
  The one thing that I would ask is that we all understand that this is not really a political issue but a social, community and future one and requires the whinging about mr sheen and little johnny to stop.
  
  If the greenie tree huggers and the bogan disbelievers can stop for moment and look at the world and in particular Australia then perhaps we can all do something to improve our lot. It is unfortunate but it is going to cost and cost a lot. To stop using coal in one fell swoop is impractical and ill advised. the economics and social welfare issues are enormous, whether you or I like it is frankly of little consequence. At the other end of the argument is solar panels, little wind mills and so on each on its own would help but in the medium term it will not stop some of the calamities we are being promised.
  
  Please stop blaming this side or that but start to read, understand and contribute in a considered and rational way to assisting the elected government of the country to help progress the issues in OUR COUNTRY!
  
  I am not a scientist nor am I an intellectual but I am someone who is tired of the bickering with this issue.
  
  I do have one question for the doomsdayers tho', if the north pole is melting away why aren't more places being inundated by water. yes some islands in the pacific are in trouble but, forgive me I don't have complete and accurate recall, weren't we told that if this happened that the coast line of all countries would be changed forever. I had a look yesterday at Trigg point in Perth and oops nothings changed other than the same winter sand shift as happens each year.
  
  

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Jeff Poole:

    22 Jul 2008 3:54:33pm

    The Northern Ice Cap is melting - last year it was 40% smaller than the average - see teh National Snow and Ice Data Centre at Colorado Uni http://nsidc.org/
    
    The ice cap is floating so when it melts it doesn't displace any more water, just like the ice in your gin and tonic doesn't caue the glass to overflow when it melts.
    
    The melt is indicative of global temperature rise. When it's gone in a decade or so (and the polar bears are finally extinct) the ice covering Greenland will not be slowed from entering the ocean by any physical block. That's the danger point for rising sea levels - if Greenland goes sea levels will rise by seven metres.
    
    Cheers
    Jeff

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • spud:

      22 Jul 2008 10:34:15pm

      Actually Jeff, the Arctic melting is indicative of regional temperature rise. If the Antarctic were melting as well, that might indicate global temperature rise, but it isn't. That is why the greenhouse theory doesn't work; it should induce the same temperature rise at both poles, but instead, one is warming at least 20 times faster than the other. That could be explainable by GHGs if the rate of GHG increase were about 100 times greater over the north pole, but in fact, rises over both are not significantly different. Very serious problem of theory credibility here; in fact without a logical explanation for this huge discrepancy, the greenhouse theory is scientifically speaking and without doubt, disproved.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • David G:

    22 Jul 2008 3:56:50pm

    Simply put Alan, when ice floating in water melts the water level does not rise. When ice on land melts (i.e. grounded on the bottom) then water levels rise. Try it with a glass of water with floating ice and then try a glass with ice sitting on the bottom and stacked to above the water.
    
    If I were in Perth sea level would be the least of my concerns, try thinking about more drought, fires, water restrictions. One in 100 yr droughts to become one in 20 yrs, and one in 20 year drought to become one in 2yrs
    (http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/721285/csiro-bom-report-future-droughts.pdf

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • G:

    22 Jul 2008 4:07:40pm

    I'll have a crack at answering your question.
    
    The fact that the ice sheets are melting is irrefutable. Glaciers are retreating etc. etc. Although it is complex, antarctica ice cap is in fact thicking, greenland ice cap is disapearing fast. Both in fact, are symptomatic of the greenhouse effect.
    
    Recall that the planet harbours a simply incomprehendable quantity of salt water, simply melting a little bit of ice won't do much - the analogy might be adding a cup of water to a half-full bathtub, and noting that the level has rised perhaps a fraction of a mm.
    
    The thing that stymies most people is the scale of things. The quantitiy of sea water and the quantity of ice. As yet, only a tiny fraction of the total amount of surface ice has melted, but that amounts to billions of tonnes of water. The beauty is, there's a lot more where that came from. When it does come, as it will as temperatures rise, then sealevels will rise, but only slightly (the amount depends on who you talk to, but it WILL rise - i think the current rate is a few mm a year).
    
    Lost land amounts to lost realestate - fishing territories, cultivatable land, habitable land, etc.
    
    So at present, you won't notice much at perth - you need to travel to maldives or bangladesh, and at this point, you need to have a good ruler. Or you could wait a few decades and use a metre ruler! (actually, I don't really know if it will rise that much so soon - I find it difficult to comprehend.
    

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • mikej:

    22 Jul 2008 5:33:44pm

    alan, the reason the melting of the north polar ice sheet is not inundating the land is that this ice floats. Water expands when it freezes and thus floats in water. i kg of ice melts to 1 kg of water thus no sea level changes. Now about all that ice sitting on land, like antarctica, greenland etc if that melts, grow gills!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Alan:

      22 Jul 2008 9:24:11pm

      Thanks to all but I was being a little facetious, I remember that from 2nd year science. As for the land based ice this too is occurring ..... .
      
      The real issue is sorting the chaff from the wheat, the 'experts' told us that with the melting of the caps we would have ............ .
      
      It seems that the process of change is not as dramatic as some would have us believe and whilst not wanting to sit on my hands I do wonder at the morals of some when discussing the armageddon outlook.
      
      
      Thanks again people but I still wonder sometimes at the drama and the narrow minded in the debate.
      

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Damir Ibrisimovic:

  22 Jul 2008 3:39:29pm

  It is sad that neither government nor farmers pay attention to pollution reducing ideas. And there are some:
  
  http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/01/2290426.htm
  
  Saltwater algae can provide not only biofuels, but also food, feed, fertilisers and FRESH WATER from the salty one.

  Agree (0) Alert moderator

• Ford:

  22 Jul 2008 3:42:38pm

  I'll email Mother Earth and let her know we've started an ETS...just in case that reduction of less than 0.7% in emissions doesn't get her attention.
  So, anyone after a Chinese Coal Power Station? I'm selling in bulk....verrrrrry cheap.
  The world is screwed, I say we live it up!! SUV's for everyone!