Not too long ago, it would have been common to see alarm from environmentalists about of the destruction of forests to create farming land. But this week, the Senate saw the Greens vote with the Nationals because of a measure which is causing “alarm over the destruction of farming land to create forests”.
The measure in question will create tax incentives to plant forests as carbon sinks. There is legitimate concern about just how worthwhile such plantations would be in helping combat climate change through carbon storage – it is hard not to see this as another way for people to feel they can deal with climate change by maintaining the same profligate way of living, while paying money to fund a carbon sink which may or may not deliver what they promise. Carbon offsets have their place, but not in the absence of major lifestyles shifts (and ensuring accurate accounting off these offsets is also still a challenge).
However, it is also hard not to see part of the debate on this issue being fed by the mystique of “the farmer as stewards of the natural landscape” and “part of the essence of Australia”.
Agriculture is currently a major greenhouse emitter (and water consumer) – especially when livestock is involved. The fact that agriculture seems likely to be left outside an initial emissions trading scheme is a sign of the difficulties in how to measure emissions at the local farm level. It certainly doesn’t mean farming is not a major emitter.
It is true that when farms close, jobs can go and local communities can suffer. One can also say the same when mines close, but they are a much easier target when it comes to greenhouse debates. Mines are seen as dirty, destructive and greenhouse emitting, while farms are not – but collectively the biodiversity and greenhouse impacts of agriculture can be just as significant, particularly when livestock are involved.
5 Comments
To be fair to the Greens, I think their problem here is that, along with the issue of free carbon permits, big polluters will be able to continue to pollute very cheaply due to the tax deductibility of the capital costs of starting a plantation. See http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2008-12-01.67.2
I wasn’t really trying to have a shot at the Greens (or the Nats) fmark - more just point out the irony. As I said, I think the concerns expressed about the scheme have some merit, and I’m not interested in giving someone tax breaks which may do little for carbon reduction, regardless of the scheme.
That said, I do feel farmers often get off quite lightly when it comes to debates about climate change and habitat destruction. For some reason it seems much easier to pick on mines and miners - perhaps mining just seems more obviously ‘dirty’ and destructive, but the cumulative impact of some types of farming get far less attention than they should in my view (livestock being the obvious area which gets very little attention despite the significant greenhouse impact).
Hahaha… the irony is not lost on me!
Concerns over the schemes are well founded and the issues more complex than they appear. I understand that the mooted “forest” is not as good at Carbon sinking as some faster growing plants.
There was a replay of Landline today dealing with this issue and the little known carbon storing qualities of some varieties of sugar cane and sorghum. There are variations in the soil types which need ot be taken into account. (http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s2176108.htm)
As usual, the international calculation rules do not take this in to account and so it is in danger of being overlooked.
Very interestingly, one analysis I read about the carbon pollution reduction potential of these schemes relates to the fact that you cant run ruminants on them once they’re revegetated. It’s not so much the trees as the lack of sheep and cattle!
In any case, by the government Department of Climate Change figures (2005?? well I don’t have any others) Agriculture accounts for 15% of Aust’s. greenhouse gas emissions, transport 14% and Stationary energy (electricity generation mostly and similar) a whopping 48%. There a couple of other minor contributors as detailed in my latest wordpress post. Agrigasses are mostly methane from you know where and nitrous oxides from fertilisers and released from soil with heavy tilling. NOx is very nasty and can be reduced a lot with better practice. Land clearing and forest burn off/bushfires were not included in farming totals but are around 9% Farm clearing can be controlled with stronger guidelines and really, there is a limit to how much arable land we have so once we hit that it won’t get any worse. Modern farmers see the value in controlled clearing.
Mining releases some gasses from the process involved as well so combined with power production and transport the old fossil fuels run up to about 68% contribution.
I am not a believer in carbon trading nor any cost-based punitive taxes which the consumer ends up paying in the long run. In my opinion these are all political bandaids to get votes from the newly environmentally conscious like me. Being seen to act is more important than outcomes in politics especially when these outcomes may fall in the other party’s term in office!
I believe a huge change can be had from learning to do what we do in better ways. Not to curtail what we do so much Andrew as you seem to be leading towards. Making people suffer even a little hardship is not politically sustainable and doomed to failure. Sorry but that is how I think we all work.
In any case, if anyone were to put a figure on emissions reduction as a direct result of the global economy crash we may all be pleasantly surprised. I bet it exceeds the Kyoto 2020 targets already. And virtually overnight too! Good one Wall Street.