The federal governments Emission Trading Scheme will once again sacrifice our Australian farmers, at the alter of political expediencies.
Forcing our farmers away from food and fibre production into Trees for no net benefit to global climate is as foolish as using ceral grains to make bio-fuels.
There are many who argue that if the full Carbon life cycle were taken into consideration then Australian Agriculture would be at worst a neutral, if not a net sequester of Greenhouse gases.
However we will not know if thats the case until the science catches up and the world carbon accounting recognizes the full carbon cycle of Agriculture.
As the Garnaut report states:
“Australia has the largest area of forest and wooded land per person in the OECD and the second largest globally behind Suriname. There are about 28.8 hectares of forest and wooded land for every person in Australia (FAO 2008).
In OECD countries there are on average 1.4 hectares of forest and woodland per person, and across the world there are on average 0.8 hectares.”
The Kyoto protocol only recognizes carbon sequestration from trees planted after 1990. The science even suggests that the accounting methods used are inacurate: From Garnaut again -
“Australia has an estimated 163.7 million hectares of forest and 421.6 millionhectares of other wooded land (FAO 2008). The IPCC default values for temperate forests are a carbon stock of 217 tonnes carbon per hectare, 96 tonnes biomass carbon per hectare and net primary productivity of 7 tonnes carbon per hectare per year.
These estimates are probably conservative for intact (unlogged) natural forests. Mackey et al. (2008) have shown that the stock of carbon for intact natural eucalypt forests in south-eastern Australia is about 640 tonnes carbon per hectare (biomass plus soil, with a standard deviation of 383), with 360 tonnes biomass carbon per hectare.
The average net primary productivity of these forests is 12 tonnes carbon per hectare per year (with a standard deviation of 1.8). Mackey et al. estimate that the eucalypt forests of south-eastern Australian could remove about 136 Mt CO2-e per year (on average) for the next 100 years. This estimate is premised on several key assumptions, including cessation of logging and controlled burning over the 14.5 million hectare study area.
In 2006 the net removal by pre-1990 plantations and native forests was estimated to be about 24.1 Mt CO2-e (DCC 2008b). Under Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol this sequestration does not contribute to Australia meeting its Kyoto target.
It is important for efficient global mitigation that the international community move to comprehensive carbon accounting related to agriculture and forestry. This is particularly important for Australia.
Comparative carbon accounting, among much else, would bring to account all carbon sequestered by and emitted from managed lands.
Because the science and international carbon accounting standards are so deficient Garnaut is left with no choice but to place all of this in the to hard basket.
Whilst farmers sit on the only natural asset we possess to actually sequester greenhouse gases – trees, soil and vegetation, the science is so deficient that practically none of it is measurable. Hence significant carbon sequestration that occurs every day in rural & regional Australia is ignored (except for trees planted after 1990).
Instead farmers are treated as ‘dirty emitters’ who must pay financially for their wicked ways, whilst the Rudd Government spends a $100m tax payers dollars a year to fund a carbon capture institute to save the coal industry.
The modus operandi continues, if in doubt …. screw our farmers.
7 Comments
We are trying to reduce our carbon levels relative to our carbon levels at 1990. That’s why we don’t accept planting prior to that date.
Carbon accounting is never perfect but nevertheless it is an attempt to estimate the current net value of carbon going into the atmosphere.
Yes, trees planted prior to 1990 are not counted and yes, this is an arbitrary cut-off, but we have to start somewhere.
Please do not pretend that farm practices over the years have been environmentally friendly.
As has always been the case, farmers are the key to our future survival. I just hope that farmers do not react as many others have done with old thinking on this issue.
Farmers can and will benefit from a carbon constrained world.
Farmers just need to do two things with trees – leave them standing when they can and plant more of ‘em!
G’day Kit,
Thank you for pointing out why pre 1990 trees are not counted. I find your comment interesting -
“Please do not pretend that farm practices over the years have been environmentally friendly.”
I hear it a lot. How farmers using old European farming methods have destroyed Australia’s fragile environment.
I’m the first to admit that in the past and even today there has been and are a small minority of farmers who have not cared for their country. That should not be a surprise as in any industry be it mechanics, hairdressers, lawyers, doctors, there is a small percentage who don’t do the right thing. But does that mean because there is one bad doctor they are all bad. Of course not.
It is hard to imagine a European farm that is even remotely comparable to an Australian Sheep station, cattle farm or wheat farm. The scales are completely different… or farmers have totally adapted to Australia (other than the constraints of climate and water but they are not because of the European methods).
I’d have thought our ability to be a global breadbasket in spite of being the driest, most barren continent is testimony to agricultures willingness and ability to adapt.
But then Urban folk would know better.
As for Trees – just how many would you like?
Our farmers are totally responsive to the climate and the returns of what they produce. Given the financial incentives of being able to count carbon sequestration they will stop producing Food & Fibre and plant more trees if it is more viable.
Australian’s already have 28.8 Hectares of forest and woodland for every man women and child in the country.
“In OECD countries there are on average 1.4 hectares of forest and woodland per person, and across the world there are on average just 0.8 hectares of woodland and forest per person.”
So yes Kit if thats what the government & the Australian public would prefer to turn another 9 million hectares over from food & fibre production so be it. That would then mean for every one of the 21.5 million Australians there will be 29.3 hectares of trees.
All to save the planet – however meanwhile in the Brazil as we speak:
“About 760sq km of the Amazon was destroyed last month, compared with 230sq km in August 2007.”
I think we need to keep all of this in a global perspective – don’t you?
Cheers – Your Agmate – Steve
Steve, as I said, an ETS is rarely perfect. But it is very important that in the pursuit of perfection, we do not sacrifice the good
As you know, at the moment it is hard to measure the benefits that agriculture brings and easy to measure the dis-benefits. But as you will also know, until we understand the full carbon cycle agriculture is not bound to any reduction in its emissions, despite its contributions to our emissions.
Agriculture has enormous potential to benefit from a carbon constrained world. So, the agricultural sector, rather than rail against it, should endeavour to get on board; quantify the full carbon cycle and change its habits where necessary.
As Professor Garnaut says in his report:
The barriers to recognising carbon dioxide removal by soil could be overcome within decades, presenting soil carbon as a new commodity for landowners. [p. 548]
Professor Garnaut points out that the use of conservation tillage compared to conventional tillage will increase carbon sequestration by 25%. Imagine when farmers can sell this sequestration capacity!
G’day Kit,
You are 100% correct in everything you have said. But how do you survive in any business (let alone farming) for decades when an ETS reduces your profit by 100%.
The 100% is ABARE’s prediction. Farmers are not trying to duck away for doing there bit, they are just trying to stay in business.
That is what Garnaut is referring to when he says Structural Change. The last time farmers heard him say that was when like now he did the research and modeling to adopt free trade. He said at the time Australia should lead the way and the rest of the world would follow.
A decade on and 7 world free trade conferences they still have not. In that time 11,000 farming families have left the industry and rural communities are just a shadow of there former selves.
The way it looks the ETS will have a greater impact on the viability of farmers than free trade. I’m sorry to be so grim about it, but when ABARE and Garnaut himself are predicting this – its hard not to be.
Cheers Kit
Steve, on ABARE, can I just point you to a few posts at Greensblog that you might find revealing about ABARE’s reliability?
On climate modelling
On peak oil
On crop forecasts [actually, that one’s a media release.
G’day Tim,
I could not read the 1st and 3rd link that you provided – all I got was access denied. Got the peak oil on. Interesting, the rural industry sees this most of the time with ABARE’s forecast.
Would really like to read the climate modeling if you could post a link that I can access.
Had a good look around the Greensblog – good site.
Thanks mate – Steve