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

On climate modelling

On peak oil

On crop forecasts [actually, that one’s a media release.

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

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!

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

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!

...] Read full article on Crikey. [...