PRESSURE is mounting on the Federal Government to treat farmers in the same way as their American counterparts in an emissions trading scheme, following the narrow passage of US legislation on the weekend which paves the way for a cap and trade scheme.
With debate on emissions trading in Australia deferred until August - after Canberra's winter recess - all eyes are on the United States' legislation.
This will undoubtedly have ramifications for schemes across the globe and for the anticipated international agreement on climate change when world leaders meet in Copenhagen in December.
The US legislation, excluding agriculture from reporting emissions, was narrowly passed by Congress on Friday.
It proposes to cut fossil fuel emissions from power plants, factories, oil refineries and vehicles to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.
The US is responsible for 30 per cent of the world's emissions (Australia is responsible for one per cent).
As in Australia, the Bills' prospects when it reaches the Senate are far murkier - the legislation is by no means a done-deal yet.
While in Australia the Government intends to include agriculture in a scheme from 2015 for both its emissions and its credits, one of the key features of the US legislation is that agriculture is considered "in" on the credit side but "out" on the debit side.
Farmers will be allowed to generate and sell carbon credits by reporting farming practices which supposedly reduce emissions.
Australian Dairy Farmers chairman, Alan Burgess, said what the US has done proves Australia needs "a total rethink" on the design of our scheme.
Yet despite hard-fought concessions for agriculture, major US farm lobby, the American Farm Bureau, says an emissions trading scheme will "unquestionably impose enormous costs on the American economy, including agriculture".
Farm bureau president, Bob Stallman, said economic analysis done by the lobby group shows net farm income will decline by $5 billion annually by the year 2020 if the Bill goes through.
He said the Bill would result in a net economic cost to farmers with little or no environmental benefit and does nothing to require other countries, such as China and India, to undertake similar programs.
Back in Australia, Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, has used the passing of the US legislation to fire arrows at the Opposition for delaying a vote on the Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
"As the US moves to the low pollution economy of the future, Australia must also stake its place in this new global economy," Senator Wong said.
"We can maximise our contribution to any global deal by legislating the CPRS and showing we have a responsible plan to deliver our targets... (Liberal leader) Malcolm Turnbull and the Opposition should stop standing in the way of that."
The Opposition's emissions trading spokesman, Andrew Robb, flies out to the US today to get a handle on how agriculture and other industries will be dealt with by the American scheme and to closely follow the US Senate negotiations.
He told Rural Press before he left that the US position on agriculture vindicates what the Coalition has been calling for with regards to a voluntary offsets scheme.
"We've been saying for 12 months there should be an offset scheme for agriculture but the Government said it can't be done because the Europeans won't allow it.
"But the first thing the US did was exactly this – they have kept agriculture out when it comes to measuring emissions, but allowed them to offset their emissions and sell credits by improving their practices.
"This would encourage a lot of positive activity in agriculture but without imposing all the costs that would be incurred if they were directly part of a scheme.
"If we're too far out ahead of the United States, or other countries for that matter, all we'll do is impose a major tax on agriculture and other industries and we will be a lot less competitive for no good reason.
"At the present time all the indications are that the rest of the world, or the major developed countries, will not be including agriculture.
"If we were to go ahead and include agriculture when the rest of the world has not that would put as at a major disadvantage. It would be totally unacceptable."
Mr Robb said the Government's priority should be "to get this thing right" and not to rush it through because there's some "political imperative" where it will provide the Government with a trigger for an election if the Bill is voted down.
Nationals leader, Warren Truss, said the US House of Representatives has supported measures which are a significant improvement on the "all stick, no carrot approach" of the Australian Government, and is calling for a full re-write of the Australian scheme.
"The US House of Representatives legislation tries to protect jobs, while the Rudd Labor Bill seems determined to destroy them," Mr Truss said.
Assistant Minister for Climate Change, Greg Combet said Australia's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme has been designed to flexibly interface with the US emissions trading arrangements and "there is no case for delay".
National Farmers Federation currently has a policy manager in the United States to monitor the negotiations on the legislation and better understand the treatment of US farmers.
NFF president, David Crombie, said it looks as though there is at least some understanding of agriculture and its complexities in relation to emissions trading, as well as the needs of trade-exposed and export oriented industries.
Email a friend
Favourites
Del.icio.us
Facebook
Digg
StumbleUpon
MySpace
Reddit
Newsvine
LinkedIn
Kwoff
Twitter