News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Farmers may get more out of their soil with Rudd plan 

Farmers may get more out of their soil with Rudd plan

04 Feb, 2010 03:39 AM
ONE of the chief backers of soil carbon measures, the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, says farmers hoping to reduce emissions will get more money from the government's emissions trading than the opposition's climate policy.

In an opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald today, Peter Cosier of the Wentworth Group says farmers who increase carbon in their soil could be paid up to four times more under the government's emissions trading scheme.

The opposition has said it will rely on measures to increase soil in carbon like biochar, reducing tillage and using compost to make 60 per cent of the greenhouse gas cuts from its climate fund for industry.

The Coalition's policy would pay farmers up to $10 a tonne of carbon sequestered in soil.

''But $10 is a very low price,'' Mr Cosier said. ''Under the government's emissions trading scheme, according to Treasury modelling, farmers would be paid two, three or four times more than the Coalition's offer.''

Mr Cosier has welcomed the opposition's focus on storing carbon in soil and vegetation and said the measures could help it reach a 5pc cut in emissions by 2020. But he said much tougher targets needed to be adopted to stop global warming.

The government agreed to increase measures to pay farmers to store carbon in their soil in negotiations with the former opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull over its emissions trading scheme.

The government has said that, if proper methodologies are found to measure the amount of carbon in soil, it will give farmers credits for emission saved from 2013. The credits are expected to be worth close to $30 a tonne.

Biochar turns bio-waste from agriculture and farming into charcoal that is then put in farming soil, boosting productivity. It is yet to be commercially demonstrated.

A CSIRO soil carbon expert, Dr Jeffrey Baldock, said that while the technology had enormous potential in Australia, it was hard to measure and retain carbon stored in soil over a large area.

Concerns over measurement has meant soil carbon was not included in the Kyoto Protocol and cannot be counted towards national emissions targets. But a number of developed countries, including Australia, have argued that soil measures should now be included in a post-Kyoto agreement.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Farmers may receive less money for their stored carbon under the opposition plan, but the money they save from all other costs not increasing (after Rudd plan implemented) would probably work out to be more in their pockets at the end of the day. Two questions, is the Wentworth group funded by the Rudd Government, and to what extent? Would the Coalition continue to fund this group if elected?
Posted by Amused, 5/02/2010 4:50:44 AM
And under Rudd's scheme farmers will pay most of the money back in higher prices for raw materials and equipment.
Posted by Arden, 5/02/2010 5:00:13 AM
Will payment for soil carbon put an attachment on your land title effectively handing control of your land to the beaurocracy?
Posted by haystack, 5/02/2010 5:09:03 AM
the headline: "Farmers may get more".....told me this was going to be a fib. The wentworth group have the credibility of vegetarian crocodiles.
Posted by bill, 5/02/2010 5:35:19 AM
hahaha!! What a heap of rubbish. Soil carbon and the ETS is NEVER going to be a good idea. It has too many pitfalls and is way way too complicated which opens up all the small players to soooo many finanicial risks. Please god let Mr Abbott win the next election!! This ETS is ridiculous!!
Posted by bear, 5/02/2010 6:14:50 AM
Agree with you Bill. Farmers may get more, with MAY being the operative word. Means it's highly unlikely, but cannot be guaranteed, so really there is no comeback to them.
Posted by Amused, 5/02/2010 6:46:56 AM
Wait up!! The ETS taxes everyone and everything, turning us all into welfare dependents. Business will pass on costs, they have to. If Rudd's scheme offers more in $ for carbon, what about all that they intend to take ie. debits including emissions from animals? That factored in I'd take my chances with the 'tree thieves' rather than the KRudd spin.
Posted by Rebecca Dance, 5/02/2010 7:14:47 AM
The Wentworth Group is funded by the WWF. And it was Cosier who wrote to Beattie with the request to forget the detailed regional vegetation plans that we all worked on in good faith, unpaid, for more than two years, and impose a blanket clearing ban. They played a key role in the broadscale, indiscriminate confiscation of vegetation property rights and now have the gall to provide gratuitous investment advice to their victims. And for what? A purely speculative $30/tonne carbon price that is presented as some sort of financial bonanza. The reality is that any farmer who does any business with these kind of shonks for less than a cast iron $250/tonne of carbon needs a crash course in risk-weighted return analysis. We have all layers of government that have clearly demonstrated their willingness to confiscate carbon assets at the very first opportunity. The sovereign risk, the uncertainty and the total absence of respect for core principles sends the risk weightings right off the top of the page. Do your homework, folks.
Posted by Ian Mott, 5/02/2010 8:03:01 AM
What the commenters above seem to have forgotten would be productivity gains in crops and pastures on soils with higher soil carbon levels, improved soil moisture storage and similar positive feedback loops from the higher soil carbon levels. The debate has moved considerably...over the past two years from naysaying about a role for soil carbon to a positive embrace of the concept in the real world. We now are only debating the mechanisms of 'operation". Australian soils ARE low in soil carbon. We need more discussion on HOW soil carbon will be boosted, and now so much focus on politics of the mechanisms to pay or charge.
Posted by R See 1, 5/02/2010 9:02:50 AM
The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists may be more worried about the dissolution of the Carbon Industry and the drying up of grant funding.
Posted by Len, 5/02/2010 9:05:22 AM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
03 February, 2010
02 February, 2010
POLL
Q: What level of trust do you have in the claims made by environmental campaigners?

Total
(5%)

High
(12.7%)

Moderate
(6.2%)

Low
(21.3%)

None
(54.8%)

Total Votes: 1310
Poll Date: 31 January, 2010
SPECIAL FEATURES

Most popular articles

Advertisement

Irwin Hunter 160x160


Farm Weekly







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...