News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Garnaut: AgForce backs agriculture's exclusion 

Garnaut: AgForce backs agriculture's exclusion

04 Jul, 2008 04:13 PM
AgForce has backed Professor Ross Garnaut's recommendation that agriculture be excluded from the national emissions trading scheme, saying no other country in the world has been able to find a way of accurately covering farming.

AgForce president Peter Kenny says the introduction of a national emissions trading scheme (ETS) has the potential to be the largest economic reform this country has ever seen and the potential implications for agriculture are immense.

Mr Kenny said because of the complexity in measuring agricultural emissions and sequestration and its impact on food prices, no country in the world currently had agriculture as a covered sector (i.e., one taxed on its emissions).

"Even New Zealand - which had planned to make agriculture a covered sector within the first few years - is now beginning to back away after government figures showed that their proposed scheme could cut farm profitability by between 20-40pc, pre tax," he said.

"AgForce does not believe agriculture should be a covered sector in Australia.

"What we do support is the use of research as it can deliver both improved efficiency and reduced emissions.

"The Federal Government is still unable to demonstrate how it plans to account for the significant offsets already provided by agriculture (unlike the major emitting industries) or how it plans to account for the price we have already paid here in Queensland because of the land clearing legislation.

"Australia also currently lacks the mechanisms needed to independently measure agriculture's carbon emissions and it's vital to our industries that both their emissions and the full scope of their carbon sequestration are known, measured and understood."

Modelling from the Australian Farm Institute estimates that input costs could increase by up to 45pc for some cropping enterprises and 15pc for some livestock operations.

"Increases of this scale would make many producers unviable even if agriculture is not a covered sector, it will certainly drive up the price paid by consumers," Mr Kenny said.

"The Federal Government has some difficult decisions to make but no sector of the economy is more exposed than this nation’s farmers. We not only have to deal first hand with the practical implications of climate change but also the economic implications of an emissions trading scheme."

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

RELATED COVERAGE

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Agriculture will not escape from paying its way. The alternative to being covered in a market-based system that allows businesses to choose how to manage their response is being told what to do by government. In an ominous warning at the Farm Institute conference last March, a senior public servant said that if agriculture is left out of the trading scheme, the government would resort to legislation to ensure agriculture makes the big changes needed to reduce emissions.

The Carbon Coalition has been campaigning since 2006 for land holders to be given the right to trade the carbon they can grow in their soils. Sequestration rates in trials in WA and QLD confirm our belief that soil managed for carbon - using a portfolio of techniques such as grazing management, pasture cropping and biological farming - can capture and store enough carbon to offset the emissions from methane and nitrogen, when combined with other mitigation strategies.

No official scientific research has tested these combinations of techniques, so anyone proclaiming that sequestration rates are too small to be bothered with is talking through their hat. The campaign of misinformation and intimidation waged against the morale of the farm community and its leaders has succeeded in frightening us into submission. In their presentations about the likely impacts of Climate Change, scientists and government officials and even some industry representatives have followed a strategy of presenting only worst case scenarios with no mention of factors that will balance the situation, such as new techniques and technologies or the potential contribution soils can make.

This barrage of pessimism has succeeded in softening up industry leaders who don't understand the issues or how they are being manipulated. For as long as Agriculture is content to be given 'special status', it will be reduced to the 'poor bugger me' hand-out mentality. It won't work this time because there are no free rides. We'll pay one way or the other.

The excuses for leaving Agriculture out - difficulty of measurement and administration of many small enterprises - are both overblown furphies. No other industry is forced to measure its emissions directly. They all rely on estimations. Why not Agriculture?

And if the Tax Office can deal with 130,000 enterprises reporting each year, why can't the Department of Climate Change? The arguments used against Agriculture's right to stand up on its own feet are disingenuous and unsubstantiated.

The Carbon Coalition calls on the Department of Climate Change to release the substantive arguments and evidence and sources used to support the contention that measurement and administration are insurmountable problems. At the same time, we suggest that the farm community will not be satisfied to accept the reliability of government science as a basis for decisions that impact on their lives and businesses, given the gaps in the data sets in the soil carbon inventory.

The Coalition requests that a panel of experts audit the methodologies of all scientific studies on which major policy decisions have been based.

Posted by Michael Kiely, 5/07/2008 10:52:48 AM
Everyone needs to contribute to reductions!!
Posted by Concerned, 7/07/2008 11:38:44 AM
EMISSIONS: except for CO2 emissions all other emissions from the farm can be measured economically. The real questions is whether if CO2 emissions are ignored is a soil carbon trading scheme worthwhile to introduce. The answer is yes, as the result is a reduction in CO2 in the atmosphere, (and as a side benefit, increase soil fertility which will also enable reduced fertiliser requirements).

COMPETITIVE POSITION: As long as farm products exported receive a rebate for carbon taxes paid and imported farm products are charged the equivalent carbon tax that domestic farmers may have to pay if farming in brought into a carbon tax / ETS system, then farmers compeitive position will not be affected.

Posted by Terry, 7/07/2008 3:27:55 PM
To put it another way, everybody needs to work towards improving efficiency in use of energy. We need to do this even if climate change is a furphy.
Posted by Ted O'Brien, 7/07/2008 8:51:18 PM

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.
AgForce president Peter Kenny.
AgForce president Peter Kenny.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
POLL
Q: How do you rate the effectiveness of the current exceptional circumstances drought assistance program?

Excellent
(8.1%)

Good
(17.2%)

Average
(17.7%)

Poor
(24.7%)

Terrible
(32.3%)

Total Votes: 344
Poll Date: 06 July, 2008

Most popular articles

Ray White Rural MON0152
 
Small Farms Expo
 
Freedom Tanks
 
Irwin HunterIrwin Hunter
 
IRRIGATION CONFERENCE 2010
 
WA Merino Magazine
 
FBG
 
photo gallery


 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...