"Business as usual" Qld farmers are right to protect their plot - but gov't needs to bring all aspects of trading to the table to get everyone on board with understanding and systems. Unfortunatly if Qld farmers go out and put best prac in place immediately they will be penalized under the "Business as usual" carbon starting point.

Implement the Natural Sequence Farming practices in co-operation with Peter Andrews. Simple.

The use of a market is considered the cheapest and most effective way of getting adaption and mitigation techniques implemented, that's why the government prefers it.

Carbon emission trading will always just be a way to extract more wealth from agriculture, (i.e. the land). This is unless all compensation and subsidy payment to urban areas, as well as labour market regulations that track labour costs up faster than rising energy costs over the long term. Anything short of this will be a further blow to sustainable agriculture, which is already struggling to support the artificial high levels of consumption due to regulation of the market once the farm product leaves the farm gate. Carbon emissions are directly linked to a person's ability to consume wealth and with regulations to support wages, any action short of changing this, is a joke.

The present govt policy, (and maybe opposition's) of offering compensation to the higher cost from emission trading scheme demonstrates how naive politics has become. What this means, is before and after a emission trading scheme, a person's ability to buy energy will be same after the compensation scheme kicks in to neutralize the cost. What a sick joke against agriculture but at least some people are seeing the scheme for what it is.

The QFF is right to question the wisdom of introducing an emissions trading scheme (ETS) and the resulting adverse impacts that will have on agriculture and the nation. The need for an ETS is based on the output of computer models used by the IPCC, based on their theory that carbon dioxide and other man-induced greenhouse gases are the cause of the intermitent warming that occurred last century.

If you read the latest relevant IPCC technical report, you will find that the main substantiation for this theory, the so called 'hocky stick graph' has been dropped because it has been comprehensively discredited. The Vostok ice core data remains as the only evidence provided and that shows that carbon dioxide peaks some 800 years after temperatures peak. This is clear evidence that carbon dioxide was not the cause of the warming. That leaves only the computer models to substantiate their claims. Of the many millions of factors and data required to mathematically represent global climate, there are only 6 or 7 that have the requisite level of confidence. Many are left out altogether and others are repeatedly 'tweaked' until an outcome that suits the programmers expectations is obtained. This is simply not science and it is certainly not evidence that greenhouse gases are the cause of the warming. Even the IPCC agree. Buried on page 505 of the IPCC's 3rd Report body, but ignored in the Summary for Policymakers (which are usually the only part read) it states "In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible".

There is much well referenced evidence on the other hand that the present warming is part of a regular cycle of of warming and cooling that has been going on for millions of years. Most of the evidence provided is evidence that warming is occuring, which is not in dispute, it is the cause of the warming that is the crux of the question. The NSW Farmers Association is calling on the Federal Government to hold an open and comprehensive Inquiry to check all of the science surrounding this issue, before introducing its 'Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme' (CPRS). The increasing costs of this CPRS will be so massive that at the very least the public need to be reassured that the scientific basis for such a far reaching scheme are correct. On the other hand if the scientific evidence is not here, these funds can be much more effectively spent on some of the real problems facing mankind.

Maybe all those coastal voters in favour of "green" policies could invest in a hoe instead of gym classes. They could head bush and till the soil the old fashioned way. They would feel good they have made a positive contribution to the environment instead of burning up energy in the city for nought returns and adding to carbon emissions through transport and power generating emissions.

This article starts of by saying that the QFF is bucking the accepted wisdom. The so-called accepted wisdom isn't actually true. And it is not accepted by rational people. The rubbish being pushed by some governments is based on complete lies. Many from Academia can obtain vast grants by pushing the lies associated with their so called man made climate change and its acompaning hysteria. There are many top and highly respected scientists who recognise the lies associated with this hysteria. Their numbers are growing.