Soil Carbon spells H-O-P-E

Two conversations yesterday - an officer from a rural municipality who reported that optimism is in short supply in the bush. "We are overstocked with Doom and Gloom." Everything points to Bad. Even Soil Carbon. The Negativists have got to them. Would we come and talk to them. They need some hope. Second conversation was with a most senior soil scientist who is working on a measurement methodology and is including economists and statisticians in his development team. He is a Simplifier, not a Complicator. He gave me hope. We have a lot to be hopeful about. Tony Abbott is announcing his Great Soil Carbon Plan in a few days, after a media build-up akin to the Second Coming. The Government's National Carbon Offset Standard announced itself last December, with several pointed references to soil carbon and farmers' creating offsets. The Standard starts operation in July, which isn't much time. Slowly but surely soil carbon is breaking through to the media and their understanding will grow - and with it the community's understanding. Then we could see a shift in mood. The "stifling fear" of climate change that people carry in their hearts - and which sparks denial and other disorders of the spirit - can terrify them only while they feel that there is no hope. Ironically it is those in denial who rob them of hope by denying the source of the problem, giving humanity no action it can take to counter the threat. Once soil carbon is understood, truly understood in its every dimension, optimism will return. And once there is a price on soil carbon, then the innovators will deliver the solutions that currently remain hidden under a pile of old ideas and ideologies. "Let the dead bury their dead." (Luke 9:59-62) The future speaks a language that the past cannot understand. It is the language of hope.

"Men argue; Nature acts." Voltaire

Imagine what our landscape would be like if we had started carbon farming in earnest a decade ago... Imagine if, 10 years ago, instead of arguing about climate change, we had acted. Imagine if Australia's agricultural lands had been managed to increase carbon in the soil for decade. In 10 years even the driest, hottest landscape could have experienced what ecologists called the 'emergent properties' of a natural system. Would one of these emergent properties be the 'micro-climate' effect, a feedback loop that starts with increased vegetation causing cooler air which attracts more moisture which in turn leads to increased vegetation. It is related to the albedo effect, which occurs when harsh sunlight is reflected from a light-coloured, smooth surface (like bare earth) more effectively that from a darker surface (like vegetation). If cooler air could be released, it may mean more rain. What if the 'microclimate was an entire district? Or a series of districts? Would we see a series of cascading feedback loops, working in our favour this time? I believe we could draw down the Legacy Load and at the same time set the microclimate/albedo dynamic free upon the land. Imagine if we had had even 5 years already of steady carbon farming... What could we have done?

February workhops in NSW

READY TO FARM SOIL CARBON?

AUSTRALIA’S VOLUNTARY CARBON MARKET STANDARD BEGINS JULY 2010

Practical Carbon Farming – 2-Day Workshop
(FarmReady Approved – FARMERS REIMBURSED 100%)
Wagga Wagga 3rd-4th February, Riverine Club
Young 8th-9th February, Young Services Club
Tamworth 16th-17th February, TBA
Bungendore 23rd-24th February, Mulloon Creek Farm

No matter what happens to the ETS legislation, the Voluntary Carbon Market will now open in 2010. Minister Penny Wong has released a Standard for Trading in Carbon Offsets – with focus on farmers and soil carbon. The Opposition’s Tony Abbott believes paying farmers for soil carbon is “Direct Action” on Climate Change. So your time is now.

YOU HAVE ONE DECISION TO MAKE:

“Do I KNOW ENOUGH to make A SAFE DECISION?”

• “How do I start measuring the carbon that we’re growing?”
• “What Soil Carbon Programs are operating?”
• “What do we have to commit to?”
• “How much land should I enroll to start?”
• “What are the risks?”
• “What are the likely returns?”
• “Could we offer soil sampling services in our district?”
• “Should I register as a grower with one of the programs?”
• “Or should we wait and see?”

You can find your own answers to all these questions and more at the Practical Carbon Farming 2-Day Workshop.

FREE COPY CARBON FARMING HANDBOOK
Attendees will receive a copy of The Carbon Farming Handbook, the only book of its kind in the world. The A-to-Z of Soil Carbon Sequestration. RRP $55.00. YOURS FREE.


CARBON FARMERS OF AUSTRALIA
This course is taught By Carbon Farmers of Australia: The Soil Carbon Specialists: Carbon Farmers is a not-for-profit company.

The Principals of Carbon Farmers of Australia are Pioneers of Soil Carbon Education. They have been practicing “Carbon Farming” for 10 years on their 1780 acre wool-growing property in the Central West of NSW

• Campaigned since 2005 to establish the market
• Conducted the first study tour of the USA soil carbon industry in 2006
• Secured the first order for Australian agricultural soil from the Chicago Climate Exchange 2006.
• Made sales of Australian soil carbon credits in March 2007
• Organised the first “Soil Science Summits” between scientists and farmers 2007.
• Staged the world’s first Carbon Farming Conference, Mudgee 2007.
• Launched the first formal training program on soil carbon 2008.
• Wrote and published the first Carbon Farming Handbook 2009
• Helped secure $26 million in funds for research to make it easier to measure soil carbon for trade 2009.
• Appointed to FAO-organised rangelands and conservation farming advocacy groups (In USA) 2008/9
• Consulted by Ministers of both sides of Parliament in Canberra.

CARBON FARMERS OF AUSTRALIA IS THE NOT-FOR-PROFIT COMMERCIAL OPERATING ARM OF THE CARBON COALITION.
The income from these activities is essential to enable the work of the Coalition to continue.

GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCES SOIL CARBON TRADING
*"The National Carbon Offset Standard provides Australian businesses, particularly farmers, with the opportunity to develop offset credits for voluntary carbon markets. These opportunities include offsets from increased soil carbon and from other land-based emissions sources.” (http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/carbon-offset.aspx)

TO REGISTER CALL 02 674 0329
OR EMAIL louisa@carboncoalition.com.au
P: (02) 6374 0329 M: 0417 280 540

TESTIMONIALS

GUY WEBB, GAIA CONSULTING, FORBES: “Michael and Louisa Kiely of the Carbon Coalition have gathered all the fragmented pieces of the soil carbon puzzle together into a cohesive 2 day course that allows growers to get a very firm grip on how soil carbon can built and traded. The Kiely’s are a relentless force of nature that will not stop until farmers are being paid fairly to store carbon in soil”

ANGUS MAURICE, INNOVATIVE FARMER, SPICERS CREEK: Fantastic insight into the most recent developments in the politics, policy and possibilities of all things carbon. This is combined with some terrific information on many farming techniques which could achieve multiple goals such as primary production, ecological service and carbon sequestration. I like the concept of these WIN WIN systems for the farmer and the environment. Thoroughly enjoyed the 2 days.

FRAN & PETER PROWSE, PROWSE AGRICULTURE, KEMPSEY: “We were glad we attended the Practical Carbon Farming - Soil Carbon Workshop. Being parents of young children and also working in the Agricultural Supply Industry the course was informative and very encouraging in our path towards healthy and productive crops and a sound and viable future for Australian Farming. We are now better equipped with practical ways we can help our clients with carbon retention and Carbon Farming.”

WE CAN COME TO YOUR DISTRICT. Call us to discuss how to arrange it. CALL 02 674 0329
OR EMAIL louisa@carboncoalition.com.au

Practical Soil Carbon Farming
Program


Introduction to Soil Carbon
The Carbon Cycle and Climate Change
What is Carbon?
Why it is called a “Greenhouse Gas”
The Science of Climate Change
Methane, nitrous oxide, and CO2-e
Implications for Agriculture
Kyoto Protocols and Agriculture
Origin of the ETS/CPRS
Kyoto Protocols
Global Sequestration Potential (USA/FAO estimations)
Food Security

Soil Carbon Dynamics
How soil carbon is made
Photosynthesis – plants, trees, algae, cyanobacteria
Fractions – Soil Organic Carbon vs Soil Organic Matter
Soil Biology – Microbial Community

Co-Benefits of Soil Carbon
Economic: Stop topsoil losses, reduce inputs, better usage water, potential trade etc.
Environmental: Increased biodiversity, reduced silting of waterways, reduced usage biocides, reduced salinity, etc.
Social: Rural sector seen to be playing crucial role in mitigating effects of climate change; Food Security from higher production reduce refugee numbers anticipated; Trading in soil carbon boosts economy of rural communities; etc.
Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change – “Secure Bridge To The Future” – Soil Carbon’s unique role

Land Management
Growing Soil Carbon
The 3 Elements (Climate, Soil Type, Land Management)
Carbon Farming – Land Management for Soil Sequestration of Carbon
Guiding Principles: Ground Cover, Perenniality, Nutrient Management, etc.
Getting Started: Soil Mapping, Soil Tests
“Potential” of Australian Soils
The Bucket Theory
High Cost of Humus
Holding Bay vs Vault Theory

Carbon Farming Planning
AdHoc vs Planned strategy
Soil Carbon Optimising Tool (SCOT)
The 5 Levels: Water, Vegetation, Land, Soil, Biology
How they contribute to sequestration
How they relate to each other
The Options Available At Each Level (From Leaky Weirs to Probiotic Inoculants)

Water Management -– Hydrology Planning & Engineering - Landscape Rehydration (Natural Sequence Farming, Keyline, Newell System, etc.)

Vegetation Planning - Agroforestry, (forests, shelter belts, wildlife corridors, saline plantings), Grassy Woodlands, Edible Shrubs, Mid-storey plantings, etc.

Land – Conservation Farming, Minimum-Till, No-Till, No-Till/No-Kill,, Controlled Traffic, Permaculture, etc.

Soil Management – Mulching, Pasture Cropping, Perennial Cover Cropping, Grazing Management, Shellacking, Green Mulching, etc.

Biology Husbandry – Biofertilisers, Compost, Compost Teas, Bio-dynamics, Biochar, Probiotics, Dung Beetles, Earthworms, etc.

Soil Carbon & Soil Biology
Microbes Manufacture Carbon
All soil carbon sequestration methods support Microbes
Decomposition & Photosynthesis
The Cycle of Life
The Microbial Community
Detritifers & Decomposers
Bacteria
Fungi
Protozoa
Nematodes
Microarthropods
Earthworms
Ants, Springtails, Termites
Role of Biological Community

Trading Soil Carbon
Origins of Carbon Trading
How Cap & Trade Works
Offsets, Permits & Carbon Credits
Kyoto Protocols
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme
Two Markets
Mandatory Market
Voluntary Market: North America
Price Histories
Opportunity for Agriculture in Australia National Carbon Offset Standard

Trading Issues for Australian Farmers
MMV – measurement, monitoring and verification - costs
Additionality: Will Early Movers Be Disadvantaged?
Permanence Issues and solutions.
Carbon pools.

Post-Copenhagen Opportunity
The Global Alliance Seeking A Fair Deal For Agriculture
Redefining Additionality, Permanence
Decoupling Emissions and Sequestration
Removing Liability for Methane, N20 Emissions
Food Crisis & Food Security
Secure Bridge To The Future

The Prime Carbon Trading System
Voluntary Market Operation
Responsibilities of the Land Holder
Responsibilities of the Program Manager
Risk Management System
Redefining Additionality, Permanence

Carbon Farmers of Australia “Adopta Farmer Fighting Greenhouse”
Farm Gate Market
Voluntary
Retail/Consumer
CCX model
Fixed Price
“Sponsorship”
“Provisional” Offsets

Carbon Balance Sheet
The Attack of the Vegans
Methane and the Carbon Cycle
Intensity
Warming Potential
Measurement issues
Methane Management Methods
Stock Numbers/ Genetics & Efficiency
Feed
Supplements
Inoculants
The Nitrogen Cycle
NO2 Management Methods
Avoiding over-application
Targetted application
N inhibitors
Effluent Management

Participants’ Consultation
Feedback on Trading Issues
Carbon Coalition strategies and activities
Other Issues

Hocus Pocus - Decoding Scientific Reports

Scientists – when writing reports for non-scientists – are allowed to use some big words to sparkle-arkle the presentation. But some go further in their desire to convince the world that trading soil C is the AntiChrist. Was there ever a day when ‘scientist’ meant ‘truth’ and ‘objective’? Sadly the following – taken from a paper on grasslands management in Australia, submitted to an international workshop – proves that science has come a long way from that hazy ideal.

“While there is doubtless substantial technical potential to increase C-storage in grazed Australian ecosystems above- and below-ground, (WHILE WE CAN DRAW DOWN MILLIONS OF TONNES OF CO2 BY MANAGING GRASSLANDS, WE CAN’T DO IT FOR ALL THESE IMPORTANT-SOUNDING REASONS – PRODUCE DOVE OUT OF HANDKERCHIEF) an adequate information base for accurately quantifying that expected potential for any specific changed management regime does not exist.” (SLEIGHT OF HAND: ASSUME MODELS ARE THE ONLY SOLUTION) It is not yet clear that reduced animal production is always necessarily a concomitant to achieving increased soil C stocks, although that seems logical for most situations. (THREE CARD TRICK: LOGICAL ONLY TO A NON-FARMER – DOES ‘SEEMS LOGICAL’ QUALIFY AS A SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATION?) This poor state of the information-base will be inhibitory to the uptake of any market-based C-trading or GHG-trading system for grazing land based approaches. (SMOKE & MIRRORS: A SCIENTIST IS AN EXPERT ON EVERYTHING, INCLUDING MARKET ECONOMICS) There are numerous complicating factors that will need to be addressed and dealt with explicitly in any market-based GHG trading scheme that involves C-sequestration into grazed ecosystems. (THESE COMPLICATING FACTORS ARE ALL MAGICIANS’ TRICKS) These include, linked emission and/or uptake of methane and nitrous oxide associated with management changes for achieving changed C-sequestration, (OBVIOUSLY NOT) the impact on C-stocks of wildfire frequency and intensity, (ILLOGICAL KYOTO NONSENSE) compensatory non-domesticated animal grazing, (WE’LL HAVE TO SHOOT THE KANGAROOS) and large scale movement of high-C surface topsoil by flood and wind, (NO MENTION OF INCREASED GROUND COVER?) difficulties of defining baseline C-stocks and baseline GHG fluxes from each patch of land under consideration especially when the requisite baseline is in the past, (GIBBERISH) long time-frames (several decades) required and high expense for measuring change in C-stocks in each patch of land under a scheme, (THE OLD COST OF HUMUS TRICK) the high actual input-value or opportunity-value of the mineral elements associated with increased organic C stocks (ARE THERE NO FREE LIVING N –FIXING BACTERIA), the special status of any lands that have already been defined as “Kyoto Lands” by coming under Kyoto Protocol arrangements (SAW THE GIRL IN HALF), and the interaction of C-sequestration with other environmental externalities that are coming under different management policy arrangements such as interactions with hydrological and biodiversity policies (FALSE ASSUMPTION – ESCAPE HATCH) The existence of the above and other real-life complexities will render market-based C-trading schemes involving pastures, exposed to the risks of complicated, ill-conceived, ill-understood, poorly regulated financial instruments and arrangements that are replete with opportunity for fraudulent scams and inappropriate diversion of community wealth to the personal fortunes of scheme managers and traders, while not delivering the scheme objectives, reminiscent of those involved in the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2009. (DISAPPEAR IN PUFF OF SMOKE).

Science or Politics: CSIRO compromised

There are two types of soil scientist: those who can grasp the urgent necessity of deploying soil carbon-increasing strategies and those who do not. Among the latter, I an told, there are climate change denialists and haters of market mechanisms.
It is easy to spot an anti-soil C trading scientist. They harp on about complexity, find lots of it, and make no attempt to simplify. They are so transparently fixed. Even their language in scientific papers is political. Here is an extreme example from a 2009 CSIRO paper:

“The existence of the above and other real-life complexities will render market-based C-trading schemes involving pastures, exposed to the risks of complicated, ill-conceived, ill-understood, poorly regulated financial instruments and arrangements that are replete with opportunity for fraudulent scams and inappropriate diversion of community wealth to the personal fortunes of scheme managers and traders, while not delivering the scheme objectives, reminiscent of those involved in the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2009.”

As someone dedicated to seeing the market open as soon as possible, I find this language objectionable and wholly inappropriate coming from an institution that parades its “brand” as being based on the highest standards of science. Individually, its scientists might be denialists or paranoid about trade or afraid of losing control of farmers. But science is science, or it used to be. Has the scientific community got an opinion on this type of derogatory, defamatory language in scientific reports?

Why are the Climate Rednecks Revolting (and What Can Be Done)?

The Rebellion against Action on Climate Change is in full swing. The extreme right of politics is providing the firepower and media management skills in an attempt to rewind the plan shared by member countries of the United Nations to reduce emissions of Greenhouse Gases and shift to non-polluting energy platforms.
The Rebellion exploits the major weakness in its UN’s defences: Climate Change is a complex issue that few people understand. Inside this void a potent mixture of junk science, sloganeering and smear have been woven into conspiracy theories that play to the fears of the unsophisticated voter.
So far the Rebels have used politicised ‘scientists’ as an alternative authority to gain traction in the debate. Official science failed to respond to the challenge, simply dismissing the Denialists’ scientists’ output as “rubbish” which can’t be found in peer-reviewed journals. Common-sense folk have no idea what this means. The arrogance of the dismissal made common folk less-than-eager to find out.

IDEOLOGICAL ROOTS OF REBELLION
The mindset of the Rebels is a potent mix of the political, economic, religious and psychological.

From the longest view, The Rebellion is the next chapter in the battle for control of environmental policy. Rebels see Climate Change as a giant hoax – a Trojan Horse to give the Environmentalists control of public policy and put an end to the fossil fuel industry. The world’s largest fossil fuel company – Exxon Mobil – has bankrolled the Rebellion, and admits it. Some rebels see an even more sinister plot aimed at de-industrialising the West, sending mankind back to the Middle Ages.
The cause of this calamity will be the destruction of the economy when the cost of environmental damage is factored in to the price of goods and services. The economic irrationalists who believe this make no allowance for new technologies and new economic models which will emerge when the price on carbon unlocks the entrepreneurial spirit that drives innovation. They entertain no optimism, see only downside.

ECONOMIC ROOTS OF REBELLION
Economic Man’s motivation for joining the Rebellion can be explained by a theory called “The Circulation of Elites”. Described by Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto in the 19th century, the theory holds that the emergence of new industries and new economic models cause old money to lose top position to new money. Climate Change threatens the privileged existence of old technology leaders like Exxon-Mobil executives. Scratch any Rebel leader and you'll find a link to mining and fossil fuels.
Elites, however, can decide how they react to new economic structures. For example, BP (formerly British Petroleum) became Beyond Petroleum when the company took the new model head on to become a major manufacturer of solar panels. Peak oil put a cap on BP’s future anyway, while the coalminers report that they have 250 years of supply left to mine. “The cheapest form of energy”, coal will remain so unless a price is put on Carbon. Such a price is necessary to cover the cost of the damage* done by the pollutant*. Here, then, is the raw economic threat: the price of coal will rise dramatically should a new economic order based on the words asterixed above comes into existence. The fossil fuel industry has been free-riding on the taxpayer for the real cost of their operations, and they don't want to lose their unofficial subsidy, say environmentalists..

RELIGIOUS ROOTS OF REBELLION
The Third Element in the mix of forces driving the Rebellion is religion. Many extreme-right ideologues are fundamentalist in religion as well as politics. Many fundamentalists believe that God has sent Global Warming as part of the “End Times” spoken of in the Book of the Apocalypse. To resist it by taking action against Climate Change is to resist the will of God. A major influence in the USA, Australia also has many fundamentalists in politics.

CLIMATE CHANGE PSYCHOSIS
There is also a deep psychological foundation for the Rebellion. The language of the footsoldiers and commanders of the Rebellion is aggressive, dismissive and lampooning. Such behaviour indicates fear and anxiety and this can explain the Rebellion’s psychological dynamic. Despair is very common among country people, and denial is just that – denial, a standard means of coping with the overwhelming sense of powerlessness that Climate Change can induce. Farmers live everyday with the evidence of deteriorating climate conditions, yet they are the most likely to agree with Denialists. In Australia the Government and Opposition agreed on a package of Climate Change arrangements that is the most generous of any nation in the world. Yet the farm lobby says it is not enough. There are many who have not heard of the package. Denial means shutting information out and admitting only information that bolsters the Denial.
The Denialists live in hope that Climate Change is a hoax. It is their only chance. More than 2000 conventional scientists have had their integrity questioned and are accused of conspiring with the diplomates of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change to ‘cook the books’. Their alleged motivation: jobs (for the scientists) and trips abroad and cocktail parties (for the diplomats). Those who oppose Denialism dismiss such charges as ‘rubbish’. But – as an ‘end of the world’ scenario hangs heavy in the air whenever Climate Change is mentioned – people who are prone to distrust institutions are also prone to find a cushion for their pain in the simplistic solutions of populist leaders.

MONOCULTURES LACK RESILIENCE
This confluence of political, economic, religious and psychological forces makes the task of winning the war for ‘the truth’ so much harder. The Rebellion has a unity about it. It is so much easier to be unified against something than for something which you must define. But this negative unity can be at once a strength and a weakness. It is a monoculture. A single contagious idea could wreck its unity and deflect its impulsion. The idea must be potent enough to break through the ideological screen and cause the Rebel footsoldiers to doubt.
The response to date to predictions of doom from establishment scientists proves that this appoach makes no impression. Images of IPCC scientists wringing their hands in the media contribute to the ‘alarmist’ tag the Rebels have so easily attached to them. The strategy for creating doubt in the minds of the Rebellion Footsoldiers must not enable their leadership to rebadge it as ‘alarmist’ propaganda. What makes a contention ‘alarmist’? When he hearer believes that here is nothing to be alarmed about.

WEDGING REBELS AND THEIR LEADERS
The concept of “Food Security” has most potential to wedge the Denialists and their followers. In recent years the world’s security forces have been preparing plans for the outbreak of conflicts and wars as “Climate Refugees” in prodigious numbers invade other countries in search of food and water. Several ‘hot spots’ have been identified and one of them is Australia. The Australian Defence Forces, the Australian Federal Police and several strategic military panels in the USA have pointed to the likelihood of flooding and crop failures causing famine and civil unrest in Indonesia and Southern China. A report to the Pentagon in 2003 predicted 40 million climate refugees could be on the move in our neighbourhood within 40 years if Climate Change is allowed to proceed unchecked. Australians are spooked by 78 Sri Lankans in a leaky boat arriving off the northern coastline. How would they react to credible reports that, if Climate Change is not tamed, Townsville will in all likelihood be an Asian city of 5 million by the time their grandchildren are their age.
To dissociate the message from the Climate Change establishment – which has no credibility with the Rebels - the message could be delivered by the Chief of the Defence Force, the Chief Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police could be asked to present their reports at a joint press conference, for maximum impact. At the same conference, the report by the US Armed Forces Panels could be referenced.
The wave of anxiety among those groups traditionally sensitive to these threats could cause them to question the Abbot/Joyce doctrine. They should be forced to ask themselves “What if Tony/Barnaby is wrong?"

POSTSCRIPT: THE LAND ETHIC

The father of the American conservation movement, Aldo Leopold, observed that the abolition of slavery was the “First Great Moral Advance for Humanity.” This advance took place when Western Society recognised that one human being cannot own another human being. They are members of the same community – the family of man –with rights and obligations.
The next great leap forward rests on the belief that man is not only a member of the human community, he is also a member of the broader community of living creatures – the Ecological Community. Each animal, plant, and microbe has a role to play in maintaining a liveable biosphere and each deserves protection and respect.
Aldo Leopold called it the “Land Ethic”. He wrote: “All ethics so far evolved rest on a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. His instincts prompt him to compete for his place in that community, but his ethics also prompt him to co-operate… The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants and animals or collectively, the land.”
This is the ultimate challenge for Humanity. Do we have the courage and confidence to accept a new discipline, the loss of a freedom enjoyed since the human race emerged a the top of the food chain and set out to ‘subdue the earth’ and lay waste to it with no thought for the future. God’s instructions were, according to King James version of the Bible, “replenish the Earth and subdue it”.

Carbon Farming "All Hype and Humbug," says Nuffield scholar.

"PUSHBACK" on Nuffield Scholarship?

"IT'S all hype and humbug" is David Drage's thoughts on carbon trading's potential for agriculture, after his three-month world study tour on the subject.' The Weekly Times reported. The Victorian mixed farmer visited the UK, Canada, New Zealand and the US last year on a Nuffield scholarship and brought home the following conclusions
• The capacity of Australian agriculture to help cut global emissions was insignificant. (This statement ignores the Federal Opposition’s claim that soil and vegetation can remove 150million tonne of CO2 from the atmosphere every year by 2020. Some scientists have put it as high as 1000 million tonnes, with the Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales Governments putting out similar reports. While our emissions may be negligible on a global scale, the landmass we have devoted to agriculture – hundreds of millions of hectares - makes us a major player in the global effort to ‘draw down’ CO2 via photosynthesis.)
• David warned farmers who locked themselves into carbon contracts could find themselves forced to repay their contracts. (If carbon markets worked that way, no farmer would get involved. The individual farmer is protected by the “Buffer Pool” or self-insurance system that operates. No farmer is left alone to sell direct. They can’t supply the 25,000 tonnes minimum trading unit. So they combine in pools of millions of units. Most systems put aside some tonnes for protection. The Chicago Climate Exchange requires that each farmer put aside 20% of what they deliver as a hedge. The Carbon Farmers of Australia system requires that for every 1 tonne traded that the grower put aside an additional tonne to cover the potential loss. These tonnes are spread across millions of units in the full range of climate zones and geographic regions. They are there to replace units lost for any reason. The President of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers (6 million members world wide) says buyers can rely upon the “Collective Persistence” of the pool that gives protection to the buyer and the grower.)
•"Many international investors I spoke to had no faith in the permanence of agricultural carbon sequestration," he said. (The issue of permanence is also resolved by this pool concept. It's not hard to find people who will bad mouth soil carbon anywhere in the world.)
• "And the science of measuring products like soil carbon is not sufficiently advanced to give them the confidence to invest." (Scientists have been measuring soil carbon for the purposes of scientific study for decades. Who is suggesting that the measurement of soil carbon for trade needs to be more accurate than measurement for science? Only someone with a vested interest in keeping soil carbon off the market or in being paid to chase the min-min light of accuracy beyond the needs of science. There are many such people. "Confidence to invest" is the right issue. Markets have a method of handling uncertainties in quantity or quality. It’s called “The Price Mechanism”. We have seen it working at the Chicago Climate Exchange where the low levels of measurement rigor has kept the price very low. This in turn encouraged the CCX to lift the bar in order to attract more farmers because the price was discouraging them.)
• "Australian agriculture can't offer much to the international efforts to reduce emissions, because we are already a highly efficient industry. (We may be an efficient industry from a cost management viewpoint, but we are not efficient when it comes to Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Opportunities to reduce emissions are everywhere: manure management and methane flaring, precision application of fertilizer, no-till cultivation, covering bare earth, feed supplements for cattle and sheep, biological soil treatments, grazing management, pasture cropping, cover cropping, and many more. Australian farmers have been offered the best emissions deal available to farmers anywhere in the world: Not taxes to cover methane and nitrogen emissions, but incentives to change the way we manage these gases. And we are free to trade our soil carbon.
If you believe that “it’s all hype” there is one fact that you should bear in mind: No one is forcing you to be involved. No farmer will be forced to trade their soil carbon. Or reduce their methane and nitrogen gas emissions.)

Why we support Prime Carbon

Sir Nicholas Stern estimated the cost of putting off effective action against Climate Change in the hundred of billions of dollars per year. The cost of the ACCC action against Prime Carbon is very high. While there are several excellent systems in development,the Prime Carbon operation is closest to launch. It's commencement was expected to be followed quickly by several others. The legal action could be seen as a major blow against the SOIL CARBON MOVEMENT - the only effective short term solution to Climate Change. We see it as part of the "PUSHBACK" campaign by anti-soil carbon elements that have conducted an ongoing campaign against us for the four years we have been campaigning. The ACCC claims that they have a complaint but won't tell us who it is. The language complained about was in a very early version of the literature. The whole scenario seems contrived. And the timing - with the program so close to launch - is very coincidental.

We stand by Ken Bellamy and his integrity is not diminished in any way by this action. Rather it is the ACCC's judgement which has been questioned of late.

Just as Peter Spencer is seeking by his hunger strike to draw attention to the robbing of rights under English Common Law, the ACCC's presumption of guilt and name/shame method of operating effectively robs us of the right called the presumption of innocence.

The Carbon Coalition stands by Prime Carbon and Ken Bellamy because of the importance of his work for the protection of the planet's inhabitants from deep, destructive Climate Change. Australia leads the world in "Carbon farming". The eyes of the world are on us at this moment. Which does the consumer need protection from most: marketing claims or cataclysmic climate disruption?

MEDIA RELEASE: ACCC action threatens urgent Climate Change solution

The ACCC is damaging Australia’s Climate Change response, according to the Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming – the soil carbon advocacy group.

The ACCC is putting at risk the launch of a system that could protect the world from the worst effects of Climate Change. The regulator is taking court action against an Australian soil carbon pioneer whose system could buy the time we need to make the change to renewable energy sources.

Prime Carbon’s Ken Bellamy is within 3 months of launching a trading system which – worldwide – has the potential to neutralize emissions by 50ppm by turning the vast stretches of farmland and other lands (such as schools and parks) into a carbon sink. Leading Australian scientists recently declared that we have left it too late to avoid a 2°C increase in average temperature, and that only by a system like Mr Bellamy’s will we gain the time we need to bring renewable energy to baseload capacity.* The world’s most respected soil carbon expert Professor Rattan Lal believes the world’s farmers can ‘draw down’ the equivalent of 50ppm (parts per million) CO2.** Prime Carbon’s system uses photosynthesis as the way to absorb CO2 and store it in soil.

The Government needs innovators like Ken Bellamy to develop trading systems that accord with the National Carbon Offset Standard, recently released by the Department of Climate Change & Water and give us Australian options for reliable offsets.

“Ken Bellamy has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on technical development and due diligence on his system. He has also spent a small fortune on research for soil improvement which recently attracted a scientific peer review of his breakthrough paper on in-soil photosynthesis. Mr Bellamy also had a private meeting with the Prime Minister on the subject last month. These are not the actions of a fly-by-night operator,” says Mr Kiely. “He has engaged the local community in his system, building ‘business clusters’ to use local municipal wastes to make composts for enriching soils on local farms and from that to generate carbon credits to be shared between the farmers and urban communities.”

Prime Carbon is charged with making inappropriate references to other emerging industry organizations in its early marketing materials. Significantly, the charges do not refer to any of the core processes or to any current actions of Prime Carbon.

“Ken Bellamy has been completely transparent in this process, taking his solutions to the community, the ACCC and the Department of Climate Change for consultation and guidance,” says Michael Kiely. “The Carbon Coalition stands by Prime Carbon because it has taken the industry further and faster than anything else and we need the systems urgently.”

“The ACCC could do something truly heroic and invest some time studying soil carbon solution and the extraordinary opportunity it offers and balance that against the relative seriousness of the allegations and the damage already done to Prime Carbon by this unfortunate legal action.”


FOOTNOTES:
*“The science now tells us that it will be next to impossible for nations to achieve the scale of reductions required in sufficient time to avoid dangerous climate change unless we also remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it in vegetation and soils…The power of terrestrial carbon to contribute to the climate change solution is profound.”

- “Optimising Carbon in the Australian Landscape” - Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, October 2009

**‘The technical potential of carbon sequestration in world soils may be 2 billion to 3 billion mt per year for the next 50 years. Thus, the potential of carbon sequestration in soils and vegetation together is equivalent to a draw-down of about 50 parts per million of atmospheric CO2 by 2100.’

- Rattan Lal (lal.1@osu.edu) is Director of the Ohio State University’s Carbon Management and Sequestration Center and Professor of Soil Science in the School of Environment and Natural Resources.

ACCC institutes proceedings against Prime Carbon Pty Ltd

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has commenced legal proceedings in the Federal Court against Prime Carbon Pty Ltd.
Prime Carbon sells a 'soil carbon and sequestration program' to farmers which aims to sequester carbon from the atmosphere and store it in agricultural land. In signing farmers up to this program, Prime Carbon provides the following services:
1. design and facilitate carbon sequestration and other greenhouse gas abatement and offsetting projects for customers,
2. assist in the creation and management of specific amounts of carbon dioxide sequestered or abated from the environment (carbon credits), and
3. assist in the registration and marketing of those carbon credits.
The ACCC is alleging that Prime Carbon made false or misleading representations about the National Environment Registry (NER) and the National Stock Exchange of Australia Limited (NSX). Specifically, the ACCC alleges that Prime Carbon made representations to the effect that:
• the NER registry is the sole registry that meets the standards required of carbon credit registries by the Australian Government and the carbon credits listed on the registry, were specifically supervised or regulated by the Australian Government,
• the NER registry was the place where domestic and international buyers go to source carbon credits,
• the NER had a relationship with the Chicago Environment Registry which would assist NER-listed Australian carbon credits being traded on the international market,
• it was a broker and aggregator with the NSX, and
• enquiries about the purchase of carbon credits aggregated by Prime Carbon have been or are likely to be generated by or through the NSX,
when this was not the case.
The ACCC also alleges that Prime Carbon's sole director, Mr Ken Bellamy, was knowingly concerned in or a party to, some of Prime Carbon's contravening conduct.
The ACCC is seeking declarations, injunctions, corrective orders, trade practices compliance orders, findings of fact and costs.
A directions hearing has been set down for 23 February 2010 in the Federal Court, Brisbane, before Justice Spender.
Release # NR 001/10
Issued: 5th January 2010

Kyoto has failed - Meet "Pledge & Review"

By the ruthless demonstration of its ability to disrupt the Copenhagen Conference and its refusal to be part of an international system of audited emissions reductions to any time, China may have put the stake into Kyoto. This is how the Sierra Club reported it:
"Pledge and review... repeals any notion of a legally binding deal, allowing countries to instead pledge the level of ambition they deem fit – rather than that determined by climate science... It also breaches the Bali "firewall" – the differentiation between industrialized and developing countries that exempts the developing world from binding emissions reductions targets. Differentiation was agreed to... under the tenet of common but differentiated responsibility... The U.S. and Australia are pushing this system to address the problem of differentiation of advanced developing countries like China and India to ensure an international agreement that can be ratified by the Senate."

Weaknesses of the Kyoto Protocol

"The Kyoto Protocol embodies several concepts of distributional equity, but it boils down to this: the rich and responsible are expected to lead. In other words, it calls for action by those with higher per capita emissions and higher per capita contributions to the build up of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and it also targets those with a much greater ability to pay for emissions mitigation," said Joseph E. Aldy and Robert N. Stavins in their paper Climate Policy Architectures for the Post-Kyoto World. 'The downfall of this approach is that it has contributed to the Kyoto Protocol’s primary weakness: the agreement has failed to promote more substantial participation among the world’s largest emitters. Three of the five largest do not face binding emissions constraints, despite the fact that they have ratified the Kyoto Protocol: China and India do not have quantitative emissions targets, and Russia’s Kyoto commitment is so lax that it likely will not necessitate any abatement for Russian compliance. In addition, the largest greenhouse gas contributor, the United States, has not ratified the agreement. These four countries represented half of global CO2 emissions in 2004, and their share is expected to grow without efforts to limit their emissions."



Why Threats to the Kyoto Protocol Endangers Copenhagen & Our Climate
Posted by: Guay on November 4, 2009 at 11:59AM PST
By Justin Guay, apprentice for the Sierra Club Global Warming and Energy Team
http://connect.sierraclub.org/post/ClimateCrossroadsBlog/killing_me_softly_why_threats_to_the_kyoto_protocol_endange.html

IT WAS THE YEAR OF SOIL CARBON

What A Year! It was the Year of Soil Carbon. The Gods played Spin The Bottle with our fates. Some great things happened. We started the year facing this situation: the Government was intending to give farmers a BILL for Methane, a BILL for N2O, and no way to OFFSET THESE BILLS with Soil C. At the end of the year we have all sides of politics (except the Nationals) support a “Special Status Arrangement” for Agriculture tht recognizes its unique capacity to be both a sink and a source of carbon emissions and its starring role in the twin global challenges of Climate Change and Food Security. The new arrangement is the complete reverse of the first draft: NO BILL for methane (incentives instead), NO BILL for N2O (incentives instead), and soil C OFFSETS to trade. What a Trifecta.

The Year started amid the atmosphere of the FAO’s slow, deliberate campaign to build a coalition around soil sequestration for food security that was supposed to crescendo at Copenhagen, and did - with 4 separate side events for land use and land use change. But the Chinese and Indians came looking for a fight – and the rest is history. The Kyoto Protocols might be dust-binned, replaced by a “Pledge & Review” system – it won’t matter. The Soil Carbon Solution will happen.

MODELS NEED REMODELLING
Here at home the year commenced with an historic announcement by Dr Peter Fisher that the soil carbon models would need to be recalibrated – Roth C could not digest the soil C results he was encountering. This confirmed Christine Jones’s findings – and was historic for that reason alone.

MALCOLM FOUGHT TO THE DEATH

The next blessing appeared in the shape of Malcolm Turnbull who discovered Green Carbon, thanks again to Christine’s efforts in Parliament House. We eyeballed Greg Hunt to see how deeply he had ‘got religion’ and he passed muster. Greg’s role is acknowledged in an earlier post. It shouldn’t be forgotten that Malcolm fought to the death for a farmer-friendly ETS that Ian MacFarlane managed to charm out of Penny Wong.

WHO ‘GOT IT’ IN 2009?

A lot of important people ‘got it’ in 2009: Tim Flannery finally ‘got it’ and said so in his book Now Or Never. The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists “came out” for the Soil Carbon Solution. (Are there any ‘unconcerned scientists’?) Al Gore finally got it. Paul Gilding, ex-Executive Director of Greenpeace International gets it. The EU gets it. The World Bank gets it. The Ministry for Agriculture gets it. Minister Tony Burke gets it. Former Governor General Major General Michael Jeffrey got it and picked up the ball and is running with it, as Chairman of Outcomes Australia. Sadly the Soil Carbon Mythbusters don’t get it. Even sadder, the Climate Institute doesn’t get it, by their recent comments on farmers ‘pulling their weight’.

HOW BAD DOES IT HAVE TO GET?

What’s to be got? This: If the immediate climate disasters are caused by the historic load of CO2 and farmers have the only means of extracting it from the atmosphere at the volumes required, in the time necessary, it becomes a matter of negotiation, not command from on high about moral obligations. Farmers won’t take any old deal. Not too many people ‘get’ this. The question is: how bad does Climate Change have to get before decision-makers are so desperate that they will call on the farmers of the world to commence carbon farming in earnest? Shift their mindset from "The Mitigation Solution Must Fit The Accounting System" to "The Accounting System Must Serve The Mitigation Solution".

COLLABORATIVE SCIENCE IS “GO”

Hurrah for Tony Burke. He listened to our petition on collaborative science. Congratulations to all those who ‘signed’ our petition. See how powerful you are! While governments wait the obligatory 3 to 5 years for science to confirm the unconfirmable – ie. take all the risk out of decisions – the climate deteriorates at an accelerating pace and the cost of each year lost is $500billion, according to Sir Nicholas Stern. Someone soon must stand up and say: “Stuff it! Let’s just do it.” The Government has done this by introducing “Collaborative” Science in its latest round of research funding. Teaming scientists with farmers, food processors, and policy professionals, the Government hopes to ‘achieve outcomes that make a difference’ and that ‘commercial realities are taken into account’ to see the outcomes are likely to be adopted by farmers.

ASTONISHING

Finally the moment of the year for mine was hearing a scientist remark, just as the conference rose for lunch after hearing Ken Bellamy present his paper on in soil photosynthesis and the role of autotrophs and phototrophs, “Astonishing. That was amazing.”

THANK YOU

To everyone who did the smallest thing and those who moved the Heavens for the cause, you know who you are – and so does Mother Nature. In 2006, DR Lal described the Coalition’s Mission as “your noble cause”. And we now know that it is the people who support the cause that make it ‘noble’ by being there.

Santa came to Agriculture at Copenhagen

In his last blog post for the year, the Farm Institute’s Mick Keogh asked himself 'What happened to agriculture at Copenhagen?" and came up with the answer: "Nothing…. Good or Bad"
But he shouldn't be so glum, Mick. Santa came to Agriculture at Copenhagen. We now have a consensus of the major developed nations on "A SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT" for Agriculture that makes Dark Greens grind their teeth. That arrangement is based on the ‘Specificity of Agriculture'* which is a Copenhagen outcome. We have a broad coalition of nations and institutions who 'get it' about soil carbon. This coalition includes the USA, the EU, the World Bank, the International Federation of Agricultural Producers, the FAO and the UN itself. They know that the future will be very uncomfortable without it. It is inevitable because we hold the key to the future. While the climate scientists were wringing their hands and saying it's already too late, someone took a serious look at soil, did the sums, and decided it would be a doddle to pull 50 parts per million out of the atmosphere for 50 years. This is the bridge to the future the world has been looking for. No one can stop it now. But the most significant outcome from this consensus around Agriculture is a shift in thinking from zero-sum to win-win when it comes to farmers being rewarded financially for protecting and restoring the natural resource base. The meaning behind this development is very historic: It means that - for the first time in the history of human agriculture - there has been a real conomic value put on Nature that is more than a notional value. It is a working capital value. The people doing the farming (and the harming) can follow their natural inclination to treat the land with the respect they have for it, rather than overtax its capacity in order to make a decent living when society doesn't wish to pay a fair price for essential food and fibre that farmers produce. The Soil Carbon Solution will be seen by future generations as the turning point, if we are lucky. Finally, the best outcome for the world from COP15 was the fact that 'they' are not going to do anything useful about it. And right now those of the People leading the Climate Change Rebellion are taking us down a dangerous path. It should be noted that the Nationals do not support the Soil Carbon Solution or the Special Arrangement for Agriculture. Incentives, not taxes for Methane. Incentives, not taxes for Nitrogen Emissions. Plus Soil Carbon Credits if you want them. In our wildest dreams we did not think that the deal would be this good. But Barnaby describes it as being 'a little red car for Christmas and some fairy wings'. For oyur grandchildren's sake it is to be hoped that he has the courage to turn that little red car around.

FOOTNOTE: The Specificity has three sides: unlike other emitting industries, Agriculture is also a sink; it can help governments meet their emissions targets and give countries the time needed for renewable energy to gain critical base load capacity; and - the main anxiety of governments given briefings by military strategists - who else is going to feed the world's population when it doubles in 50 years?

Greg Hunt - Soil Carbon's Chief Salesman - We Salute You

It is easy to make promises when in Opposition. But you can put something on the agenda in a way that forces the Government to move. Opposition spokesman on Climate Action Greg Hunt has done that. 'The heart of what we want to do is soil carbon.". He says that using soil carbon to reduce Australia's emissions could see $1.5 billion flow back to rural Australia. "We believe that we can easily obtain through incentives rather than penalties for farmers a soil carbon uptake," he says. "As well as other forms of revegetation of 150 million tonnes per annum by 2020, if that's $10 a tonne for farmers, that's a $1.5 billion flow to rural Australia."
There are many questions yet to be answered, but if they think that they're going to fix the Legacy Load and Food Security for $1.5 billion.....

ONWARDS!

"Australia will do no more and no less than the rest of the world, and that is our position," said Kevin Rudd at Copenhagen. This is the politician accused of wanting to lead the world by pre-emptive action. It proves our belief that POLITICIANS CAN'T LEAD, THEY CAN ONLY FOLLOW. Only the People can lead. ONWARDS!

Travelling Workshop - Your Doorway To Soil Carbon Offsets

Intrepid travellers in pursuit of soil carbon knowledge. Peter and Fran Prowse (front) and Jeremy Bradley and Cathy Eggert travelled all the way from Kempsey to Moree to attend the new Practical Soil Carbon Farming 2-Day Workshop, conducted by Carbon Farmers of Australia. The workshop is an AtoZ introduction to soil carbon trading. It is a prerequisite for baselining soils for the Prime Carbon Assisted Land Management Change and Soil Carbon Sequestration Program. This seminar was held at Dubbo last week and will be held at Wagga Waga, Young and Tamworth in the New Year. We can bring the Workshop
to your locality. Call 02 6374 0329.

Heavy Hitters have their say, all on COP15 Agriculture Day

(It is usual practice, in global Climate Change diplomacy, for meetings of all sorts to produce a joint statement of the delegates to send to policy-makers and decision-makers.)

Joint Statement
Beyond Copenhagen: Agriculture and Forestry Are Part of the Solution
14 December 2009
Participants included: Food and Agriculture Organization, International Federation of Agriculture Producers, International Fund for Agricultural Development, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research and its Challenge Program on Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security, Global Donor Platform for Rural Development, University of Copenhagen Faculty of Life Sciences, Center for International Forestry Research, and the Collaborative Partnership on Forests.

Forestry and agriculture are where poverty reduction, food security and climate change come together and must be addressed in an integrated fashion was the key message to negotiators from agriculture and forestry communities1 at Cop 15, today.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and sequestering carbon from agriculture and forestsmust be an essential component of any strategy to keep global warming below the 2 degree Celsius threshold. Climate adaptation and mitigation measures must have multiple sustainable development benefits, including conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

The communities:
• Agree it is critical that food security be integrated in the shared vision of the Long Term Cooperative Action text, in order to open the door to adaptation and mitigation support;
• Urge climate negotiators to agree on the early establishment of an agricultural work program under the SBSTA2;
• Look for agreement that REDD3 include agriculture, forestry and other land uses;
• Believe that the LULUCF4 accounting system needs to be favorable to agriculture.

The agricultural community is committed to playing an active role in reducing emissions, while increasing the productivity and sustainability of agriculture. We recognize that agriculture must nearly double food production to meet the demands of a growing population expected to reach 9 billion by mid-century while minimizing the sector’s emissions.
The forestry community is committed to helping to design and implement new mechanisms to mobilize forests for climate mitigation and adaptation, while exploiting synergies with sustainable development objectives and managing associated risks. We recognize the significance of forest-based emissions and the cost-effectiveness of early action to reduce them. The most important drivers of deforestation originate from outside the forestry sector, including agriculture. There are also significant opportunities to correct current market andgovernance failures that lead to perverse outcomes for climate change and food security.
Forest and agriculture based adaptation strategies are available, but not yet fully appreciated by policy-makers and the general public. Significant financial resources and political will are needed to better address food security, slow deforestation and forest degradation, and reach emission reduction targets. Investments must be transparent and additional to support for global food security and rural development. These resources must be accessible to all stakeholders, including researchers, civil society and especially forest communities, farmers and their associations. Resources must also be devoted to the research necessary to underpin needed advances in the effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of agriculture and forestry-based approaches to mitigation and adaptation. Policy processes need to be empowering and adaptive to respond to realities on the
ground, the desires and aspirations of local communities, and ensure good governance. Inparticular, the role of local institutions in sustainable natural resources management should be given increased recognition, and the rights and roles of indigenous and local and farming communities especially women and young farmers must be recognized in
developing national mitigation and adaptation strategies.
We commit to strengthening cross-sectoral cooperation to address the drivers of deforestation, enhance sustainable agricultural growth and foster rural development. We recognize that addressing climate change is fundamental to food security and poverty reduction today and for future generations.

FOOTNOTES
1 Participants included: Food and Agriculture Organization, International Federation of Agriculture Producers,
International Fund for Agricultural Development, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research and its
Challenge Program on Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security, Global Donor Platform for Rural
Development, University of Copenhagen Faculty of Life Sciences, Center for International Forestry Research, and
the Collaborative Partnership on Forests.
2 Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice
3 Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
4 Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry

DPI/DII Mythbusters Soldier On

Mythbustersin denial? The Cowra Guardian carries this story yesterday:

Carbon myth busters seminar next February
14 Dec, 2009 08:46 AM
Soil Scientist with NSW Department of Industry and Investment David Waters will present “Carbon Myth Busters”, a seminar developed by leading soil scientists to help farmers manage their response to the soil carbon debate in Cowra next February.
The seminar will be held on Thursday February 11, 2010 from 9:30am to 3:30pm at the Pridham Centre, DPI Research Station.
Morning tea and lunch will be provided and the seminar is free.
Please RSVP by 20 January 2010 to ensure your place, phone 6340 2040 or email council@cowra.nsw.gov.au

THE CAT IS OUT OF THE BAG - Sydney Morning Herald report

Down and dirty: farm soil will offset emissions in Australia's carbon cut scheme
GREGG BORSCHMANN IN COPENHAGEN AND GUY PEARSE
December 14, 2009

IT WAS a candid remark in a private briefing. But unfortunately for the Government, comments by an Australian climate negotiator late last week in Copenhagen have pretty much let the cat out of the bag on where Labor intends to find any ambitious cuts to Australia's 2020 greenhouse gas emissions.

Ironically, it will be in exactly the same places that the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, goes looking for his ''practical measures'' to solve climate change.

And they will not be anywhere near the smokestacks of dirty coal-fired power stations or the big polluting industries. They will be in the rolling back paddocks, grazing lands and grasslands of rural Australia - a green pot of carbon gold.

The premise is that simple changes in how we manage agricultural land - reducing tillage and fertiliser use or improving fire management - help return carbon to the soil. It is hard to put a dollar value on the bonanza but the numbers are enough, some say, to make Australia carbon neutral for the next three or four decades - all without having to impose a nasty tax, set up a complicated emissions trading scheme or clean up a single polluting pipe.

The climate change negotiator reportedly told an NGO group at a Copenhagen briefing that Australia would be able to commit to 25 per cent greenhouse gas cuts by 2020 - if land use rule changes driven by Australia and other developed countries are accepted as part of a new global climate deal.

The changes are highly contentious in Copenhagen, as developing nations recognise the potential for countries such as Canada, the US and Australia to offset industrial pollution against carbon sequestration in rural landscapes. Put simply, because these countries have hundreds of millions of hectares of land, very small increases in soil carbon could generate huge reductions in their net emissions.

But they have been accused of cooking the books on their emissions and there are huge divisions between developed and developing countries over how emissions from agriculture, grazing, grasslands and forestry will be counted in any new Copenhagen climate deal.

The row comes as latest figures show that Australia's greenhouse gas emissions have soared 82 per cent since 1990. The overall jump - reported to the United Nations in September - has been caused by a blow-out of 657 per cent in Australian land use emissions between 1990 and 2007.

There is a wild natural variation in these emissions from year to year - for example, there was a massive spike in 2002-03 from bushfires - and as a result Australia has chosen to opt out of reporting most of them against its Kyoto 2012 greenhouse target.

But in an effort to unlock the huge potential for ''carbon sinks'' in agricultural and grazing lands as part of any new Copenhagen climate deal, Australia has driven controversial rule changes that would exclude the impact of ''extraordinary events or circumstances'' such as bushfires and drought.

This would then make it easier for developed countries to claim offsets or carbon credits from agricultural and grazing lands.

Environment groups and NGOs at the climate talks say it is so difficult to accurately measure these emissions that it opens up the possibility of "accounting frauds" which could mask real increases in industrial emissions.

Paul Winn from Greenpeace International, who has closely followed negotiations over ''Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry'' at recent climate negotiations, said the push to get the land use rule changes into a new deal might mean the

''greenwashing of Copenhagen''. "These are basically accounting frauds, they're shuffling the cards … it's just a changing of the figures and the atmosphere doesn't see any difference to the emissions or removals that occur."

Dr Payal Parekh, a climate scientist for International Rivers, said: "The effect that these loopholes will have on the targets is that it will water them down.

"It essentially means that developed countries including Australia could actually increase their emissions in the next few years … it is a total scam. It appears as if something is [being] done, but it is not. The best way to sum it up is that it is a get-out-of-jail- free card."

Last year, in his official climate report to the Government, the economist Ross Garnaut estimated that increasing soil carbon in grazing areas and croplands could store 354 million tonnes of CO2 a year for 20 to 50 years (equivalent to more than half of Australia's present annual emissions).

Christine Jones is a renowned soil scientist who argues that holistic management of agricultural land can make Australia carbon neutral for decades.

If accurate, that's enough to soak up Australia's entire post-industrial contribution to climate change - with simple landcare practices.

Many farmers already see it as a big win and at seminars across the country are signing up to sell their soil-carbon credits. Farmers agreeing to reduced tillage, bio-fertiliser use and other soil conditioning are told to expect a 1 per cent increase in soil carbon in the top 150 millimetres of their soils - up to 55 tonnes of carbon dioxide credit per hectare.

But there's one big problem. If storing carbon in rural soils is seen as a substitute for burning less fossil fuel, scientists say that the global climate is in deep trouble. Some scientists argue the only really safe level for carbon dioxide is 350 parts per million or less. It is presently at 387 ppm.

The suspicion we may be comparing apples with pears when measuring carbon at the smokestacks and in paddocks is confirmed by an insider who knows how Australia does its greenhouse gas accounting. This source said there were huge problems trying to account for carbon in rural landscapes. "This is all about paper shuffling. It's not about reducing emissions. It's about being seen to be complying [with targets] for political reasons.

"Whatever the outcome, I would not be confident it will be effective in doing what it's meant to do - cutting emissions".

The source said that land use accounting was so important to the Government it had been kept in-house when almost all other greenhouse accounting - including transport and energy - was done by consultants. ''It makes you wonder what they're up to.''

Agriculture's Big Day Out at Copenhagen

Statement of Outcomes from Agriculture and Rural Development Day
12 December 2009, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen

A group of more than 300 policymakers, farmers and scientists meeting in Copenhagen today called on climate change negotiators and governments at the United Nations Climate Change Conference to recognize agriculture’s vital role in climate change adaptation and mitigation.

The group strongly endorsed the proposed target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to avoid a temperature increase of more than 2 degrees C and stressed that reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture is essential for achieving the target. Farmers and researchers are already finding climate change solutions. On that basis, the agricultural community intends to play a pro-active role in actions aimed at reducing emissions, while increasing the productive capacity of agriculture through the development of sustainable practices.

Agriculture faces the challenge of nearly doubling food production in order to meet the food needs of a population expected to reach 9 billion by mid-century but without increasing the sector’s emissions. For this purpose, agriculture will need to make the most of new opportunities for expansion, particularly in the temperate zone, where climate change is expected to favor crop production. Across most of the tropics, however, agriculture will continue to face the enormous challenge of adapting to harsh and unpredictable growing conditions.

To meet the climate challenge, additional financing and investment, probably at the higher end of current estimates, will be needed across the entire rural value chain. New investments must be handled transparently to ensure that adaptation and mitigation are not undermined by reduced support for global food security and rural development. In addition, new investment must be accessible to all stakeholders, including researchers and members of civil society, such as farmer associations.

Specifically, the group called on climate negotiators to:

* Establish an agricultural work program under the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) to address gaps in knowledge on climate change impacts at the local level and in monitoring and verification systems
* Strengthen structures for policy dialogue at the regional and local levels that include all stakeholders.

Agriculture and Development Day was organized by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development, the Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, the International Federation of Agriculture Producers, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the Global Forum for Agricultural Research, the Earth System Science Partnership.

COP15: Governments must enable environmental markets - USA

The Obama Administration believes governments should work to make environmental markets possible by providing the infrastructure they need. Secretary for Agriculture Tom Vislack told the Agriculture and Rural Development Day audience at Copenhagen last night that both farmers and governments will need to change their thinking to capture the benefits from on-farm activities that can reduce the severity of climate change: "I ask American farmers and ranchers to look at climate change not just as a problem, but also as an opportunity for those who want to make their living on the land more profitable by reducing their carbon footprint... To capture these opportunities farmers and ranchers will need to rethink the business model that they operate under, develop new ways to partner with businesses and industries that will be demanding greenhouse gas reductions, and governments will need to create the infrastructure necessary to drive successfully environmental markets." Secretary Vislack stressed the dangerous food production scenarios mapped by the FAO as the need for urgency. He said the world needs scientific researchers focussed singlemindedly on finding solutions, not science for science's sake. He ended his speech by referring to his new grandson Jake, 5 months old. "He's the reason that Climate Change is something personal for me."

How "they" cooked the books

Don't expect the pathway to soil carbon credits to be smooth. The closer we get, the more they will throw at us.
Until now, we have always believed that the myth that Australian soils are too degraded and Australia's climate is too and dry for carbon sequestration was based on erroneous conclusions drawn from the scientific work done as part of the National Carbon Accounting System . The failure to include 'carbon farming' or conservation farming in the data sets skewed the findings. Ignorance of the practices can explain this deficiency. But not the examples of how the findings were skewed. The evidence can be seen on the following charts from AGO technical reports (sent to us by an anonymous source within a government agency). The techniques of distortion used include allowing a single datapoint to skew the entire chart, making an arbitrary division in the data to fit the conclusion, and presenting charts based on data with a low level of reliability, ie. R2 score of .44 or .56, without alerting the reader to the weakness. ( R 2 squared- a correlation coefficient that indicates the predictive value of the data as presented.)





The motivation may not have been malign. The outcome was. The long delay in implementing the soil carbon solution can be directly linked to the 'information' campaigns conducted by bodies such as the GRDC (identified by the Senate), CSIRO (obvious to anyone with eyes who read "The Hidden Cost of Humus" debacle), and prominent academics. These campaigns use the AGO's flawed science as their base. The ignorance of scientists of this state of affairs was on display when a high profile professor of climate change science -- attending the Kioloa Dialogue and Workshop was heard to say that Australia's National carbon Accounting Scheme is 'world's best practice.'

People ask why we need to bring this issue up when clearly we have achieved our goal. First, we have not achieved our goal. Our mission is "To see soil carbon traded and farmers paid fairly for what they grow." Second, these myths and their perpetrators do not stop operating. They simply morph into new forms. The Denialist Rebellion in Canberra is proof.

Soil Carbon Tony Abbott's secret weapon

The mysterious claim that Tony Abbott made - that the Opposition will have a Climate Change plan without the need of a tax of cap and trade - has put soil carbon in the frame. Shadow Minister for the Environment told Tony about the enormous draw down capacity of soil, and Tony got it .he Age eports: "On Wednesday, Mr Abbott said the Coalition would not take an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax to the next election, but instead work on an alternative climate plan. Yesterday, Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt said the Coalition would develop a range of mechanisms over the summer that would be ''incentive based'' to reduce Australia's carbon emissions. Mr Hunt said the Coalition's policy would cost less than the Government's rejected emissions trading scheme, while achieving the same emissions reduction targets of 5-25 per cent by 2020.
The Coalition's plans include encouraging the capture and storing of carbon in soil, better land management, energy efficiency programs for buildings, developing renewable energy and ''cleaner'' coal power plants."

Soil Carbon Credits recognised by Commonwealth Government

Soil carbon credits (offsets) are finally recgnised as possible in the Australian environment after years of denial by the Commonwealth Government and official science. On the web page introducing the National Carbon Offset Standard, the Department of Climate Change & Water makes prominent references to farmland and soil carbon offsets:

"The National Carbon Offset Standard provides Australian businesses, particularly farmers, with the opportunity to develop offset credits for voluntary carbon markets. These opportunities include offsets from increased soil carbon and from other land-based emissions sources... "Carbon offsets represent a reduction in greenhouse gases, or enhancement of greenhouse gas removal from the atmosphere by sinks such as soil carbon, relative to a business-as-usual baseline. Carbon offsets are tradable and often used to offset all or part of another entity’s emissions."

The Carbon Coalition congratulates the Minister Penny Wong and her advisers for listening with open minds.

Soil C Credits "will restore degraded land at an almost unimaginable scale" - IPCC Professor

Soil carbon credits can "drive profound improvements to the way we farm in Australia and ... create new market opportunities... restore degraded land at an almost unimaginable scale." So said Professor David Karoly is ARC Federation Fellow at the School of Earth Sciences, The University of Melbourne, in The Age recently.

"The recent negotiations between the Government and the Liberal Party have led to some improvements to the CPRS. The expansion of terrestrial carbon offsets is likely to drive profound improvements to the way we farm in Australia and how we manage our land. It will put a price on carbon and create new market opportunities to protect and restore degraded land at an almost unimaginable scale. Of course, the additional compensation to the worst emitters also puts more costs on to all taxpayers.
" Good value for money!

Opinion: Government fiddles around the edges while Australia burns
Professor David Karoly, published in The Age Newspaper, November 27, 2009
Professor David Karoly is ARC Federation Fellow at the School of Earth Sciences, The University of Melbourne. He played a key role in a report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Trading inevitable, no matter who leads the Party

Tony Abbott’s unlikely win in the tussle for leadership of the Opposition continues the tradition started when Australian speed skater Steven Bradbury won Gold in his event at the Salt Lake City Games in 2002 when the rest of the field crashed out of the race 15 meters from the finish line. He had been running last.
The election of a climate sceptic to the leadership of the main Opposition Liberal party in the Australian Parliament will have no significant impact on the introduction of a carbon trading system which includes soil carbon credits, according to the Carbon Coalition, the soil carbon farm lobby. There are several major reasons for this:
1. Agriculture was always going to be ‘uncovered’, ie. not affected by the legislation. The Voluntary Market needs no legislation to operate. Cap-and-Trade legislation is not needed to see the trading start on the voluntary market. These private trades can take place even in the absence of the Government’s Voluntary Market Standard. A link to the CPRS Cap and Trade system was always expected to be somewhere in the future.
2. The demand from industry is growing rapidly, creating opportunities for trade in carbon credits, especially those produced as a result of farmland restoration through changing land management practices.
3. The Government now has the option of calling a special election of both houses of Parliament – on the issue of taking action on Climate Change – that can give the Government a clear path to get its CPRS legislation through. The narrow position of the anti-Climate Change forces that have captured control of the Opposition will make it hard to retain seats in any snap election the Government may call on the issue. The strong support in the electorate for action on Climate Change. More than 65% are in favour of action. This holds true for the majority of electorates which are concentrated in the suburbs of the major cities.

This unique moment

The following is an edited version of a letter to the editor by Glenn Morris, 'Billabong', Inverell:

Never before in the history of Australian politics has there been a leader of a political party with such a comprehensive understanding of Australia’s water systems, soil health and climate security and the way they are interconnected as Malcolm Turnbull. At the time of writing this article Australia is in the fortunate position of having three leaders from different political parties that are genuinely concerned about the future of Australia, as well as future generations. Kevin Rudd, Malcolm Turnbull and Bob Brown have all identified the need to gradually transform society from one based on the exploitation of resources to a society based on the building of a regenerative enterprises.

At present in Australia we are witnessing temperatures that are breaking all records, we have a landscape denuded of permanent vegetation which is leading to a breakdown in the water cycle and water supplies and we have an alarming escalation of disease due to the loss of immunity which can only come from a healthy soil.
But even with all our vital natural ecosystem cycles in breakdown and the highest extinction rates the planet has ever seen, we have the same men that have denied us the truth for over a decade calling for business as usual.
I say this to the national and liberal party politicians that are supposed to be representing all Australians.
Not only are we dealing here in the bush with an increasingly warming climate (the warmest November on record) but we are also dealing with a water crisis that will very soon start to force many rural producers off the land, a situation that will flow very rapidly to the banking sector and food supplies.
There can be no more denial of the truth, the evidence of a poor understanding of natural processes and poor decision making are all around us.
This is ... a time where we need honest and intelligent leadership, men who understand the need to create a future based on regeneration of the earth’s ecosystems.
Men capable of making the decisions necessary to change the course of history, decisions like-
• Understanding that the great biological forces of nature can be influenced to either; create wild climate extremes or the idyllic conditions for life – by understanding that by enhancing plant growth we can restore the world's water cycles and help cool the earth's atmosphere.
• Supporting holistic landscape management - helping to restore the water storage capacity of the landscape re-charging the flow of fresh water down the nations’ rivers.
• Ensuring optimum human health and disease prevention by providing greater support for nutritionally superior natural farming systems.
• Encouraging the uptake of eco-agriculture around the world to enhance bio-diversity while at the same time increasing the production of highly nutritious food.

I call on all Australians to see the truth that surrounds around us, in regard to a changing climate and support our leaders and the changes necessary to create a sustainable society.

November 28th, 2009.

Glenn David Morris
‘Billabong’,
Inverell, NSW.

Fundamentals favour soil carbon

There is only one way to see the way ahead clearly in a sand storm such as has engulfed the ETS Legislation and the Liberal Party: go to the fundamentals. They dictate the outcomes, even though they may be obscured for a time by the dust kicked up by the excited partygoers. The fundamentals in Malcolm Turnbull's "Last Stand" are these: 1. Only the rusted on core 30% of old Liberal voters support the anti-ETS/denialist position championed by Nick Minchin and Tony Abbott. 2. The flood of emails pouring into the inboxes of conservative Liberals are generated by well-organised 'astroturf' operators - experts at creating the impression of grassroots support, using small numbers of people with multiple identities and multiple affiliations. 3. Liberal Party polling reveals that it will lose 20 seats if it fights an election on climate change. This would mean the Party will be reduced to a rump that can expect to remain in Opposition for at least 2 and even 3 elections. 4. Major corporate backers are expecting action on Climate Change. 5. The majority of the Parliamentary Liberal Party want to see the Party modernised and distanced from the old Howard imagery, rejected by the electorate in 2007. 6. Only in the hothouse atmosphere of Canberra could the arch-conservative wing of the Liberal Party believe that it can take control of the Parliamentary Party and install Tony Abbott as Leader of the Opposition. 7. Joe Hockey, were he to accept the Leadership from the hands of the rebels, would be a glove puppet of the Right. 8. Malcolm Turnbull is not John Gorton (who cast his vote against himself, allowing Malcolm Fraser a rails run.) 9. The longer the coup takes to finalise, the less likely the rebels are to win. 9. The longer the delay in actioning the soil carbon solution, the more demand for a solution will rise, the more open to our solution people will become, the less insistent on compliance with strict Kyoto accounting rules will officials become.

2-day Soil Carbon Workshop Series: Dubbo and Moree

Dubbo 9th-10th December, 2009
Moree 14th-15th December, 2009

FarmReady certified (Genuine farmers receive 100% reimbursement)

2-day workshop $550 (includes a copy of the Carbon Farming Handbook, RRP $55)

To register, call (02) 6374 0329 or email Louisa@carboncoalition.com.au

You can be part of the Climate Change Solution, improve your soils and the environment, and enjoy more satisfying farming.
You can. But what are the pitfalls and problems you could face? What are the risks? You can learn all that you need to know to make a safe decision about soil carbon. You will learn:

• What Soil Carbon is.
• How Soil Carbon is Made
• How Soil Carbon Builds
• How Trading Schemes Operate
• Your Responsibilities
• Risks For All Parties
• Price Potentials
• How Carbon Is Measured
• SCOT™ (Soil Carbon Optimising Tool) for Carbon Farming Planning

Soil Carbon is the key to natural farming success. It can reduce your input costs. It can restore your soil structure and reverse the effects of erosion. Put the billions of microbes in the soil to work for you. Join the thousands of land holders who have discovered the excitement of working with a healthy farming system.

To register, call (02) 6374 0329 or email Louisa@carboncoalition.com.au

Taught By Carbon Farmers of Australia: The Soil Carbon Specialists:

The Principals of Carbon Farmers of Australia are Pioneers of Soil Carbon Education. They have been practicing “Carbon Farming” for a decade, living and working on their 1780 acre wool-growing property in the Central West of NSW.
• Campaigned since 2005 for farmers’ rights to sell carbon they grow in soils.
• Conducted the first study tour of the USA soil carbon industry in 2006
• Secured the first order for Australian agricultural soil from the Chicago Climate Exchange 2006.
• Made sales of Australian soil carbon credits in March 2007
• Organised the first “Soil Science Summits” between scientists and farmers 2007.
• Staged the world’s first Carbon Farming Conference, Mudgee 2007.
• Launched the first formal training program on soil carbon 2008.
• Wrote and published the first Carbon Farming Handbook 2009
• Helped secure $26 million in funds for research to make it easier to measure soil carbon for trade 2009.
• Appointed to FAO-organised rangelands and conservation farming advocacy groups (In USA) 2008/9

ACTION WE CAN TAKE

Do you feel like the rabbit in the spotlight? Everything we have fought for over 4 years appears to be in peril due to the rebellion in the Liberal Party. We believe we have secured the best outcome from Minister Wong through the efforts of Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt. It is in our interests that Malcolm Turnbull prevails. This struggle is likely to continue over the weekend.

ACTION WE CAN TAKE

1. Email everyone or anyone who can email or call people with influence in the Liberal Party - especially financial backers of the Party.

2. Email letters to Turnbull's supporters.

3. Encourage your children to email.

4. Email ideas for action to me - michael@carboncoalition.com.au

Let's turn the spotlight around.

What We Are Up Against

Two books – SCORCHER by Clive Hamilton and HIGH & DRY by Guy Pearce – reveal an amazing capacity among fossil fuel companies to create faux grassroots campaigns to block or delay any action on Global Warming. They have been exceptionally successful.
And for this they have to thank a close-knit network of activists that includes scientists, journalists, government advisers, and lobbyists. The story is repeated all around the world – but it is in Australia and the US where these networks have achieved their goals, despite public opinion. The big polluters, led by Exxon-Mobil, feed funds to small, usually right wing organisations to conduct “astroturfing” campaigns – using PR firms to create an impression that they are part of a grassroots revolt.
These front organizations pop up like mushrooms, but the same people are behind them – arguing for genetically modified foods, against gun control, against the link between cancer and tobacco, cancer and asbestos, against any form of environmentalism, and of course against the notion of Climate Change. They hold conferences, release white papers by ‘experts’ and fill the pages of the press and the airwaves with misinformation, disinformation, and just plain lies. Some of them masquerade as professors and scientists, but they never have current publications in peer-reviewed journals. These groups have their own journals: World Climate Review and Energy & Environment. They look like serious, peer-reviewed journals.
These front organisations have names like the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), the Australian Environmental Foundation, the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, the APEC Studies Centre, the Lavoisier Group, the Centre for Independent Studies. They are linked to similar organizations in the USA.
The IPA relies on funding from a small number of conservative corporations: major mining companies, GM foods company Monsanto; and ttobacco companies - Philip Morris and British American Tobacco, oil and gas companies; 15 major companies in the electricity industry; forestry: Gunns, the largest logging company in Tasmania, and Murray Irrigation.
ExxonMobil is the primary funder of 74 climate change denial front groups. Besides a shared goal, these groups often share staff, board members and postal addresses. ExxonMobil has spent more than $19 million on "information laundering," - having a small number of professional sceptics attached to scientific-sounding organizations to push their opinions through non-peer-reviewed websites such as Tech Central Station.
IPA and its related fronts have a choir of journalists and commentators singing from the same song sheet: Christopher Pearson, Alan Jones, Piers Ackerman, Miranda Devine, Terry McCrann, Michael Duffy, Andrew Bolt – all have given speeches to front group events and all parrot the ‘junk science’ line.
Their respect for science is nil. They attack the integrity of the 2500 climate scientists working under the auspices of the IPCC (the UN body established to address the issue – the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change). These scientists are merely toeing the line to gain career advancement, they say.
The communication strategy is tightly held. There are three techniques the PR industry uses: astroturfing, ventriloquism and the echo chamber—to create skepticism about climate change and other issues. Ventriloquism is hiring “independent” scientists to put forward the message. Astroturfing imitates grassroots organizations, but usually they are paid scientists with modest credentials. The “echo chamber” is the repetition of key messages until they get noticed.
The results of all this is seen in the media. Media’s drive to have balance often sees editors and journalists giving more space to sceptics’ views than is reflected in community views. When the mainstream media have covered global warming, they have portrayed it as a scientific uncertainty. But of a sample of over 900 articles dealing with climate change and published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, none expressed doubt as to the existence or major cause of global warming. However, an analysis of articles in the most influential American dailies found that 53% expressed doubt as to global warming. The strategy of playing up the confusion and controversy, repositioning global warming as theory rather than fact worked well. These public relations campaigns by a small but well-funded group in the fossil fuels industry, reminds us of the tobacco companies' campaign to create doubt about the role of cigarettes in causing disease and the rearguard actions by earlier generations to defend lead and asbestos, slavery and wife-beating.

To see Astroturfing in action, go to http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html

Denial Delusion a Psychological Condition

Why are people so open to the Denialist Delusion? Psychologists have identified a new strain of neurosis called "Learned Hopelessness" where individuals believe nothing can be done about Climate Change and that one person cannot make a difference. Dr Andrew McKinley of the University of Toronto, Canada blames the activist environmental movement for being overly pessimistic and counterproductive. He claims that the old, historic assumptions of a ‘progress paradigm’ that powered the optimism of the past, the shock tactics and pessimistic media campaigns conducted by the Green movement, and the media that capitalizes upon those campaigns, have created a “Hopeless Age” in which there is a widely held assumption that the future will be worse than the present and that the lives of future generations will be harder than our own.
Humans have a psychological need to control the environments in which they function. The opposite of control of the environment is “helplessness”. This comment on a blogsite sums up the sydnrome: “I feel overwhelmed at the sheer scale of environmental problems such as climate change. I often wonder just how much the little things I do really impacts the environment as a whole. At least I see some improvements around my home.”
This feeling of futility is the deepest reason for inaction on climate change. Many people won’t make changes that cost them in any way—in money, time or lost pleasure—unless they believe that enough people also will be making the same sacrifice for it to be meaningful. Most people believe that it simply will not be possible to get enough people, corporations or governments to make the changes necessary to save the world. This is despair. Hopelessness forestalls action. Without action, there is no hope.
This feeling of powerlessnesss, called “low efficacy”, can lead to apathy, says Dr David Sandman of Princeton. If I believe I can’t do anything about your issue, it is sensible for me to focus instead on some other issue I can do something about. So feelings of low efficacy are a major source of apathy: I shrug off your issue in part because I don’t see an effective way to help.
The nature of journalism exacerbates the problem of low efficacy (personal effectiveness). The media tend to define their audience as bystanders rather than players. Gerhart Wiebe coined the phrase “the syndrome of well-informed futility”. Instead of feeling a civic obligation to do something about issues, we feel a civic obligation to know about them.
But the main barrier to action on climate change is Denial: many people are in denial about the crisis because it arouses intolerable levels of fear, guilt, sadness, hopelessness.
This indicates a massive mismanagement of the issue by governments and activists that has prepared the ground for the Denial Delusion.

The Denial Delusion Threatening The Soil Carbon Solution

In an age which has been so well served by science, it is astonishing how easily the credibility of our leading scientific institutions has been undermined by what could be described kindly as fringe conspiracy theorists. Official Science stands accused of falsifying data, manipulating findings, and hoodwinking all the governments and peoples of the world. Thousands of scientists are parties to this hoax, which they are perpetrating in order to enrich themselves by conning governments to spend increasing amounts on research.
This conspiracy has been uncovered by a small band of 'scientists' supported by right wing politicians and think tanks which claim that the hoax is an attempt by the Green Left to destroy western civilisation by deindustrialising economies and forcing us to live a medieval lifestyle like peasants. The "Cap & Trade" system is tagged as a 'massive tax on everything' to pay for a solution to Global Warming that will have no practical effect other than transfer wealth from developed to developing nations, from NATO nations to former enemy regimes China and Russia.
The "Denialists" have denied every aspect of Global Warming - that it is happening at all, that it is man-made, that it can be managed or reduced, or that it is anything more than normal variations in weather conditions. Their solution is to do nothing. Denialism - which threatens to derail an already inadequate global response to Climate Change - is not a sideshow. It is mass delusion of the type that gripped European societies at the turn of the first millennium (1000AD) which many believed was to see the end of the world. Groups of flagellants (self floggers) and pilgrims wandered from place to place, visions were seen and mysticism became popular. The modern Denialists find fertile fields for recruiting devotees in rural districts and among ultra-conservative fundamentalists who already believe a series of conspiracy theories, including the American lunatic right LaRouche Movement and the Citizens’ Electoral Council (CEC). The latter’s claim that Climate Change is nonsense quotes former head of the Bureau of Meteorology William Kininmonth as an expert authority. Mr Kininmonth is not a climate scientist, and his views have respected in the scientific community. He was an administrator. Mr Kininmonth’s anti-climate change propaganda activity has been funded by oil company Exxon Mobil (see “High & Dry” by Guy Pearse). His views are described as “Rubbish” by former head of climate science at CSIRO Graeme Pearman. “He’s not an expert, he hasn’t tested his ideas in the open literature, that’s what scientists have to do.” Mr Kininmonth’s former boss at the Bureau of Meteorology John Zillman described his views as ‘seriously misleading’. Anyone interested in discovering who and what is behind the climate sceptics can go to Wikipedia, or simply Google “Climate Denialists” or visit my blog http://climatesceptics.blogspot.com. In it you will also discover that the Citizen’s Electoral Council is linked to the LaRouche organisation in the USA which believes the Queen and the Royal Family are drug pushers and are planning genocide. The CEC was originally created by the Australian League of Rights, an extreme right-wing and anti-Semitic organisation founded by Eric Butler who in December 1939, wrote: "The real enemy is not Hitler and Germany, but the powers which control Britain, and which are working for the complete bolshevisation of the nation." In a 1940 pamphlet he wrote: "A stream of Australian youth is leaving to be smashed to bloody pulp in the second war to 'save democracy', which like the first war, was fomented by Jewish International Finance, will be financed and controlled by the same group and will mean their undisputed world domination." In the 1960s the League infiltrated the National Party by using the Citizens Electoral Councils. This was successful in areas such as Gippsland, the Riverina, the Darling Downs, the Yorke Peninsula and the Western Australian wheatbelt. Butler claimed that Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt and John Curtin were covert communists.
These are the intellectual foundations of the plotters who are tearing apart the Liberal Party.
But the Denial Delusion is more than just fringe lunatic right wing fantasy. It is widespread and spreading fast.

But what if Barnaby is wrong?

Why soil carbon credits matter

Payment for farming in a less exploitative manner has been a long time coming. It acknowledges that farmers were not soley responsible for degrading the landscape. Out market economy has conspired to pay less that fair value for produce while our society has enjoyed the luxury of cheap products, at the same time demanding the producer go easy on the soil. Soil carbon credits are the logical way to redress the imbalance while the reconstruction of the natural resource base is underway. How we avoid returning to the same perverse system of market failure and destruction is yet to be seen. But paying farmers to exercise their skills in conserving and encouraging Nature to be bountiful must become part of our culture if our civilisation is to continue to be so described.

Initial Response to Minister Wong's Offer

This offer from the Government is either a winning first division Lotto ticket or a notice of foreclosure - it is all in the details. The mailed fist in the velvet glove. So far these are just words on paper. It's not what is on paper that will determine our fates, but what is in Penny Wong's heart. How she will interpret those words.

"Agriculture excluded ... indefinitely from the CPRS". This means that Agricultural enterprises will not be subject to the 'cap and trade' system - which is a compulsory emissions reduction scheme that applies to the top 1000 emitters in our economy and which covers 75% of national emissions. Leaving Agriculture out is not a curious development: no other sector of small to medium size enterprises was targeted for inclusion. The floor for entry into the cap-and-trade system is 25000 tonnes/year.

Even if set in stone in legislation, it is an easy thing for this Government or a new one to change the deal: The Wong Offer Document admits this point: "The Government makes a policy commitment to exclude agriculture... The Government will amend the CPRS bill to explicitly exclude agriculture emissions from the scheme: – this means that a future act of Parliament would be required to reverse this decision, providing additional certainty to the sector." How hard is it to pass a BIll and reverse the decision?

When Agriculture was left out of the CPRS, it was never going to be "business as usual". Those emissions have got to come down some other way. Using an Big Brotherly tone, the paper promises that "The Government will work with industry to: • monitor world‟s best practice in reducing agricultural emissions and consider a range of ways in which the agriculture sector can contribute to the transition to a low-pollution economy; and • introduce voluntary emissions reporting trials in 2011 to allow the sector to better understand and manage its emissions." To keep us all honest the Productivity Commission will review the industry in 2015 to see "whether the sector is at world‟s best practice mitigation and an examination of the potential measures to achieve this." There is no escape.

But there's a lot of carrot: credits for emissions reductions. "The Government will introduce amendments to provide for crediting of abatement from agricultural emissions ... that are counted towards Australia‟s international climate change obligations...'.

THERE IS a poison pill in the deal, as we predicted when the negotiations started. The offsets must "meet internationally accepted principles of permanence, additionality, measurability, avoidance of leakage, independent audit and registration" - which, under the distorted Kyoto Rules, will never be workable. The Copenhagen Solution must be accepted or this offer is a charade.

The Government is to appoint "an independent expert committee ... to vet offset methodologies and recommend robust methodologies". It will accept or reject recommendations, but it promises not to tinker with them. Anyone can submit a standard or methodology to this committee which will become a focal point (taking the heat off the Department and the Minister. It is a tacit admission that the Department does not have the smarts to do this kind of work - hence no Voluntary Standard yet.)
The independent expert committee will be very busy - it will approve projects and credit abatement from commencement of the CPRS; it will set the ground rules - including monitoring, reporting, record-keeping, auditing and enforcement; and allow new sources to be included once they are "recognised in Australia‟s international commitments."

• CPRS credits will be given for emissions reductions "that are counted towards Australia‟s international commitments" and that are covered by "robust methodologies". These include: methane from livestock and manure management, reduced N2O from more economical fertiliser use, the burning of savannas by traditional owners, burning crop trash, rice cultivation , avoided deforestation, a new term called " legacy waste".
No soil mentioned in the CPRS system because of the absurd Kyoto Rules (in section 3.3 and 3.4) that say any country wanting to claim carbon has to count emissions caused by 'acts of God", not humanity - another piece of Kyoto madness. Our Government "will continue advocating" for an end to this lunacy. While we can't play in the big sand pit, the Government will build a smaller one - it will promote voluntary market offsets by implementing a National Carbon Offset Standard (NCOS). This will provide scope for a market for abatement from "agricultural soils (grazing and crop land management), including biosequestration through soil carbon and biochar; and non-forest revegetation and vegetation management."
The plan is to transition to the CPRS market once the 'accountants who are deciding the world's fate' realise what's at stake. (Prime Carbon should send the Department a Bill for policy development work.)

NCOS methodologies would be assessed by the same expert independent expert committee, further adding to its workload.
The question arises: who is "independent" among experts and what is an 'expert'? Will it be a committee full of science, chasing the min-min light of exactitude. Or will it include market and commodity economists, and when will the buyers get a turn?

As a footnote, there is a few million for (more) research into measurement and just as much again for 'stewardship and biodiversity' projects. It is to be hoped that there is some sort of strategy behind all this. It all looks and feels like there isn't.

Payment for farming in a less exploitative manner has been a long time coming. It acknowledges that farmers were not soley responsible for degrading the landscape. Out market economy has conspired to pay less that fair value for produce while our society has enjoyed the luxury of cheap products, at the same time demanding the producer go easy on the soil. Soil carbon credits are the logical way to redress the imbalance while the reconstruction of the natural resource base is underway. How we avoid returning to the same perverse system of market failure and destruction is yet to be seen. But paying farmers to exercise their skills in conserving and encouraging Nature to be bountiful must become part of our culture if our civilisation is to continue to be so described.

DETAILS OF PROPOSED CPRS CHANGES (Agriculture)

24 November 2009

The following is the section of the Australian Government's offer to the Opposition to wintheoir support in the Senate for the CPRS Package.

3. AGRICULTURE
Agriculture excluded
• The Government makes a policy commitment to exclude agriculture indefinitely from the
CPRS.
• The Government will amend the CPRS bill to explicitly exclude agriculture emissions from
the scheme:
– this means that a future act of Parliament would be required to reverse this decision,
providing additional certainty to the sector.
• The Government will work with industry to:
– monitor world‟s best practice in reducing agricultural emissions and consider a range of
ways in which the agriculture sector can contribute to the transition to a low-pollution
economy; and
– introduce voluntary emissions reporting trials in 2011 to allow the sector to better
understand and manage its emissions.

• The Government commits to conducting a Productivity Commission review in 2015 of
whether the sector is at world‟s best practice mitigation and an examination of the potential
measures to achieve this.
Implementation:
- Legislative amendment in the November sitting.
- Policy commitment to be incorporated in Hansard or laid before Parliament.
- Government will work with stakeholders to revise the work programme to incorporate policy
commitments.
Offsets
• The Government will introduce amendments to provide for crediting of abatement from
agricultural emissions and other sectors not covered by the CPRS (for example, legacy waste)
that are counted towards Australia‟s international climate change obligations, with the
following features:
– a policy and legislative framework that ensures any domestic offsets meet
internationally accepted principles of permanence, additionality, measurability,
avoidance of leakage, independent audit and registration;
– promotion of best practice standards;
– an independent expert committee will be established to vet offset methodologies and
recommend robust methodologies to the Minister for approval: This means that the Minister would accept or reject methodologies, but would not be able to modify the committee‟s recommendations
– provisions for interested persons to refer methodologies for assessment by the
independent expert committee;
– approval of projects and crediting of abatement from commencement of the CPRS on
1 July 2011;
– compliance requirements, including monitoring, reporting, record-keeping, auditing and
appropriate enforcement mechanisms; and
– legislation would be flexible and would allow new sources to be included once they are
recognised in Australia‟s international commitments.
• CPRS permits will be provided for abatement from the sources that are counted towards
Australia‟s international commitments, subject to the development of robust methodologies:
– livestock
– manure management
– fertiliser use
– burning of savannas
– burning of agricultural residues
– rice cultivation
– avoided deforestation
– legacy waste
– emissions from closed landfill facilities.
• The Government will continue advocating in the international climate change negotiations to
ensure the post-2012 accounting rules only require countries to account for emissions and
removals of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity.
• In the meantime, the Government will promote voluntary market offsets through
implementation of the National Carbon Offset Standard. This will provide scope for a market
for abatement from the following sources that are not counted towards Australia‟s
international commitments:
– agricultural soils (grazing and crop land management), including biosequestration
through soil carbon and biochar;
– enhanced forest management; and
– non-forest revegetation and vegetation management.
• Abatement from these sources will transition into the CPRS once abatement is internationally
recognised and provided that other CPRS requirements are met.
• To facilitate this, NCOS methodologies would be assessed by the same expert independent
expert committee responsible for advising the Minister on CPRS offset methodologies and
NCOS requirements would be consistent with those of the CPRS wherever possible.
• To further enhance the environmental outcomes from the CPRS, the Government will also:
– provide credits for regrowth forests on deforested land (legally cleared between 1990
and 31 December 2008);
– provide credits for soil carbon on deforested land (for land legally cleared between 1990
and 31 December 2008) from 2013;
– include conditions for forests earning forest credits to have adequate water entitlements
and planning approvals; and
– require that offset projects do not involve, or include material obtained as a result of,
clearing or harvesting of native forests.
Implementation:
- Offset chapter to be included in amendment in November sitting and detailed in supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum.
- Regrowth forests to be included in amendment in 2010.
- Other environmental enhancements to be included via amendments in 2010.
- NCOS to be implemented outside of legislation. Government to advocate improved international
accounting in international negotiations.
- Policy commitments to be incorporated in Hansard or laid before Parliament .
R&D into agricultural abatement
• To assist farmers to take advantage of these expanded offset opportunities, the Government
will provide additional R&D investment of $50 million into the development and on-farm
testing of emissions reduction options, including biosequestration and livestock, supported by
the voluntary reporting trial. This funding would include support for the development of a
global alliance on agricultural mitigation research proposed by New Zealand.
Green Carbon Fund
• The Government will establish a $40 million Green Carbon Fund to build the resilience of
natural ecosystems that are under threat from climate change.
• The first stream of the fund will provide support to monitor and plan for the impact of climate
change on biodiversity and land and water resources. The second stream will support initiatives to encourage environmental stewardship and biodiversity where there are carbon co-benefits.

Implementation:

- Program appropriated in future Budgets.
- Policy commitments to be incorporated in Hansard or laid before Parliament .

The Robust Science of Methane

Corey,
Your robust criticism of Matt Cawood (The Land) and Charles Armstrong (NSW Farmers') for misreading a scientific paper invites a reply, if only to congratulate you for your enthusiasm. I endorse your intention to engage the farm community in the issues, and in this same spirit of bridge-building I offer this defence of Matt and Charles:

While they erred in using the Californian figure for methane as a global figure, their crime pales into nothing when measured against the 2006 FAO report called “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, famous only for being an embarrassment for the organization. The use of the 'data' by Animal Liberation and WWF was scandalous. The University of California study of the U.N.’s data, titled "Clearing the Air: Livestock’s Contribution to Climate Change," politely accuses it of almost being ‘junk science’ in the hands of those ideologically disposed to politicise the methane issue.
“For example, the statement that 18 percent of anthropogenic global GHGs is caused by livestock production and that livestock produces more GHG than transportation (FAO, 2007) is based on inappropriate or inaccurate scaling of predictions,” says lead author of the study, Frank Mitloehner. The sleight-of-hand to reach a point where cattle contributed more emissions than the entire global transport industry involved two subtle shifts of the data: 1. The FAO “Long Shadow” Report included in livestock’s list of liabilities the massive clearance of forest in South America and elsewhere to graze cattle. The UCal report notes that the chief source of greenhouse gases from livestock production isn’t the animals themselves but deforestation for livestock production. 2. At the same time, when making the comparison with the transport sector, the FAO report did not take such a whole of lifecycle approach, thus lightening the sector’s load. And making methane look worse.
So, the argument that “methane is such a big problem, we can’t let farmers get off scot free” loses momentum. Where does it represent 18% and compared to what? The truth is that nowhere does it represent 18%. The authors of the FAO report were too quick on the trigger to be credible.
An even bigger credibility problem for those who promote the “Big Methane Problem” syndrome: Cattle may not cause methane increases at all, according to research sponsored by the FAO. “Since 1999 atmospheric methane concentrations have levelled off while the world population of ruminants has increased at an accelerated rate,” it reports at http://www.naweb.iaea.org/nafa/aph/stories/2008-atmospheric-methane.html “Prior to 1999, world ruminant populations were increasing at the rate of 9.15 million head/year but since 1999 this rate has increased to 16.96 million head/year. Prior to 1999 there was a strong relationship between change in atmospheric methane concentrations and the world ruminant populations. However, since 1999 this strong relation has disappeared.” Since 1999, there was an atmospheric increase of 0.3 ppb methane/year. This contrasts with the 10.8 ppb/year for the previous time period of 1979 to 1999.
How can this be? No one can explain it. Even Australia’s most senior scientists say “It might be this… It might be that…” What is a farmer to think? How credible does this tangled story sound? "Trust us, we're scientists."
Science claims to be able to tell us what our global methane emissions and our national emissions are, but not our herd emissions. Why? How did they get the global number? By adding up the national numbers? How did they get the national numbers? They have no herd numbers. They estimated it? Based on what? Whose Science? What was the predisposition of the individual scientist who did the estimation? In a report from the very frontiers of methane measurement science, Dr Ed Charmley (CSIRO Livestock Industries) has developed a laser that he shoots over the top of a herd. But he despairs of 100% accuracy. “You’re never going to have a definitive answer, but compared to the way methane is estimated currently, we’re looking for more elegance in the way it’s done.”

More elegance. More Dinkum Science.
Australian farmers won't shirk their duty. But give us something we can believe in.

Climate Institute celebrates Agriculture's good fortune by handing Wong another bullet

Agriculture dodges bullet, and the Climate Institute calls for another one to be loaded into the chamber. It doesn’t do much for the Institute’s standing with farmers.

Here's how it celebrated the good news: "Government and Opposition now need to put forward an alternative strategy for reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint, following the decision to permanently exempt farmers from any liability under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), The Climate Institute said today. “If it’s not going to be the CPRS, then Government and Opposition need to commit to an alternative that will reduce farm emissions, and ensure taxpayers and other businesses aren’t left carrying the burden,” said Corey Watts, The Climate Institute’s Regional Projects Manager.Mr Watts said that, currently, the rural sector is the country’s second biggest source of carbon pollution after electricity.

Corey, how do you justify bending the rules to shoehorn Agriculture into a cap and trade system when the vast majority of farm enterprises don't qualify for the 25,000t CO2-e floor on emissions? Why choose one group of small businesses and not any others? Why impose further burdens on an already over-burdened sector of the economy when the world's leaders are calling for a Herculean effort by farmers simply to feed the world when the population doubles in 40 years time? When the world's leading military and international security strategists predict massive global conflict sparked off by famine and flood resulting in mass migrations, especially in our region?
Why not call for incentives to encourage emissions reductions in agriculture? Have the same effect.

PENNY WONG ANNOUNCES SOIL CARBON CREDITS

"Agriculture excluded from ETS: govt" screams the headline this Sunday morning. And Penny Wong is on ABCTV's Insiders program discussing the 'OFFER' that farmers be exempt from emissions caps for methane and nitrous oxide... and that they will be given the opportunity to earn carbon credits for changed land management. The OFFER is on the table, conditional on the Opposition supporting the ETS legislation. SO the bird isn't in the hand, yet. It is not time to celebrate yet, but the signs are good

SIGNS:

1. Penny Wong looked relaxed and comfortable making the announcement, as though it is a done deal.
2. It allows the Government to go to Copenhagen with an Agriculture positon that reflects the Obama Administraton's preferred outcome.
3. Kevin Rudd is meeting right now (this minute) with 17 of the top 20 nations at breakfast at which President Obama will be present. (Giving him a chance to shine in public. He loves it.)
4. It allows Turnbull to wedge the dissenters over the ETS and makes people like the Barnaby Nationals look silly.

Congratulations should go to Greg Hunt (Shadow Environment Minister) who first introduced soil carbon to Turnbull. Congratulations also to Turnbull. And Congratulations to Ian Macfarlane, the surprise package in the Opposition's Climate Change response. A former denialist, he proved to be a skilled negotiator, charming the stoic Wong by giving what appeared to be sincere praise from the gravel-voiced old farmer.

Congratulations to all of us. And shame on those who peddled worst case scenario visions of the future to those whose greatest need is hope.

To those inevitably outraged by this special treatment for Agriculture - which by some twisted arithmetic is responsible for 51% of world emissions - consider the following;

Farmers are small business operators.
Farmers emit less than the 25000 tonnes CO2-e over a year - which is the threshold entry point for other businesses into the ETS. No other small businesses are included.
Farmers are the only people who can feed the world. Famine is a major cause of world armed conflict.
Emissions estimations have been based on questionable science.
Most opponents of the farm sector are ideologically incapable of assessing its contribution and the nature of its emissions profile.
Farmers genuinely work in a unique environment.
Farmers are expected to perform socially-valuable environmental work (with no compensation) by a society which at the same time refuses to pay the full value for what they grow.
Farmers are the only hope we have got to stall Climate Change long enough for renewable energy alternatives can reach critical mass.

The soil carbon credit is the first recognition of this special role of the farmer. They are bearing the brunt of climate change. They deserve support.

Well done, Minister Wong.

To Market, To Market

The following factors have become clear to us as we are recruiting farmers for baselining in preparation for measuring their soil carbon increases for the voluntary market that is soon to open and reports coming back from negotiations with buyers (big emitters) overseas and locally...

1. Ultimately only two parties will decide the shape of the voluntary market: buyers (emitters) and growers (sellers). If either party refuses to play, there is no game. The rest of us are spectators.
2. Growers will not get involved if the risks are too great (permanence), the costs too high (measurement), or the rules too strict (additionaiity).
3. Buyers will get involved if The Objective is to stall climate change for a period of 30-50 years while the world shifts from coal to renewables. Lal thinks it can be done.
4. To reach the Objective we need almost universal switching to carbon farming practices immediately.
5. The preferred method of incentive for change among growers is a market-based instrument (soil carbon offsets). There is no faith in government stewardship payments.
6. Issues of additionality, permanence, measurement, etc. are barriers to achieving the objective of universal grower involvement.
7. Issues like additionality, permanence, etc are decided by buyers and growers in these voluntary markets, not governments or brokers or wholesalers.
6. Kyoto was never meant to apply to Agriculture. The application of rules designed for industrial environments to Agriculture was an afterthought. The issue of food security and national and international security have left the Protocols behind.
9. The burning sense of urgency that is gripping the world community is tearing up the rule book. The market is frustrated by official dithering.
10. As Lal warned his colleagues: the train is leaving the station. (Soil & Tillage Research, 96, 2007) The unregulated voluntary market will become the defacto main market if the bar is set too high for Agriculture's involvement in a cap and trade system.

Conspiracy by environmentalists against soil carbon?

Ever wondered why the Green Groups have never endorsed or supported us? Andrea Koch - a Gore presenter based in Sydney - sends us a link to an article about Al Gore’s latest book OUR CHOICE. "It confirms my suspicion about why the Climate Change lobby (i.e. NGO’s like ACF) wont engage on soil carbon sequestration, which is because they know that it will work so well, that it will take the heat off the emissions side of the equation. They want to get the world off of oil before they let farmers get due credit for sucking up CO2."

The line to look for in this extract is: "If you tell people soils can be managed to suck up lots of our carbon emissions, it sounds like a get-out-of-jail-free card, and could decrease what little enthusiasm there is for reducing those emissions."

The Evolution Of An Eco-Prophet
By Sharon Begley | NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Nov 9, 2009

'The potential for soils to absorb more of the CO2 that our utilities, factories, and vehicles spew poses a dilemma for Gore, one of two where his scientific and political instincts collide. With better management, soils could sequester much more carbon than they do now. The question is how much more. Soils scientist Rattan Lal of Ohio State University was surprised to get a call last summer ("Vice President Gore would like to talk to you") that began, "I have 15 or 20 questions about soils and climate for you." Lal calculates that if more farmers adopted mulching, no-till farming, and the use of cover crops and manure, 3,700 million acres worldwide could sequester 1 gigaton per year of CO2, roughly 12 percent of annual global emissions. Other experts are even more sanguine. "If we feed the biology and manage grasslands appropriately, we could sequester as much carbon as we emit," says Timothy LaSalle, CEO of the Rodale Institute, who presented at two summits. The political clash is this: if you tell people soils can be managed to suck up lots of our carbon emissions, it sounds like a get-out-of-jail-free card, and could decrease what little enthusiasm there is for reducing those emissions—as one of Gore's assistants told LaSalle in asking him to dial down his estimate. (He didn't.)
To his credit, Gore sides with the science, letting the political chips fall where they may. He writes that soils could sequester an additional 15 percent of annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. That could cut 50 parts per million of CO2 from the atmosphere over the next 50 years. (We are now at 387, up from 280 before the industrial era, with 450 ppm or even less a dangerous level.) To encourage changes in agriculture that would foster carbon sequestration, Gore advocates moving away from price supports and toward paying farmers for "how much carbon they can put into and keep in their soil," he says.

Two admissions by Penny Wong

Reading the entrails on Penny Wong's statements on 4 Corners last night is instructive:

She said two things about the prospect of soil carbon offsets: "We need more research on that. And we need it to be counted in the international accounting rules so that it counts towards Australia's target."

"We need more research on that" is the classic filibuster strategy. Politicians know it well. If you have a live issue that has supporters and you want to slow it down or kill it, refer it to a subcommittee where it can die from lack of oxygen. Or bury it in 'research' - 3 year trials that take a further 2 years to see the light of day. By which time who will notice?

Penny Wong fails to feel the urgency. Science fails to feel the urgency.
By putting off a decision on Agriculture til 2013, she is prepared to wait 4 years while Climate Change gets worse and soil carbon could be hard at work slowing it down.

Another way to strangle an unwanted initiative is to demand thad it meet impossible standards. It is clear that the international community have condemned the Kyoto Protocols as irrelevant for Agriculture. why continue to refer to them - bring out your dead: additionality, permanence, measurement...

IPCC Lead Author plugs soil carbon offsets

DR DAVID KAROLY of Earth Sciences, Melbourne, declared for soil carbon offsets last night on 4 Corners: "Agriculture is also a massive opportunity in terms of not only reducing emissions but storing carbon through changes in agricultural practice because there are opportunities to store carbon in soils, or to store carbon through changes in vegetation." He was speaking on Sarah Ferguson's report "Malcolm and the Malcontents", first broadcast 9 November 2009.

Peter Andrews is a landscape psychic.

Former Governor General, Major General Michael Jeffrey delivered the first "Farming For The Planet" Oration at the Carbon Conference & Expo Official Dinner.(Extracts will be posted soon.) He also presented Peter Andrews with a plaque commemorating his induction into the Hall of Heroes of the New Agricultural Revolution.



The dedication is as follows:

Peter Andrews is a landscape psychic. He sees things in Nature that the rest of us cannot. He has made a significant contribution to our understanding of the unique landscape that we have in our care, at significant personal cost. He has inspired many to follow the Natural Sequence. But Nature cannot wait for heresy to become canon law. For unwavering pursuit of his vision of the nation’s waterways and soils restored to their natural potential we declare… Peter Andrews A Hero of the New Agricultural Revolution.

Christine Jones is A Hero of the New Agricultural Revolution.

Christine Jones is a hero to many, many people. Even those who disagree with her theories cannot disregard her impact and the impetus she has given to the transition to sustainable agriculture in this country. At the Landcare conference in Yass a fortnight ago we presented Christine with a plaque to signify the important role she plays in the growing community coalescing around the philosophy of Natural Farming.



The dedication on the Plaque reads:

Dr Christine Jones risked all to realise her vision of the nation’s grasslands and farmland perpetually green and their soils rich with carbon. Her great compassion for the land and those who work on it led her to develop many successful theories to explain the rapid accumulaton of carbon in soil. Her ability to communicate the drama of the soil carbon story inspired many to dedicate their energy o the soil carbon solution in an era when they are most needed. Now. C

"The best conference I have ever been to."

NOTE: SLIDES FROM CONFERENCE WLL BE AVAILABLE SOON - WATCH THIS SPACE

"The best conference I have ever been to." This is the word from John Lawrie, soils expert and CWCMA stalwart, referring to the Carbon Farming Conference & Expo this week at Borenore, near Orange NSW. More than 400 attended the Coference or the half-day "Soil Carbon 101 Workshop" or the dinner or all three. Exhibitors numbers were up 100%. Attendance at the 101 workshop rose from 30 to 100 this year. We had more scientists than ever before. And this was the first of our conferences to attract a former Governor General (Major General Michael Jeffery).

The event had many emotional high-points (for me): the induction of Christine Jones and Peter Andrews into the Hall of Heroes of the New Agricultural Revolution; the emergence of Paul Newell with his gentle approach to healing the land that he calls "Landsmanship"; the decision by CSIRO's top soil carbon scientist Jeff Baldock to attend every session of the conference (unlike the 'seagull'* approach of some last year); the shockwave that went around the room when Ken Bellamy revealed his new interpretation of the chemistry of photosynthesis; the awe-inspiring and equally shocking implications of Prof. John Crawford's insights into the 'thinking soil'; the presence and the presentations delivered by the two men behind the "Soil Carbon Mythbusters" national tour David Waters and Clive Kirkby; the presentation of a dozen eggs - biodynamic, organic, free range - by farm innovator and visionary Tony Coote to the Carbon Coalition's Michael Kiely; the rain dance master-minded by Nick Ritar; the excitement in the voices of the Carbon Cocky winners when talking about how their attitude to farming has changed... The "hits" of the conference (based on the 'Rest Room Index of Speaker Mentions') were Gary Lewis, Paul Newell, Dr Carole Hungerford, Robert Pekin and Algae.... and 'all these young blokes, how can they know so much at their age?'

The gap between the past and the future is only a moment. But such a moment...
Dr Andrew Rawson seeks divine inspiration to give him an answer to the question we put to him at the end of his Chairman's introduction presentation. The title of his presentation was, 'Does Science feel the Urgency?' He started his address with a sense of urgency: saying we did not want to hear the same-old same-old about SOIL CARBON, such as soil health, water holding capacity, etc. No reciting of the old litany of soil carbon's benefits. Unfortunately broke his own rule when he recited the litany of 'difficulties' or blockages to soil carbon offsets trading - measurement, permanence, additionality, etc., which we thought we had left behind. How difficult it is to see in ourselves that which we can see so clearly in others. His response, when asked - how far have we moved in Soil Carbon Science in 12 months? - he said 'We are another year ahead.' We'll catch up with ourselves soon. There was a genuine clash of ideas between scientists and farmers this year, proof that the experiment in creating a safe debating environment based on respect, integrity and collaboration is working.

* (ie. fly in, mess all over everything and everyone then fly out)

How much influence has Barnaby Joyce got in the ETS negotiations?

None at the moment. The Nationals are as relevant to the process as some of Barnaby's humourous one liners. You can wrap manure in cellophane, but it is still manure. What is his party's policy on soil carbon credits? Essentially it is: we don't want a bar of anything to do with carbon emissions or credits, etc. because we'll only get screwed by Government taxes on emissions and screwed by merchant bankers on carbon credits. In a debate with John Hewson in June 09 on ABC Radio, Barnaby claimed to be 'on the front foot' with this issue. But his contribution to the debate revealed a startling ignorance of fundamentals. Barnaby confuses soil carbon sequestration with bochar then, realising he is out of rope, changes the subject and then confuses biosecurity with biodiversity, switches to methane and cattle and rambles through a global conspiracy scenario and winds up with a oneliner. He's a monty - he's Jo Bejlke Petersen returned from the grave.
But what has this got to do with the reason the Nationals are boycotting the ETS negotiations? If Barnaby is the Leader in the Senate and he hasn't done his homework on a key issue, who has? Barnaby confirms below that he's as dumb as on this topic. He hasn't made the effort. SO it's either boycott the negotiations or be found out...
(Someone told me that they went to school with Barnaby and would I like an introduction? I said "Yes, of course. I like a good laugh.")

TRANSCRIPT:

Barnaby Joyce: Well it's so marvellous, why hadn't we thought of that? Well the reason is, we have, and everybody's aware of the terra preta soils of Amazonia and it's a fact that greater carbon sequestration for soil improves productivity. There is a whole range of areas in Australia where it would be impossible to provide that, because just the structure of the soil wouldn't allow the sequestration of the carbon. You'd more likely have charcoal sitting on the top, which would be interesting in a bushfire.

Geraldine Doogue: How do you mean?

Barnaby Joyce: Ah well, you've got to obviously sequestrate the carbon inside the soil. If you can't get inside the soil, and there's a lot of places where that's just not possible, Geraldine, then your carbon, which would probably be in the form of charcoal, would be sequestrated on top of the soil, and unless you want to do it via – you see some of the issues in this argument by John – for instance, it is a fact that there is more carbon sequestrated in summer grasses in summer-growing pastures than there is in a dry sclerophyll forest. So if we were to follow this path, you would have to come forward with a policy. If you were going to be fair dinkum and upfront about it, that would pull over dry sclerophyll forest and plant Buffalo grass, Mitchell grass, summer pastures, possibly lucerne, and this doesn't work into the other side of the agenda of this debate, which is also – once you say that, they say 'There's also the biosecurity argument'. No-one ever talks about that, however, but we seem to ignore that fact.

What I don't believe, however, is that people are prepared, or the economics behind this, is about farmers getting an income stream. I think the economics behind this is that ultimately this program is going to make money, it is a tax, and Dr Hewson more than anybody else would understand what happens to people who introduce new taxes. And the idea that the farmers are going to somehow in Australia rise up, change the whole concept of the Kyoto Protocol which disaffirms soil carbon sequestration, is peculiar. But what I do see is an article such as Ben Macintyre yesterday in The Australian, where they talk about the evils of cattle, and how cattle now are next thing on the agenda that have to be removed. And what I can see our nation moving towards is a program of economic oblivion. I think we're being romantic in the extreme if we believe that at the end of this debate Australia is the one making money. No, at the end of this debate, Australia will be the one losing money, and when poverty walks in the door, your affection for a carbon trading system will fly out the window.

TRANSCRIPT ENDS


(Sound of laughter stage left.)

Science seduced to speak more than it knows

Other 'poison pills' masquerading as "Sound Science" are scientific opinions on soils' 'potential' to sequester carbon (supposedly based on peer-reviewed science but actually based on nothing at all except predisposition to believe or 'faith') , the insistence that the "fractions" must be measured because some of them are less stable than others (entirely irrelevant to trade because buyers are not interested in which carbon molecules are sequestered, only the gross amount), and the insistence that Bulk Density be measured to accurately determine the tonnages sequestered - an expensive process (and one that is entirely unnecessary in a trading environment where the sellers can agree to set Bulk Density at 1.0, sacrificing a percentage return to favour the buyer, to reduce uncertainty and avoid a costly process at the same time.) These and the thousands of other uncertainties attached to soil carbon can be equalised via the market mechanism of price. The misplaced belief in Sound Science's ability to provide a risk free market system for soil carbon is not an evil plot but a simple mistake: Politicians don't have enough headspace to devote to learning the soil carbon story, preferring to 'outsource' the judgement necessary to science (mistaking the task as being technical instead of commercial). Some scientists, in turn, are quite willing to give opinions on matters outside their competence (such as the operation of markets - ie. it will cost too much to measure, it will not be worth the expense because our soils cannot sequester significant amounts, etc.) - and they accepted the brief without questioning whether their actions were legitimate or relevant when the name of the game was "Trade". Yet decisions were taken in the name of "Sound Science" which have delayed "Trade" by diverting research funds into areas which may appear relevant to a scientist, but we believe are 'nice to know', not 'need-to-know'. A senior scientist involved in this process said, "I have know idea what the market will look like." But someone in the Minister's office assumed that the scientist did because they allowed them to make decisions which required knowledge of how a market works. Neither politicians nor scientists have 'knowledge of marketplace dynamics' on their Job Specification. Occasionally a Malcolm Turnbull appears. And he has never had a problem with soil carbon as a tradable commodity.

Sounds good, but lookout for "sound science" poison pill

Penny Wong is a clever woman. She had a glint in her eye when she referred to Agriculture in the press conference after the first day of negotiations with the Opposition on the Emissions Trading Scheme. She had convinced Ian Macfarlane that the Opposition will get what it wants on Agriculture. We know this by the gushing tone of "we'll stand up for Agriculture" and "we won't weaken" that Mr Macfarlane adopted in Lucy Knight's piece in The Land. It sounds like the Opposition will accept increased costs of energy and fuel in return for 'offsets'. Macfarlane sounds upbeat about the possibility of 'offsets': "Offsets are an area where there could be huge money in it for farmers... An ETS is going to cost rural industries money... but to counter-balance that, if you can give them an offset then they could come out net better off." But does Ian know the way Penny can give with one hand and take away with the other? It's a trick called "Sound Science" or "Robust Science" and it can be set to go off in any one of a number of areas. It works by demanding that Soil Carbon pass a test that is impossible for it to pass. For instance, measurement. "Science has not yet found a reliable way to measure soil carbon for the purposes of trade." The test: Find a method of recording exactly how much carbon is in a given piece of land. Reason task is impossible: carbon cycles (fluxes) in and out of soil so measurements vary by location and time of day. Official Position: Wait for Science to find a method. (Task impossible.) Evidence of Poison Pill: Science accepts Remote sensing (satellite imaging) ground-truthed by core sampling as sufficiently accurate for the exacting levels of robustness required for scientific research. Why does it have to be even more exact for purposes of trade? Every other category of carbon emission or sequestration under Kyoto is managed by estimation. Why not soils? (No one from the Government has answered this question, ever.) So Ian Macfarlane should be wary of looking like Neville Chamberlain returning from Berlin with Hitler's signature on a letter saying he would never attack Britain less than 12 months before he attacked Britain.

DR CHRISTINE JONES, HERO OF THE NEW AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION

We were privileged to have an opportunity to recognise the contribution of the founder and intellectual leader of the soil carbon movement, Dr Christine Jones. The dedication on the plaque says:

"Dr Christine Jones risked all to realise her vision of the nation’s grasslands and farmland perpetually green and their soils rich with carbon. Her great compassion for the land and those who work on it compelled her to develop many successful theories to explain the rapid accumulation of carbon in soil. Her ability to communicate the drama of the soil carbon story has inspired many to dedicate their energy to the soil carbon solution in an era when they are most needed. Now.

CHRISTINE JONES

HERO OF THE NEW AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION
Gratefully Acknowledged By Members of the Carbon Coalition"


The presentation took place at the Yass Area Network of Landcare Groups' "Your Land, Your Soil, Your Future"

Corey's head was spinning

After a grilling on Country Hour by the enraged agriculturalists who are attracted to call radio stations and vent, the Climate Institute's Corey Watts (ex-ACF, now the Regional Projects Manager at the Institute), told me his 'head was spinning'. Corey is an important player in this field because he is the best chance environmentalists have got to get a seat at the table we call Agriculture. Instead of coming from an ideologically-fixed position, Corey is trying to understand. So we'll give him the benefit of the doubt for the 'classic bloopers' in his soils section of his recent report "Towards Climate-Friendly Farming: Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions Agriculture & Rural Land Use". There is significant evidence of over-exposure to conventional science and its prejudices: "There is a great deal of enthusiasm amongst landholders for soil carbon as a new commodity." Enthusiasm is code for 'irrational exuberance based on superstition and blind faith'. It is the classic put-down language. He goes on: "Indeed, [soil carbon] sometimes seems touted as something of a panacea." This is code for 'silver bullet' and leads directly to 'snake oil salesman'. Rather than listen to enthusiasts, we should observe what "best available science" says - and it "suggests clear thinking is needed before the real potential can be tapped." That is opposed to the woolly thinking of the enthusiasts. We've heard it all before. Australia is different: "Globally, the theoretical potential of soils to sequester carbon is significant. Moreover, the productivity benefits of soil carbon can make a powerful case for encouraging practices that improve soil health, though this is not always straightforward. In practical terms, however, the soil’s capacity to permanently store carbon is limited by a host of factors, most especially rainfall. Given Australia’s erratic conditions together with declining rainfall in southern regions, substantial long-term soil carbon management is generally less reliable here than in North America or Europe." Such generalisations are not useful unless you are seeking to discourage 'enthusiasts'. But those looking at the glass half-full see great reason to be enthusiastic about Australia's capacity to sequester carbon. The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists said yesterday, "As a consequence of the loss of soil carbon in agricultural systems, many Australian soils now have a significant capacity to store additional carbon." The Climate Institute's report covers all the bases we have come to expect from defenders of the old regime:
"Accurately measuring soil carbon can be very expensive and very tricky, and there are significant risks of inadvertent release." And a final genuflection to 'sound science,' and thumbs up to biochar with no evidence of its viability. Now, if enthusiasm is cause for doubting one's credibility, biochar is full of it.

Halfway to Paradigm Heaven

“The science now tells us that it will be next to impossible for nations to achieve the scale of reductions required in sufficient time to avoid dangerous climate change unless we also remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it in vegetation and soils…The power of terrestrial carbon to contribute to the climate change solution is profound.”

“Optimising Carbon in the Australian Landscape” - Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, October 2009

They say that nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of a hanging. The WGCS have noticed the 900 gorilla in the room... 'the Legacy Load' - the fact that extraction on a massive scale is urgently needed to stall runaway Climate Change long enough for clean energy to gain critical mass. The Group also notes that the massive potential of 'terrestrial carbon' make it capable of offsetting 25% of our emissions, a huge economic win. It argues for the inclusion of agriculture in the CPRS as an offset provider, but only after the international community agree new rules on definitions and measurement.

But can the world afford the time it will take to draw up new convention, and come to a position on measurement, permanence and additionality that will not offend the purists. The Group says the voluntary market should also be built on 'robust design principles' that guarantee 'permanence' and address 'additionality issues'. Here we see the optimism of those who have only recently entered the swamp of sol carbon sequestration. These are Kyoto terms. Kyoto was designed to keep soil out. We will need more than a new city name to change the paradigm that governs IPCC mindsets. We need new definitions of these terms that make it easy for soil to get in. The definitions currently in vogue were developed to meet the needs of industrial polluters, not those business engaged with biological cycles.

Even people working in the biophysical area were seduced by the idea that soil would never fit in, because of the dominance of the Kyoto mindset (which had Mick Keogh bluffed over at the Farm Institute) but this was because they had little knowledge of soil biology, which is the powerhouse of soil carbon activity. And they hadn't seen the gorilla... the four aces in their hand.

Agriculture doesn't need to ask permission any more. The genie is out of the bottle. If the silently depressed masses - suffering from the sense of despair that they can't share with each other - hear about this 'cure' for Climate Change, they will
demand it, ripping up the rule books and sacking the offices of the rule makers.

So the Wentworth Group have made the leap across the chasm separating the to paradigms of soil carbon, and made it halfway. Let's see them complete the job - sit down with like-minded folk and use their considerable talents to help fashion the solutions needed. Or simply endorse some of the many solutions that are bubbling up from below, where the microbes grow.

Christine Jones: Carbon Farming Conference "an excellent program, with a top line-up of speakers"

Dr Christine Jones is unable to be with us at this years Carbon Farming Conference (November 4-5, 2009), but says, "I must say that it is an excellent program, with a top line-up of speakers, for which you are to be sincerely congratulated." There are so many speakers we would like to bring you in the Carbon Farming Conference that we would need 10 days to cover them all.

The themes for this year are Urgency and Practical Carbon Farming.

Topics and speakers in order are:

A Year On: Does Science Feel The Urgency? (Dr Andrew Rawson, DCCEW)
Soil Carbon Credits Without the Debits? Carbon Farming After Copenhagen - Will Australia Follow The USA? (Bryan Clark, Grain Growers Association)
Water: Foundation of Soil Carbon (Peter Andrews, Natural Sequence Farming – Farmer)
Engine Exhaust Fumes As Fertiliser (Gary Lewis, Bio-Agtive Emissions Technology, Canada)
Is Science Taking Us Closer To Trade? (Dr Jeff Baldock, CSIRO)
The Matrix Method of Estimating Soil Carbon Potential (Dr Brian Murphy DECCEW)
Can Soil Choose To Sequester Carbon? (Prof. John Crawford, University of Sydney)
Manage Your Microbes to Make Carbon. (Dr Maarten Stapper, Consultant Soil Biologist)
Compost 101: Practical Steps For Beginners (Rhonda Daly, YLAD Living Soils - Farmer)
Bioferts: Carbon, Productivity and Profit (Bart Davidson, BioNutrient Solutions – ex-Farmer)
“Landsmanship”: NSF without bulldozers - Paul Newell, Landsmanship - Farmer)
Practical Permaculture For Carbon Farmers (Nick Ritar, Milkwood Permaculture - Fparmer)
Algae For Fuel and Fertiliser (Michael Longhurst, Central West CMA)
Biochar? Promises Promises? (David Waters, NSW Department of Industry & Investment)
Gala Dinner – Chairman: Hon. Tony Windsor, MP., Farmer and long-time supporter of the Soil Carbon Movemet
The First Annual “Farming For Planet Earth” Oration - Speaker: Former Governor General Major-General Michael Jeffery AC CVO MC
Hall Of Heroes Inductees awarded
Healthy Soil, Healthy Food, Healthy People, Healthy World (Dr Carole Hungerford, GP)
Local Food Lowers Emissions - Linking Carbon Farmers and Consumers (Robert Pekin, Food Connect- Ex-Farmer)
Launching Ecological Agriculture Australia: Food. Farming. Knowledge. Ecology. Ethics. (Kerry Cochrane, CSU)
A New Theory of Photosynthesis: Making Water Out Of Air (Ken Bellamy, Institute of Bioengineering)
New Technology Solutions for Soil Carbon Trading (Ichsani Wheeler, University of Sydney)
"Storing Carbon At Three Levels By Integrating No Kill Cropping" (Bruce Maynard, Narromine) Farmer
A Carbon Cocky One Year On (Graham Ross, Bathurst) Farmer
The Power of A Goal (Tony Coote, Braidwood) Farmer
The Drought Proof Property (Tim & Karen Wright, Uralla) Farmer
A Revolutionary Theory of Humus (Clive Kirkby, CSIRO)
Soil Carbon Market-Based Instrument Trial (Kate Lorimer-Ward, NSW DII)
Start Banking Your Soil Carbon Now (Louisa Kiely, Carbon Farmers of Australia, Farmer)

Call 02 6374 0329 or email louisa@carboncoalition.com.au

The Soil Carbon Bank Is Open For Business!

“Start Banking Your Soil Carbon Now (Even if you’re not interested in selling right away)”

The Soil Carbon Bank allows farmers to take a wait and see approach with soil carbon trading without losing any of the value they are storing in their soil. It is part of a Program being launched at the upcoming Carbon Farming Conference & Expo at the National Field Day Site at Borenore, near Orange NSW, 4-5th November, 2009. To open a ‘Savings Account,’’’ a grower must have a baseline measurement so that they have a starting point For information about the Conference or to apply for Baselining, call (02) 6374 0329

GROWER PROTECTION PLAN

To reduce risks and guard against losses:
• 5 year contracts
• “Bulk Density” set at 1.0, which reduces the cost of measurement.
• Each grower can sell only half the soil carbon they grow
• balance is held in case of losses
• each grower will be protected by being part of a pool of millions of units that can make good losses
• 75% of earnings are held in trust until the end of the contract
• half interest returned to grower; balance used to cover costs of organising hundreds of small parcels, especially when order size are in millions of units, auditing and managing the pool, marketing them, and tracking them through a register, dealing with regulators.
• all administrative costs have been capped at 10%, which is 20% lower than the American system was charging until
recently when charges fell from 30% to 15%.

CARBON FARMERS OF AUSTRALIA

• Not-for-profit.
• ‘Membership’ organisation
• Growers’ representatives and agents.
• Not brokers or promoters
• Advise growers on risks and rights.
• Representation in disputes/negotiations
• Maximise farmers financial returns.
• Assist farmers make decisions and between competing soil carbon offset scheme promoters.

Services include
• soil carbon ‘baselining’ (core sampling to set the ‘floor’ or starting point);
• advice on contracts;
• advice on growing soil carbon quickly;
•general soil carbon education and training.

Grew out of the Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming which has been
camApaigning for 4 years in pursuit of its “Mission: To see soil carbon traded and farmers paid fairly
for what they grow.”
02 6374 0 329

Hooray for the NSW Farmers' Association

Hooray for the NSW Farmers' Association. It has a soil carbon policy:

"NSW Farmers’ Association is calling on the Government to exclude Agriculture from emissions liability under the CPRS and to investigate policy that would enable farmers to sell carbon credits created in soil, crops and pasture." (The NFF is not so definitive in its support.)

The NSW Farmers' Association's former president Jock Laurie was the first industry figure to endorse the Carbon Coalition's stand on soil carbon credits. Despite this, the Association was unable to get a motion up at Conference, due to the grumpy old denialists clogging the Association's debates. We presented new President Charles Armstrong with a copy of the Carbon Farming Handbook at Gulgong during his recent western whistle-stop tour.

The Association has a membership drive on - as sign of the times. Support the Association that supports soil carbon credits.

The ex-Governor General's Task Force looks to Soil Carbon Credits

Major General Michael Jeffrey, the former Governor General who has made it a personal mission to address what he calls a "national emergency" over Australia's natural water supplies, has soil carbon sequestration and trading in offsets as a key part of his strategy.

The NSF Task Force is not unlike the Carbon Coalition, with one difference: in our movement no one solution predominates. In the world of NSF, one solution has precedence. The "Dialogue at Kioloa" near Bateman's Bay last weekend, which resulted in the article you circulated to your members, was attended by around 100 people of diverse backgrounds and interests. They were united by one thing: an invitation from Major General Michael Jeffrey, the former Governor General, who has a personal mission of seeing Peter Andrews principles put into practice because he believes the nation is facing a water crisis. A presentation to senior federal pubic servants at Peter's former home Tarwyn Park in the Hunter Valley was made by rangelands soils specialists, biofertiliser experts, and soil ameliorant producers. These were presented as part of an holistic solution to water issues, with Peter's techniques the centrepiece of the portfolio. It was agreed that water is the gatekeeper for everything else, but that it is not a solution on its own. The outcome of the day was a decision to assemble a Task Force to implement this vision. The Major General declared that the secret to success was in understanding how all the parts fitted together and the Carbon Coalition provided a solution in the form of the attached. (Farmland Ecosystem Restoration Planner, aka SCOT: The Soil Carbon Optimisation Tool.) Another issue the Coalition sees arising from the weekend, is 'adoption' of the practices by farmers. Here soil carbon credits are seen by the Task Force as the catalyst. The Carbon Coalition - which has always been a supporter of Peter Andrews and Natural Sequence Farming as a carbon-stimulating technique - is behind the Task Force 100%. To further complicate the matter, a new association has been formed in this space - Ecological Agriculture Australia - which acts as a resource for those interested one, any or all of the 5 Pillars of the Association: Food, Farming, Ecology, Ethics, and Education. The contact there is Kerry Cockrane at CSU Orange. The Carbon Coalition is active in the working party establishing this organisation. This is because the Coalition's laser-like focus on soil carbon credits is a narrow field of endeavour which aims to have a universal impact across the broad area of focus of the Task Force (Restoring Farm Landscapes) and the multi-faceted ambitions of EcoAg Australia (bringing farmers into closer relationships with environment and community). The Carbon Coalition is integral to both of the organisations because we are symbiotic.


Scenes from the Dialogue at KioloaWhere two worlds meet: Rhonda Daly from YLAD Living Soils - a major sponsor and promoter of thought leaders and progressive ideas in Natural Farming - worked alongside the CSIRO's Dr Brian Keating, Chief of Sustainable Ecosystems. Brian's organisation was a major sponsor of the Dialogue.
Tony Coote is an accomplished carbon farmer who would be a black belt 5th Dan were it Karate. He has established an Institute to foster the next generation of "Regenerative Farming Advocates" (my words, not his). He has a prodigious command of the written word. Peter Andrews must have felt like a boy on his birthday - everyone was there for him. Peter is very aware of the delicate balance the Task Force is trying to achieve. He keeps repeating, like a Mantra, that the challenge is for all to work together with 'integrity and cooperation'.
Adrian Laurie of LaurieCo worked in a discussion group with Caroline Curry of Public Private Sector Partnerships... Adrian is contributing his knowledge of biological farming and Caroline her abilities as a corporate lawyer.

Like a real life Mt Rushmore, this unusual angle of the group foto being taken... prominent among the heads are Tom Nicholas (Carbon Communicator), Sam Archer (National Stewardship Initiative), David Mason-Jones (author), Brian Keating (CSIRO Chief), Graham Hand (STIPA Native Grasses), a couple of Professors, and Ed Turner (from Frog Rock Wines and Mudgee Composting.)

GOOD NEWS - SOIL CARBON IS "GO!"

GOOD NEWS - SOIL CARBON IS "GO!": A new tradable product called
an "Australian Removal Unit" is being offered through the Prime
Carbon "Soil Enhancement and Carbon Sequestration (SECS)
Program. SECS is a process of supported land management change
resulting in carbon storage in soil." The Carbon Coalition is
helping with this pioneering opportunity because its success
will achieve the Coalition's Goals: "To see soil carbon traded
as a legitimate offset and farmers paid fairly for what they
grow." Louisa Kiely will explain at the Carbon Farming
Conference at the National Field Day Site, Orange NSW, 4th-5th
November, 2009

FARMERS: START BANKING YOUR SOIL CARBON TONNES NOW!
Whether you want to trade asap or sit on the fence and watch,
don't let valuable soil carbon become untradable because it
isn't registered. You can apply for a Soil Carbon Sequestration
Baseline Survey now. Call 02 6374 0329.
Or mail louisa@carboncoalition.com.au.

RALLY TO THE CAUSE - IT'S CRUNCH TIME!

RALLY TO THE CAUSE - IT'S CRUNCH TIME: The only governments contemplating forcing Agriculture into a punitive cap & trade system to reduce methane and N2O are Australia and NZ. Meanwhile the December Copenhagen Round of Talks could change the game. The USA has negotiated with the UN FAO, the World Bank, the EU, etc. to have Agriculture removed from the Kyoto Protocols and treated separately. The reason: Food Security. These world powers fear major wars will break out over access to land and water within 50 years... We must buy some time... Professor Rattan Lal says we can remove the equivalent of 50 parts per million CO2. WE MUST PUT MAXIMUM PRESSURE ON OUR GOVERNMENT TO JOIN OBAMA'S PUSH TO PRESS THE BUTTON ON SOIL CARBON CREDITS.

YOU CAN DO THAT BY SUPPORTING THE CARBON FARMING CONFERENCE: The 2009 Carbon Farming Conference & Expo is on at the National Field Day Site at Borenore near Orange on the 4th-5th November, 2009. Highlights will be *Peter Andrews*
(Natural Sequence Farming) and *Maarten Stapper* (ex-CSIRO) - both seen on AUSTRALIAN STORY on ABTV - both heretics of
conventional agricultural science. Peter talks about how water can be managed in the landscape to grow soil carbon and Maarten will describe how soil biology is the primary source of carbon in soils. Also inventor *Gary Lewis* from Canada is bringing his "BioAgtive" device which converts tractor exhaust to a carbon-rich fertiliser and buries it with the seed as it is sown. There will also be the launch of an association called *Ecological Agriculture Australia* and the "Soil-Food-Human
Health" link will be exposed by author *Dr Carole Hungerford*. The gap between city and country is closing via the "Farmer-To-City-Cousins" fresh food program called FoodConnect, brainchild of *Robert Pekin*. With our success in getting $26m in research funds for soil carbon, the CSIRO's *Dr Jeff Baldock* will explain how research will make trading in soil carbon offsets more likely. *Dr Brian Murphy* will reveal his "Matrix" measurement solution and Professor *Alex McBratney's* "on-the-fly" Near-Infrared Spectroscopy will be demonstrated. Newly-appointed Sydney U.*Professor John Crawford* reveals his theory that soil is 'sentient' and acts somewhat like an organism.
(And the Carbon Cocky Competition needs entrants.)
FOR A BROCHURE CALL 02 6374 0329 (www.carbonfarming.net.au)

EXPO: There is lots of exhibition space. We chose the site for that reason. Now we need exhibitors.
FOR A BROCHURE CALL 02 6374 0329 (www.carbonfarming.net.au)

SPONSORSHIP: There are special sponsorship opportunities...
FOR A BROCHURE CALL02 6374 0329 (www.carbonfarming.net.au)

ANDREWS WITHOUT A BULLDOZER: IT'S CALLED "LANDSMANSHIP": a new term to describe an almost 'hands off'
approach to farm landscape and soil health. Paul Newell, a long-time colleague of Peter Andrews, has developed his ideas over
40 years. They are outrageous, but they work. He breaks down and destroys ecological units in order to see what will remedy the situation. Paul Newell will speak at the Soil Carbon Farming Conference.

CAN YOU MAKE WATER FROM AIR? Just tooling about with the formulae for the process of photosynthesis, as you do, Ken Bellamy noticed that there was a Hydrogen atom left over after the two distinct stages of capturing the CO2 and converting it. This led to a curious discovery which has the scientists racing to confirm it scientifically.. Ken Bellamy will speak at this year's Soil Carbon Farming Conference.

THANK YOU for your support - it has been inspirational. Rural Press's Science & Environment Editor Matt Cawood said he believes it is now inevitable that we will win. We wish we felt so confident. The closer we get to the line the more desperate the attempts to derail the solution have become.

WE NEED YOUR HELP - we're not asking for charity. You can show your support by coming to the Conference ($225 for 2 days),
enrol in the half day seminar ($145), become a sponsor (which starts at $1000), take an exhibition stand (start at $550), advertise in the Carbon Farming Handbook (starts at $650) or purchase of the Conference Edition of the Handbook ($55).

You'll get an unforgettable experience. You can get out of bed each morning knowing you are saving the planet - what an awesome feeling. Call us on 02 6374 0329 or email louisa@carboncoalition.com.au

Onwards!

Michael

PS. Please pass this on. NOVEMBER IS CRUNCH TIME - we must send our Government to Copenhagen
willing to join the rest of the world in a soil carbon solution.

PPS.Do you know a company, wealthy individual or philanthropic trust that would value the work that we do and entertain an
approach for support? Please let us know.

PPS. To you, for your help, you are the apple of God's/Gaia's eye.

Meet SCOT: the Soil Carbon Optimisation Tool

SCOT - the Soil Carbon Optimisation Tool - is a simple planning system that can help land managers make decisions about Carbon Farming. It is easy to be confused by the array of options for growing carbon levels in soil. SCOT can be used to sort through these options and choose which steps to take towards meeting goals.
SCOT divides Carbon Farming into subject areas. On each of its concentric rings can be found one of the Five Foundation Stones of Carbon Farming:
1. Water 2. Vegetation 3. Soil 4. Land 5. Microbes (or Biology)
These Foundation Stones are equal in importance. To overlook one is to invite failure.
Each Foundation Stone is an area of focus and an area of activity. There is a time to think of them on their own, and a time to think about the way they relate to each other.
The Carbon Farmer can decide to use it any way they like.
SCOT can be a CHECK LIST. Each level is a Heading and a list of options. (Not all options are listed on the rings. A list can be supplied.) The Carbon Farmer can use it to find options that they haven't heard or thought of before.
SCOT can be a TEMPLATE for a SOIL CARBON FARM PLAN. If you start at the centre and move outwards, you are following a path that deals with major decisions which form a platform for all other activities before leading on to less fundamental options. By moving through the rings, YOU ask the Planning Questions: Is this option relevant to this property and this landscape? What Return On Investment can we expect? (Is it low hanging fruit - fast, cheap, and easy to install? Or will it cost more than it is worth?) Does it get a tick in every box - if working on a triple bottom line: financial, environmental, and social impact. Do we face a trade off between one goal and another if we introduce this option?
SCOT can be a PORTFOLIO PLANNING TOOL. Carbon is based on 'change in land management'. Usually a single change is introduced. This can take 20-30 years to reach 'equilibrium' or saturation. But in in view of the crisis in climate patterns, the world would welcome a major contribution to the global effort -the faster we can extract the 'Legacy Load" of CO2e, the better. So combinations will bring the greatest returns.
SCOT can be an IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING GUIDE. The order of installation of options might be important. For instance, a laser graded water solution might deplete soil carbon stocks stored in the soil disturbed by machinery. Whereas a decision to use a biofert can be taken at any time without major implications for other decisions.
SCOT can be a RISK MANAGEMENT GUIDE. If the Farmer wants to put a toe in the water, start on the outer rings and move in towards the centre. If you want to jump in boots and all, start at the centre and move outwards. You are now following a path that deals with major decisions which could be hard to reverse, before leading on to less risky options. Used in this way, SCOT represents a "Hierarchy of Permanence"* - running from more to less permanent as you move from the centre ring outwards.
SCOT can be an EDUCATIONAL AID. By working through the rings and the planning process, a Trainer can lead a class to discover the individual parts of a system and the way they can be incorporated into a Farm Plan. How they can be deployed in 'teams' to maximise their impact. And how they can be changed over time.

SCOT TRAINING is the centrepiece of the training programs offered by Carbon Farming Services (CFS). This is the trading arm of the Carbon Coalition. It helps to fund the Coalition's activities.) CFS offers Carbon Farming and Soil Carbon training in programs ranging from 1 hour to two-day workshops. CFS's "Carbon Farming 101" program is a half-day introduction to Carbon Farming.

"Carbon Farming 101" is being offered as a half day "Come Up To Speed Before The Carbon Farming Conference & Expo" on November 3rd, 2009 at the Orange Ex-Services Club.

Many Farmers and Graziers use a management system to help them make decisions. SCOT does not seek to replace them. Instead it can be incorporated into the process. SCOT is a flexible system.


*Thanks to Ausmin's David Hardwick for this term.

Way To Go, CSIRO!

Our national science icon – the CSIRO – has confirmed that soil carbon sequestration is not only possible in Australia, but an inevitable part of Australia’s response to Climate Change. In a comprehensive report titled “An Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Carbon Sequestration Opportunities from Rural Land Use”, more than 100 scientists and policy specialists recited the science of sequestration and mitigation, with some surprisingly positive statements tempering the usual “it doesn’t exist until it’s peer-reviewed” mantra.
Highlights of the report include the following:
1. Significant opportunity: “This report demonstrates that Australia has the opportunity to offset a significant proportion of our GHG emissions, by storing carbon in the landscape and changing the emissions profile from rural land use.” This type of comment was previously discouraged for fear of giving farmers false hope.
2. Our bridge to the future: “[It] indicates that terrestrial GHG management could play a key role in emissions abatement over the next 40-50 years…”. Professor Rattan Lal’s “Bridge To The Future” concept has finally found a home at the CSIRO. Lal and we believe that the world’s agricultural soils have the capacity to stall Global Warming long enough for non-fossil fuel energy sources to reach critical mass and massive capacity required to power our energy-hungry civilisation.
3. Kyoto perverse: “Options, where carbon is stored in the soil or in regenerated native vegetation, are not readily accommodated in the current [Kyoto] frameworks in a manner that best suits the Australian environment.” The Belief, now widespread in Climate Change circles, that the Kyoto Protocols have had perverse consequences that the world cannot afford, seems to be acknowledged in this paper.
4. Transforming rural landscapes: “Much of the terrestrial sequestration potential involves spatially extensive activities, where small contributions per unit land area collectively contribute significantly through application over large areas. This extent means that their widespread adoption, as might occur by their inclusion in the proposed CPRS and a high carbon price, could see them transform rural landscapes. This provides the opportunity for carbon sequestration to drive many desirable and needed outcomes; for example, for biodiversity and ecosystem restoration, for salinity abatement or to improve stream water quality. Additionally, some of the options provide the means to generate income streams for land-owners that may increase and diversify farm incomes.” This is the stuff myths are made from. CSIRO makes the case most elegantly.
5. Potential agreement: “The project worked by establishing a consensus amongst a cross-section of scientists and land management experts. The focus was on the GHG sequestration/mitigation potential likely to be achieved through land use change in Queensland (and in a broader Australian context).” It is imporrtant to note that 100 scientists agreed on this positive report card. While we might disagree with their concept of ‘potential’, we don’t disagree with their positive attitude.
6. A broarder view: “The authors were also asked to explore other benefits and consequences (intended or unintended) e.g. impact on biodiversity, gains in ecosystem services, potential economic benefits, business and market opportunities for rural communities and social impacts on rural communities..” The decision to widen the viewfinder and assess the desirability of sequestration across a range of interconnected outcomes is a sign of a shift in the normally reductionist mindset of science.
7. Starting with an Optimistic Voice: “The project aimed to refine the analysis presented in Garnaut Chapter 22, through an expert assessment of existing research.” Ross Garnaut was so convinced of the power of soils he advised the Government not to wait until all the issues addressed by this paper have been resolved. Start immediately, he advised.
8. Heavy hitters strike the right note: Ram Dalal, Jeff Baldock, Mike Bell and Peter Grace confirm our position on the fractions of soil carbon by elucidating the fundamental principle of carbon’s need to cycle upon which we base the Molecular Value Theory of Soil Carboin Sequestration: “Sequestration of atmospheric carbon (C) in soil requires that the total amount of organic C stored in a soil is increased above its current level and that the increase is maintained into the future. … Although the processes of C capture and transfer to the soil occur continuously, losses through decomposition and mineralisation of soil carbon back to CO2 also occur continually. For C to be sequestered in soil, the rate of carbon addition must be greater than the rate of carbon loss.” Sequestration is a process that works with Carbon’s urge to cycle. We are not setting out to trap and hold particular molecules of Carbon. We have sequestered so long as where there was one molecule in the holding bay yesterday, there are two today and there will be three tomorrow,.They can all be different. Which is why we are not afraid of the instability of the labile fraction. Believers in the Particular Molecule Theory of Soil Carbon Sequestration cannot hope to succeed, given the nature of Carbon’s behaviour. Denial of Carbon's character leads people to believe in things like geologic sequestration.
There are many other positives in this Report which, while it suffers from the same lack of data all soil carbon issues endure, has not been used as an excuse by some of the writers to refuse to use their imaginations, especially when speculating about future trading schemes.



………………….

Soil Carbon's Notorious Variability To Be Tested Actuarialty

Data is needed which demonstrates the well-known 'spacial and temporal variability' of soil carbon readings. We have been inspired recently to meet the former Chief Actuary of IAG, Tony Coleman, who first noticed climate change in the company's claims records and went on to found the Business Roundtable on Climate Change, Australia's first serious corporate move in this area. We have asked Tony to look into the data that reflects the flux or variability of soil carbon which is at the heart of the major barrier to trade. Actuaries can detect information hidden in raw data. Soil scientists also use data analysis techniques to great effect. We believe that a collaborative effort between scientists and actuaries could bring benefits to the nation. We are appealing to those who have data or know of such data to contact us at (02) 6374 0329

Market expert claims Australian farmers have golden future, maybe

Australian farmers could make sales of soil carbon offsets equivalent to the income Australia makes from selling coal, according to carbon-market expert Dr Ken Newcombe, who set up the World Bank's first trading model. 'Australia could develop a trade in agricultural carbon offsets to the United States worth more than the nation’s current global coal exports,' The Land reports him as saying.
"Australia's vast landmass, the enormous opportunity to revegetate and to increase soil organic carbon in so many ways—improved land management, improved grazing, the exciting things that Australian companies are doing with micronutrient treatments and management of soils that moves away from the gross chemicalisation of agriculture—all these practices can provide a tremendous increase in root biomass and soil carbon. Australia is very well placed to produce soil carbon for the US trade. We have the opportunity, as Australians, to generate a trade in agricultural carbon offsets into the US which is the equivalent of our export of coal into the rest of the world. But it's not going to happen unless this idea of regulating agriculture is given up immediately and soil carbon offsets are seen as a potential export commodity, as well as a basis for helping regulated entities in Australia meet their obligations. As soon as that happens, you’ll see tremendous entrepreneurial vigour around creating soil carbon offsets, because the value to farmers of this trade will be very significant."
But Australia's Government has been bamboozled by 'experts' who have held back the market here. Dr Newcombe says Australia is years behind the rest of the world. The Government is mired in the quicksand of measurement, spending millions trying to trace each farmers' emissions to hit them with a bill. Led there by 'experts'."It doesn't make any sense to try and define the emissions of a huge diversity of agricultural activities and then try and regulate them," said Dr Newcombe. "At a certain point it becomes simply absurd to cover all of agriculture. In the best case, you could only cover the large agribusinesses, and not the myriad of small producers who would be shut out of carbon trading." The Government should have stuck with the principle that only businesses emitting 25,000 tonne CO2e/year would fall under the cap and trade system. He said: "Faced with that situation, in the US it was very obvious how to treat agriculture: that is to make it an offset generator and stimulate private sector investment in lowering emissions, with the beneficial result of substantial inward investment in agriculture."
Dr Newcombe pioneered the global carbon market with the World Bank-supported Prototype Carbon Fund. He has been vice chairman of Climate Change Capital in London, the largest private sector carbon fund in the world; led Goldman Sachs carbon trading division in New York, and last year founded C-Quest Capital, a company dedicated to "originating and developing high-quality emission reduction projects around the world", reports Matt Cawood in The Land.
C-Quest invested in RM Williams Agricultural Holdings on the expectation that there will be trading potential in soil carbon offsets in the voluntary carbon markets.

Minister Burke Joins the Anti-Soil Carbon Society?

Tony Burke bamboozled by the “Anti-Soil Carbon Society”

The Minister for Agriculture and Soil Carbon,Tony burke, appears to have fallen under the spell of the “Anti-Soil Carbon Society”. He’s joined the “It’s Too Hard” Brigade. Every discredited, worn-out argument used by the soil carbon denialists have turned up in Tony’s speech to Parliament during the CPRS debate in August. He made the following school debating points: (1) “You can’t trade what you can’t measure.” This assumes we can’t measure soil carbon, which is untrue. Scientists measure it every day. If it’s good enough for science, it should be good enough for trading. (2) “There are real challenges in the science at the moment”. There will always be real challenges with science. No one is naïve enough to believe scientists will ever be satisfied with the degree of accuracy of measurement of soil carbon. Finer and finer degrees of measuring fractions are irrelevant for trade. Buyers are only interested in Total Organic Carbon. Scientists won’t tell you that. (3) “Australia has different soils to those in the United States.” We have degraded soils. The US has degraded soils. We have deep, rich soils, and so do they. Nothing about our soils stops them from adding carbon. But wait – here’s a new entrant in the “To Hard” arsenal: (4) Our soils are ‘more complex’ given ‘the amount of desert that we have’. Que? Does this mean we have more variety of soil types in the arid zone and that this would make soil mapping difficult? Very poor reasoning. (5) Current Kyoto rules would force Australia to account for bushfires and drought if we included soils in our accounts. This is the most absurd of all Kyoto absurdities and the first one most likely to be removed at Copenhagen. (6) The voluntary market in the USA has CO2 at 40¢/tonne on the current science and on the limitations on intrnational trading. What happens to prices when a major new market initiative is about to unfold (the Obama Initiative for Copenhagen)? What has happened to prices on the main mandatory market before such moves? Precisely what is happening now. Tony points to the millions he is spending to get the measurment right. But has he invested in the right sciencec to do that? Will the outcome in 3 years’ time be a trading-based measurement model tt satisfies all parties? Can it possibly be?

The Anti-Soil Carbon Society

Members of the 'Anti-Soil Carbon Society' have confused and misled the Government into taking decisions that have disadvantaged Australian farmers and caused depression and worse and the loss of possibly billions of dollars in farm incomes, according to Carbon Coalition Convenor Michael Kiely.
"We have been gathering a file of evidence that will reveal the identities of those who acted to derail the soil carbon issue, including misleading Parliament and scientific sleight of hand," says Convenor Michael Kiely. "We have been too tolerant of these people. They are standing in the way of the extraction of between 3 and 6 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, depending on whether you listen to Professor Rattan Lal or the FAO. That's more than half the additional tonnages emitted by the world each year."
The delay in mobilising Agricultural soils as a massive sponge to soak up aerial CO2 has also had a major impact on morale among primary producers, according to the Carbon Coalition. "Think about how depressed and despairing an Australian farmer might get, faced as we are with the prospect of a massive bill for methane emissions and no soil carbon credits to pay the bill. Compare us with the American farmer, who will get paid to reduce methane emissions and paid to store carbon in soils," says Michael Kiely. "The Americans proved it can be done. They don't have the Anti-Soil Carbon Society over there, spreading fear and confusion. They have people like CCX's Dr Mike Walsh and C-Quest's Dr Ken Newcombe - both of whom have experts in market making. We have too many experts in market-blocking." Dr Newcombe - who set up the World Bank's first trading model - believes Australian farmers could earn more selling soil carbon offsets to Americans than we do selling coal to China.

These issues will be canvassed at the 3rd Annual CARBON FARMING CONFERENCE & EXPO to be held 4th-5th November, 2009 at the National Field Day Site near Orange NSW.

Farm Institute flogging a dead argument?

Recent comments by the Australian Farm Institute and the Bureau of Rural Sciences prove that there is a vast chasm in the knowledge of soil carbon issues among those who should know more. The AFI made the startling announcement recently that there are some blockages to trading in soil carbon. The first mentioned was that Kyoto rules stand in the way of Australia’s farmers. But anyone observing the events leading up to the Copenhagen Round of Talks know that the ‘rules’ were only good for the period they covered. It is all negotiable. That’s how the system works. And the USA is dealing itself into the game with the demand that Agriculture be given a better deal than it has had to date. The World Bank, the FAO, and the EU all agree. And as the USA is bringing China to the table, it is likely to have some sway. All the parties to this coordinated assault on the distortions in the Kyoto Protocols are determined that it be a global solution. It is hard to see Australia staying out.

The second blockage mentioned by the Farm Institute is our Government’s decision not to include soil carbon offsets in the CPRS. This means we have only the Voluntary Market to trade in, ‘at an enormous discount in price’. Firstly, there is a mechanism whereby these offsets can be sold into the mandatory market. (Commercial in confidence for the moment.) And secondly, how can anyone pretend to know what the price relativities will be between the two markets. Anyone who has observed the market since day 1 knows that nothing can be certain in the pricing area. The demand for offsets is huge and growing.

Another blockage mentioned is the possibility that a farmer might change their land management to an anti-soil carbon regime and face paying back the money they received when they first sold their offsets. In fact they would be faced with paying even more because the market will have moved by then. (Again, the AFI claims psychic powers to be able to see the future.) There are two reasons why this is a scare tactic. Reason 1: A farmer would be a fool to throw away the co-benefits of high soil carbon levels. In fact, the anti-soil carbon trading faction maintain that farmers should increase their soil C for these co-benefits alone. What are they? High levels of soil C are associated with reduced erosion, reduced salinity, improved soil structure, better water holding capacity, reduced need for artificial fertilisers, and all the benefits that come with healthier soil microbial communities. Reason 2: The Voluntary Markets are currently looking at 5-year contracts to maintain flexibility. This is the CCX model which forms the basis on the emerging US model being promoted as a global solution.

The Farm Institute makes another questionable claim when it says that farmers will need all their offsets to meet their own emission costs if they are included in the CPRS. But this is overkill. Surely we were left out of the CPRS and that was the basis for the first blockage? Again, the movement around Coenhagen is for a global solution that acknowledges Agriculture’s inevitable dependence on biological cycles and the unwillingness of the global community to punish farmers for growing food when the word faces a food security problem. The Australian Government would decimate our beef industry if it (as is currently the case) chose to be the only nation (plus NZ) to subject its farmers to punitive methane taxes when the Americans were rewarding their beef growers with incentive payments to reduce methane and the right to sell their soil carbon. The price competitiveness of Australasian beef would evaporate, as would the market and the industry here. Politicians aren’t that stupid.

Commentators such as the Farm Institute and the Bureau of Rural Science are curiously out of touch with the activity surroudning soil carbon. The Bureau released a report in March which claims to be a guide to the “potential” for soil carbon. It repeats all the old, discredited claims made by scientists who profess to know how soil carbon wll react under techniques which are still evolving and have not been subject to research trials yet. One wonders why the report was ever commissioned as nothing new appears in it. And its major finding – surprise – is that there needs to be more research before a market is possible. But markets are not made by scientists. They are made by buyers. And the needs of buyers are very different to those postulated by researchers.

In fact, the Farm Institute is stretching the point a little to say the BRS report was recent. It appeared in March. SO why even devote a blog post to it? It is not news.
Could it be that the AFI is intent on creating the impression that soil carbon trading is a non-starter? Search the reports and articles published by the Institute. Can you find one positive word for the soil carbon market? Can you find one presentation at an Institute conference tat supports soil carbon trading? It looks suspiciously like the Institute is part of the ‘push back’ against the notion of trade, a Canute-like resistance that has featured some of the nations top research establishments.

Those who parade the same old tired and discredited blockages to the soil carbon market cannot get their heads out of the past when all the action is taking place in the future. Appealing to ‘rules’ and scientific uncertainty does not impress buyers. Rules are for changing and uncertainty simply becomes a pricing factor, as all risks do. If all the hours that scientists and researchers have devoted to finding reasons why soil carbon won’t be traded had been invested in looking for ways that would make it possible, we would be trading today. The fact that so much taxpayers money has been spent on scare campaigns among farmers is scandalous.

The most highly respected soil carbon scientist in the world, Professor Rattan Lal of Ohio State U., warned the scientfic community to stop stalling: “Coming events are casting their shadow in this important and emerging field of immense significant to soil science, and the researchers must put their act together before the train departs the station.”

Vote for Soil Carbon before 23rd July

We need your vote for the Soil carbon entry in the Manchester report. Vote Here.

Bruce Ward and Tony Lovell are flying the flag for grassland restoration in the Guardian Newspaper's "Manchester Report". Over the weekend of July 4 and 5, twenty finalists (including Tony and Bruce), made 30 minute presentations to a panel of four judges, introducing Soil Carbon to the panel and the audience.

The panel was led by Lord Bingham, the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Bryony Worthington, an advisor and policy expert on climate change to the British Government, Dan Reicher, a Californian director of Google, and Chris Goodall, author of several major books on climate change and a freelance journalist.
You can see a 1-minute grab summarising our presentation by going to
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/13/manchester-report-grasslands
The panel met and boiled the 20 presentations down to a final list of 10. Soil Carbon made the cut.

Now there is a public vote


Bruce explains why they entered:
"Tony and I are seriously concerned that most people throughout the world are totally unaware of the need for farmers to move from being 'part of the problem' to become recognised as a vital 'part of the solution'. Soil Carbon provides that opportunity, so long as policy makers allow it. Time is running short, and Copenhagen is not far away. The die will be cast one way or the other at that time, and we want it to be cast the right way. We may need more science before we get the detail right, but it is clear that the science can now be done. That is a major step forward from only 2 years ago when we were consistently told it could not be done."

Dear Mr Rudd

Dear Mr Rudd,

We note with enthusiasm the treatment of farmers in the US Emissions Trading Scheme legislation which passed in the Congress recently. We commend to you the following provisions in that legislation and seek your support for similar provisions to be inserted in the Carbon Pollution Removal Scheme legislation which will go before the Senate of the Commonwealth in August:

1. The American Farmer is to be rewarded with tradeable carbon offsets for reducing emissions. The Australian Farmer is to be penalised for emissions caused by the natural biological cycles that govern Agriculture.

2. The American Farmer will receive carbon credits for practices they have put in place back to 2001. The Australian Farmer who has been a good steward to the environment will be penalised for their efforts under the Additionality provisions of the standard Kyoto arrangements for offsets, were an offset program introduced.

3. The USDA, not the EPA, will be the lead agency on running the offset program and conducting the rulemaking. In Australia, the Department for Climate Change and Water has proved incapable of meaningful consultation and engagement with the industry at farmer level.We recommend that the responsibility for these matters be passed to the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the Hon. Tony Burke.

4. The world's farmers are to be covered by a global agreement on emissions and sequestration, if the International Federation of Agricultural Producers' campaign is successful. Currently, Australian farmers would be covered by a local cap and trade scheme, along with only one other country: New Zealand.

It is our submission that responsibility for the portfolio be transferred immediately and that new provisions be prepared as amendments to the CPRS legislation prior to the bill reaching the Senate, those provisions to reflect the US legislation.

Yours sincerely,

The Carbon Farmers

The future ain't what it used to be

Minister Wong must be feeling shock as Agriculture slips out of her grasp under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. But she and her advisers failed to imagine the future. Six factors were overlooked in the Minister’s analysis of the future:

Factor 1: American Pride.

To anyone who has been looking, it was obvious that the Americans would not simply rubber stamp Kyoto, a Euro-centric arrangement rejected by the USA in the first round. American pride demanded that they submit to the demands of the global community on their own terms.

Factor 2: American domestic politics.

This means American domestic politics would drive the agenda. The farm lobby in the USA is the strongest in the world. It may be hard for Australians to understand the respect shown to Agriculture and its representatives there, given the disregard encountered here. The American farmer would not be hung out to dry – paying for methane and nitrous oxide while being denied soil carbon credits, like the Australian farmer. The US legislation passed last week effectively decouples agricultural emissions from sequestration. Farmers will not be held responsible for emissions generated from the processes of growing food. And the Americans are calling on the world to have a global arrangement for Agriculture.

Factor 3: Global Food politics

The third factor stood out like the proverbial on April 4 in Bonn when – while Penny Wong’s chief adviser was in the next room discussing administrative matters – a gathering which included the USA, the EU, the World Bank, the International Federation of Agricultural Producers, and the UN Food & Agriculture Organisation – informed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the Masters of Kyoto) that they intended to push for Agriculture to be given special status. The reason given was the looming food crisis facing the global community. The FAO had been conducting a series of consultations and workshops – the Carbon Coalition was involved in the USA series – around the world to build momentum towards Copenhagen in December 2009. These meetings were public knowledge.

Factor 4: Australia’s isolation

Minister Wong’s plan for including Agriculture in a cap and trade regime – like any other industrial emitter - astounded other nations gathered to submit a proposal to the Copenhagen round of talks last week. According to one report, only Australia and NZ’s governments have done it. It is hard to imagine this injustice being allowed to continue in the light of world opinion. The powerful Iowa and Illinois Corn Growers Association – in their draft Agricultural Soil Credit Standard released in May 2009 – argued that agrculture does not fit into the current model because of the many variables at play in natural systems. The International Federation of Agricultural Producers agreed, saying the ‘specificity’ of agriculture has to be recognised: “Agriculture is different by nature and must be differentiated from other sectors. Most of agriculture’s green house gas (GHG) emissions are directly linked to natural biological cycles. The future accounting framework should allow a distinction to be made between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic emissions. Farmers cannot be held accountable for natural biological processes. The origin, monitoring and reporting of emissions from agricultural land is inherently different from those associated with fossil fuels. Agriculture should not be penalized for natural emissions that are beyond human control, independent from management effects. Natural emissions are due to climate conditions such as variable rainfall, drought and bushfires."

Factor 5: Australian domestic politics

The Farm Institute’s Mick Keogh predicted the almost complete anihilation of Agriculture when the imposts of a climate change ‘tax’ on emissions are added to the reductions in production projected as a result of declining rainfall and increasing temperatures (already experienced). Senator Bill Heffernan says Australian farmers will be killed on world meat markets if they have to pay for animal methane while countries such as America and Brazil (with 3 times the number of cattle) and India (10 times the number of cattle) do not. Australian producers would also face US competitors without the credits for reductions in emissions that US farmers wll enjoy. The decimation of the Agriculture Sector in the name of climate purity would not be acceptable to the electorate. But the Rudd/Wong line on Agriculture has not been open to negotiation. Minister Wong made that clear. The Government left the door open for the Opposition to take up the cause of soil carbon – which it did with the eager assistance of the Carbon Coalition.

Factor 6: The world is waking up to the power of soils.

The FAO says that the mitigation potential of agriculture is estimated to reach 5.5-6 Gt of CO2eq. per year by 2030 . This potential is enormous relative to agriculture’s emissions which represent 13.5% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). 89% of this potential can be accounted for by soil carbon sequestration; 70% of the total mitigation potential can be realized in developing countries. Many studies acknowledge that GHG sequestration by agriculture is a quick and cost-effective means to mitigate emissions, e.g. document FCCC/TP/2008/8 and work by the IPCC . Significant benefits associated with soil organic carbon storage make sustainable land management a solution to the inter-related issues of poverty, resilience and sustainable development.
1.‘Enabling Agriculture to Contribute to Climate Change Mitigation’, FAO submission to the UNFCCC, January 2009, fig. IPCC 2007
2 According to the fourth report of the Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
3 http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2008/tp/08.pdf
4 IPCC 2007 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution…

Having failed to imagine the future, Penny Wong and Assistant Minister for Climate Change, Greg Combet are still in a rush to put the noose around farmers’ necks, by passing legislation that will add to their costs while refusing to allow them to defray these costs by trading in soil carbon. Domestic offsets are not provided for.

Even Mick Keogh of the Farm Institute, whose main contribution to the debate has been as the purveyor of worst case scenarios supplied by ABARE and the CSIRO, concedes that the game has changed. Kyoto is not The 10 Commandments. It was an agreement for a period of time. Now Copenhagen will forge a new Kyoto. Noting the starkly different treatment of farmers in the USA and Australia, the Farm Institute cannot bring itself to ask the obvious question: Why?

Carbon Farming Conference November 4-5, 2009

This year's conference will be held in the run up to Copenhagen and the launch of the Australian Voluntary Soil Carbon Market.
The world's politicians have woken up to the fact that food is a Climate Change hot button. Humanity can adapt to many changes, but it cannot go without food... SO the soil carbon market is coming and we must prepare. All sessions this year will be practical: how to increase soil carbon, how to get involved, etc.

Members are invited to comment and make recommendations.

DRAFT PROGRAM
CONFERENCE THEME: Fix The Soil. Feed The World. Save The Planet.
CONFERENCE CONTENT: Showcasing the latest in science, farmer innovation, trading opportunities and carbon farming methodologies.
CONFERENCE VENUE - Orange Field Day Site.
CONFERENCE FORMAT: Two day seminar, with break out sessions.
PRE-CONFERENCE BEGINNERS’ SEMINAR: CARBON 101 - half day seminar.
POST CONFERENCE BUS TRIP: Optional one day bus tour to surrounding properties.
CONFERENCE AWARDS: Annual Carbon Cocky awards

SPEAKERS: The top experts in their fields are being invited.
TOPICS: Soil Carbon Strategies

Soil Carbon Standards: Who Has One? How Do You Get One?
Soil Carbon Practices: How Do They Fit Together
Soil Carbon Biology: How to Manage Your Microbes
Soil Carbon & Water: How To Read Your Landscape
Soil Carbon & Weeds: What Is Your Vegetation Trying To Tell You?
Soil Carbon & Food: How To Grow Healthy Humans
Soil Carbon & Trees: How To Mix and Match Vegetation
Soil Carbon & Science: How To De-Code Scientific Reports
Soil Carbon Trading: What's The Deal? Who Gets What?
Soil Carbon Research: What Happened To The Money?
Soil Carbon & Manure: Dung Beetles
Soil Carbon & Horticulture: Big Results From Small Areas
Soil Carbon Baselining: How To Get Started
Soil Carbon & BioFerts: How To Choose
Soil Carbon & Soil Type: What's The Limit?
Soil Carbon & Biodiversity: How to Measure Your Progress
Soil Carbon & Production: How To Get A Premium For Your Produce
Soil Carbon & Permaculture: How Does It Help?
Soil Carbon & Fire: When Is It Cool To Burn?
Soil Carbon & Biochar: How Does it Work?

PLUS DEMONSTRATIONS:

Compost tea making.
Vehicle emissions burial as fertiliser.
Soil core sampling.
Soil biology under the microscope.
Notill/nokill sowing.
Emissions Calculators.

BRING YOUR SOIL SAMPLE

Microscope photographs of your soil microbes available.

BRING YOUR INPUT NUMBERS

Use a carbon calculator to estimate your likely position.

CONFERENCE DINNER: Carbon Cocky Awards.

Peter Andrews on Australian Story again... and again

The first of the NEW two part Australian Story on Peter Andrew’s NSF will be shown on ABCTV this coming Monday 6 July followed by the second part on the 13 July 09 at 8pm.

Don't blame Science for lagging 5 years behind

While farmers are now joining "microscope clubs" and becoming conversant with soil biology - using it to get amazing results - science is still just starting on the previous generation of land management practices.

A summary of the NSW DPI's program: "Comparisons include high and low input grazing land management; conventional crop rotations versus response cropping or inclusion of pasture phase; and revegetation of grazing land with native tree and shrub species." No mention of biology. And then there's the "novel soil amendment, biochar" - it's capacity to increase soil carbon is being researched when there is no known economic model that works - whereas biological farming is already widespread.

Take a look at the biology-free "Soil Carbon Research" Program Minister Burke kindly funded: unless I am mistaken, no biology.

And the danger of science getting even these imple things wrong (See "Scientists are not always good farmers" - next post)

But we can't blame the scientists. They don't decide which projects will be funded. Ministers do that.


Soil Carbon Research Program

Soil carbon research program overarching project – CSIRO
This project will undertake the technical oversight and management of the Soil Carbon Research Program. It will develop standardised data collection protocols and undertake carbon content analysis.

South eastern SA cereals, sheep and beef systems and Australia wide perennial sheep pastures – CSIRO
This project will identify sites and undertake sampling within south-eastern South Australia’s cereal, sheep and beef systems. Perennial pasture sites will also be identified and sampling will be undertaken throughout the country — particularly in WA and NSW.

South-west Western Australia: Cereal, sheep and beef systems – University of Western Australia & WA Department of Agriculture & Food
This project will engage with a number of grower groups and collect samples from a number of their sites. It will also undertake sampling at sites where management practices have been in place for a minimum of five years.

Victorian dairy, sheep, cereal and beef systems – Victorian Department of Primary Industries and the Co-operative Research Centre for Future Farming
This project will undertake re-sampling of a number of ongoing crop and pasture sites around Hamilton, Rutherglen and Ararat. It will build upon work which has previously occurred under the EverGraze program as well as DPI long-term experimental sites at Horsham, Rutherglen and Walpeup. Engagement with ongoing farmer trials will be undertaken with Southern Farming Systems, the Birchip Cropping Group and the South West Climate Change Forum.

Northern rangelands beef systems – Queensland Departments of Natural Resources & Water and of Primary Industries
This project will undertake sampling at Kidman Springs (NT) to assess the effects of cell grazing. The sites have documented fire and management histories. It will also resample a Toorak grazing trial in north-western Queensland. This sampling will include a range of soil types and rainfalls.

Queensland cereals and sugar - Queensland Departments of Natural Resources & Water and of Primary Industries
This project will undertake sampling of grain cropping systems at the long-term Hermitage Fallow Management Trial near Warwick in Queensland and sugar cropping systems at Tully and Mackay. No-till grain trials will be sampled near Biloela and Goodger and archived soil will be analysed from a number of historic trials (Biloela, Warra, Nindigully, Mt Murchison and Goodger).
Additional sugarcane sites in the Northern Rivers, Mackay and Ingham regions will be sampled – including tilled and permanent beds and across a number of soil types and rainfall levels.

New South Wales cereals, cotton, sheep and beef systems - University of New England, NSW Departments of Primary Industries and of Environment and Climate Change
This project will undertake sampling at 20 long-term trials with 25 corresponding satellite sites on private land to define amounts and variance of carbon contained in pools of soils from the major land-use/soil type combinations in NSW.

New South Wales cereals and beef - Murray Catchment Management Authority
This project will undertake sampling and analysis of paired sites which have been under no-till/conventional till and set stocking/controlled grazing practices.

Tasmanian vegetables and dairy systems - Tasmanian Institute for Agricultural Research, University of Tasmania and Botanical Resources Australia P/L
This project will undertake sampling at a number of broadacre cropping and vegetable sites across the state – including low input pasture/irrigated cropping and short-term perennial/long term pasture. Sampling will also be undertaken on existing sites which have undertaken a change from pasture to cropping and on paired sites which compare irrigated and non-irrigated dairy and beef systems.

NSW DPI - mythbusters and all - welcome!

The following is from a NSW DPI "Science & Research - Climate Change: Key Issues" fact sheet ingeniously dated 2005 as proof that the agency has not been in deep denial about soil carbon trading until now.
"Mitigation options include ... management of crop, pasture and forest systems to enhance carbon stocks in vegetation and soil..."
" Of particular relevance to NSW DPI is emissions trading, which provides incentives for mitigation measures..."
"Sequestration through soil carbon management in agricultural systems and management of existing forests are flagged for future inclusion..."

Pro-soil carbon DPI scientists such as YN Chan and Annette Cowie have shone like beacons in the gloom surrounding the issue in the DPI which - as recently as a few months ago staged the amusing "Soil Carbon MythBusters" tour by BioChar devotee David Waters - short on soil C myths, long on Biochar promotion. And they said the tour was to clear up the 'misinformation' surrounding the issue.

Dr Cowie is behind the project in which a group of NSW soil scientists is overcoming barriers to inclusion of soil carbon in emissions trading. "Impacts of management practices on carbon sequestration in soil are unclear, with some proponents claiming large potential and others dismissing the possibility," says a DPI report.

Dr Cowie says: "Detractors additionally say soil carbon is too costly to measure, and changes in soil carbon too difficult to audit... In preparation for potential inclusion in the national Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in future, and for inclusion in the voluntary carbon trading market, it is important to investigate these objections." In the same way that carbon trading based on forestry offsets uses models to predict sequestration, soil carbon models can estimate sequestration through agricultural practices, she said. "To increase confidence about the potential for altered management practices to sequester soil carbon, researchers are undertaking paired-site studies, comparing the soil carbon stock between adjacent areas under different management," Dr Cowie said. Comparisons include high and low input grazing land management; conventional crop rotations versus response cropping or inclusion of pasture phase; and revegetation of grazing land with native tree and shrub species.

One more piece to the puzzle: CCX & Obama

Economist Richard L. Sandor founded the Chicago Climate Exchange six years ago with $1.1 million of seed money from the city’s Joyce Foundation. At that time, the foundation’s board included a state senator named Barack Obama. Today, Sandor is working with Henry Waxman whose bill for a cap and trade system is the cornerstone of Obama’s environmental agenda.
Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, agreed to give free pollution permits to utilities and allow manufacturers and refiners to meet CO2 targets by buying offset credits of the type sold by the CCX.
The government would allow as many as 2 billion offset credits to circulate, beginning in 2012. Half of those could be generated domestically and the other half from projects in other countries. The number of offsets and permits will decline over time.
The CCX model is now seen as a precursor to the government-mandated market Congress plans to create, according to Ecosystem Marketplace. President Obama has proposed auctioning pollution permits to raise at least $646 billion from 2012 to 2019. Sandor opposed that provision, saying that paying for the permits would wipe out utilities’ profits. “You bankrupt the industry,” he said.
“What this really does is buy a little bit of time to smooth out the rate impacts in the early years,” said John Stowell, vice president of environmental policy for Duke Energy, the Charlotte, N.C.-based owner of utilities in the Southeast and Midwest. “We need a bridge to get us to the new technology.”

Here comes the market

Ken Newcombe The former head of carbon emissions trading at investment bank Goldman Sachs started his own carbon finance business last year, C-Quest Capital. He aims to set up 85-90 percent of its projects in Asia and the United States, with the remainder in Australia, Newcombe told Reuters on the sidelines of a carbon conference in Barcelona.
"We're looking to improve land management in the U.S. and Australia, including soil sequestration, growing biofuel crops, and planting trees." Soil sequestration involves encouraging less intensive farming practices that retain organic matter in the soil, thereby storing carbon.

Australian Carbon Farmers go global

"Australia's carbon farmers in quiet revolution" headlines a feature story on members of the Carbon Coalition and our struggle to make soil carbon credits a reality. Articles appeared on Reuters UKas well as the USA and versions appearing in India, South Africa, and Cyprus. The world wants to know about Carbon farming and new options for farmers and graziers.

Ecological Agriculture Australia (EcoAg) off the drawingboard

Earlier we reported on a brave attempt to create an association/community/cluster for those who feel the time is ripe for a new form of agricultural relationships in Australia. A working party was formed out of the initial meeting at CSU in Orange and 5 "Pillars" or subject areas were nominated for discussion and purposing by smaller working parties. The following is the result of that work which the group feels is ready for comment from interested parties. Please consider and contribute.
.............................................................................................

Kerry Cochrane for the Working Party - comprising David Hardwick, Rob Fenton, Maxine Blackburn, Michael Kiely, Pennie Scott, Robert Pekin- writes:

Our name: The Working Party recommends one of two names. We welcome feedback on these and if you think they are both not to your liking by all means suggest a third name, however, more than likely, we shall go with one or the other. We wait your feedback before moving on.

Name - Ecological Agriculture Australia

Abbreviation - EcoAg Oz or EcoAg Australia or E double A

Rationale - Nice corporate ring to it. Has a classical feel which means that it has a touch of longevity. The word agriculture is ever lasting although some might argue it is dated. More than likely it will be shortened to EcoAgOz.

Name - Ecological Agricultural Society of Australia

Abbreviation - EASA

Rationale - Again a classical name. It indicates that we are a community of people with similar values. It sits along side such names as The Soils Association of Australia or The Royal Agricultural Show Society of Australia

We have included a sub heading to the name. It is the advancement of farming, food, and community (or the advancement of farming food and fulfilllment). In other words the name might be...

Ecological Agriculture Australia
For the advancement of farming, food, and community

What we have done
• We have created a diagram or symbol of the organisation. It is a nested relationship between five pillars
• The five pillars represent the engine room of the organisation
• Central to the five pillars is ecology
• The mission and objectives of each pillar has been determined. This is work in progress.
• A quote for each pillar has been provided. This too is open for comment and change.

The process that lies ahead is as follows:
1. The Working Party is getting on with writing a constitution. We envisage an association to start with. If anyone has expertise re such matters we would welcome your input. We are aiming to have this completed within a month.
2. Once completed we shall form an interim governing body to manage the process.
3. We would hope to launch the organisation at a venue to be determined but one possibility is the Carbon Coalition Conference in Orange in November. This moment could represent the beginning of the new entity with election of office bearers etc.
4. It is envisaged that each of the five pillars will include perhaps as many as five members who will largely drive that section. Each pillar will have a rep on the governing body. This is still to be worked out.
The above is a broad picture of where we are at. We would welcome any feedback
.

THE OVERALL ORGANISATION

Name (here) The first set of statements are for the overall organisation

QUOTATION: "To build a sustainable society, we must first be willing to rethink our fundamental concepts of science, economics, and society. We must build a new sustainable society on the philosophical foundation of a new worldview, a new approach to science, a new economics of sustainability." John Ikird: Emeritus Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia

Vision: to develop bio-diverse landscapes, biologically enriched soil, healthy food, and vibrant communities through ecologically, holistic and ethically driven processes.

Mission: To coordinate the activities of the five pillars to ensure a strong connection between the vision and the objectives as outlined.

Objectives
1. Implementation of the objectives as outlined for the pillars of the organization: ecology; farming; food; education; and, ethics.
2. To raise the profile of ecological farming processes and its relevance to the needs of an Australian society facing diminishing oil reserves and concerns regarding climate change.
3. To foster ways of thinking that enhance an understanding of biodiversity and its value, reflects awareness of connections and relationships, and appreciates the power of systems and emergent properties.
4. To appreciate that humans are one thread amongst many threads in the web of life. To recognize and respect all forms of life.
5. To promote an ecological approach to sustainability in the interest of generations to follow.
6. To enhance the development of a quality assurance program to ensure the authenticity of ecological inputs into agriculture.

ECOLOGY

“….ecology has left the biology departments of universities and migrated into every consciousness. The scientific term has turned into a worldview. And as a worldview, it carries the promise of reuniting what has been fragmented, of healing what has been torn apart – in short caring for the whole.”
Sachs, Planet Dialectics, 1999,p63


Mission: We recognize ecology – the scientific and social scientific worldview -- as the basis for the production of food and fibre and see it as the bedrock for the healthy functioning of the earth and its subsidiary systems.

Objectives
1. To enliven the relationship between ecology and food and fibre production

2. To promote an understanding of and implementation of ecological principles as being fundamental to the survival of and preservation of our planet.

FARMING

QUOTATION: "We are told that farmers still have a strong sense of stewardship, that they are environmentalists at heart. Perhaps this is true, but many farmers have felt compelled to do whatever was necessary to survive the relentless competitive pressures in an agricultural industry driven by the economic bottom line. Many will admit that they are doing things to the land that they don’t want to do, but feel they have no choice. The gains in economic efficiency have been impressive, but what about the ecological costs? What is the value of the health and productivity of the land? What is the value of maintaining the ability of the earth to support human life?"

John Ikird: Emeritus Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia

"Eating is an agricultural act. - Wendell Berry

Mission

To increase the awareness, understanding and adoption of ecologically-based farming practices.

Objectives

To achieve the vision we will:

1. Establish a readily accessible ‘knowledge bank’ of ecological farming ideas, proven practices and networking data (eg, group contacts etc).
2. Facilitate and establish mutually beneficial partnerships with related groups and organisations.
3. Conduct and sponsor seminars, workshops and conferences to assist in the transfer of information and techniques associated with ecological farming.
4. Facilitate and support research and development into ecological farming practices.
5. To promote carbon footprint recognition per farm as a means of increasing farmer awareness of carbon emissions and carbon sequestration potential.
6. Enable support groups for farmers engaging in ecological farming processes.

FOOD

"It is a great mistake to think that food is primarily nourishment of the body. All good food, carefully selected, prepared, and presented, nourishes the soul too." - Thomas Moore, Author of Care of the Soul

Mission

To create and provide opportunities for the equitable and efficient distribution of food and fibre from farm to a range of clients including families and businesses thus increasing the connection between farmers and consumers.

OBJECTIVES
1. To establish effective and efficient connections between farmers and end consumer
2. To acknowledge farmers for their efforts in farming ecologically
3. To reduce inefficient links in the supply and value chain
4. To empower farmers to diversify and strategically become the value chain
5. To encourage retailers and wholesalers to price differentiate with ecologically grown food and fibre
6. To promote the benefits of ecologically grown food and fibre

EDUCATION, TRAINING & RESEARCH

“A sustainable community cares for its own environment and does not damage those of others. It uses resources frugally and sustainably, recycles materials, minimizes wastes and disposes of them safely. It conserves life-support systems and the diversity of local ecosystems….People can do this if they make it a priority, and if they are given the necessary powers to make full use of their own intelligence and experience.”
IUCN,WWF, UNEP. Caring for the Earth, 1991, Chpt 7

Mission: To enhance the farming communities understanding of ecological agricultural principles and ways of thinking.

Objectives
General
• To promote the teaching of ecological principles and ecological thinking skills at all levels of education
• To develop training packages to enable farmers and people not interested in a formal education to develop an understanding of ecological principles
• To communicate via the webpage to enable an attachment community to evolve that supports the principles of ecological agriculture and community marketing processes embraced by the organization
• To provide input into the national agri-food industry skills council to enable development of training competencies and their inclusion in National training packages
• Provide easy teacher access to engaging ecological agricultural learning resources.
• To support research endeavours into ecological approaches to food and fibre production or to seek funding to conduct the research

University
• To act as the Course Advisory Committee for the Bachelor of Ecological Agricultural Systems course at Charles Sturt University
• To be the repository for the alumni of the Bachelor of Ecological Agricultural Systems and to be managed through this agency
• To develop a professional body for the registration of graduates from courses relevant to ecological agriculture and land management [a body similar to the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science]

TAFE

• Work with TAFE to develop units of competency that can be included in general agriculture qualifications and develop specific eco-ag qualifications.

• To develop a repository of engaging learning resources and activities such as the Northern Rivers Soil Health card.

Secondary
• To work with state agricultural teachers and with the national body representing agricultural teachers to enable the exchange of information about ecological farming practices, healthy foods, and community marketing systems.
• Work towards getting ecological agriculture principles included in the curriculum.
Design a staff development program for agricultural teachers to develop skills in ecological agriculture.
• Provide impetus to the development of teaching and learning resources to enable agriculture and primary industry teachers to easily include this in day-to-day teaching programs.

Primary
• To develop a link between gardens and food and health.
• To promote the concept of the school garden grown with ecological sustainable practices with the participation of the children in the growing of and eating of food produced.

ETHICS & VALUES

QUOTATION:

A thing is right only when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community [soil, water, fauna and flora, as well as people]. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. - Aldo Leopold

Mission Statement

To promote the values and principles that underpin the development of an ecologically sustainable agriculture. Such an agriculture recognizes the intrinsic rights of all including the human and non-human worlds. These values and principles need to lead to a way of farming which enhances the environment (both living and non-living) within which agriculture operates.
Objectives

In order to define a set of clear principles and values to guide Australian agriculture the organisation ratifies and adopts as its working model the 4 principles and 16 sub principles as outlined in the Earth Charter.

These 4 principles are:
1. Respect and care for the community of life
2. Ecological Integrity
3. Social and economic justice
4. Democracy, nonviolence, and peace

We endorse the Earth Charter and the expressed opinions contained therein and seek to ensure their application. In this context we:
• support an ethical framework that respects values and cares for the natural ecological systems and cycles.
• endorse the three dimensions of life, ecological, social and personal
• recognise the interconnection of organisms and the environment and their intrinsic worth.
• seek to preserve the integrity and stability of the biotic community and leave as good as or better for the following generations.

Refer to http://www.earthcharter.org.au/ for details regarding the principles.

Biochar does "sequester" carbon

There is some question about whether biochar is actually a form of sequestration. Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Turnbull got it right when he likened biochar to geosequestration: " There is absolutely no question about the science or the fact that that charcoal, once restored to the soil, does result in carbon being stored—just as much as if it is taken from a coal fired power station and pumped under the ground." If "Sequestration" means "capture and hold", Biochar certainly holds carbon, but it does not capture it. Who, then, 'owns' the sequestration rights?

The IPCC Glossary gives the following meaning for Sequestration: "The process of increasing the carbon content of a carbon reservoir other than the atmosphere. Biological approaches to sequestration include direct removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through land-use change, afforestation, reforestation, and practices that enhance soil carbon in agriculture. Physical approaches include separation and disposal of carbon dioxide from flue gases or from processing fossil fuels to produce hydrogen- and carbon dioxide-rich fractions and long term storage in underground in depleted oil and gas reservoirs, coal seams, and saline aquifers."

Biochar would qualify under "practices that enhance soil carbon in agriculture".

Voluntary Market so close you can smell it

It's too early to be popping corks, but all the signs are pointing to success in our campaign to have soil carbon traded and farmers paid fairly for what they grow. The Voluntary Market has a sense of inevitability about it. After briefings by the Carbon Coalition and its members, the Federal Coalition has got religion about soils (seeing it as a weak spot for the Government) and have hardened up their position with plans for a voluntary market in soil carbon by next year. (Read the excerpt from Malcolm Turnbull's speech in Parliament on 2nd June (below) - he is right on song with Carbon Coalition policy.
And the Government seems to have turned the corner in its attitude to soil carbon.

A Departmental Fact Sheet was quietly released in May entitled "Agriculture & the Voluntary Carbon Market, and subtitled: "A new national standard could help farmers to create and trade carbon credits in voluntary markets not recognised by the CPRS."
"Are soils & native pastures a source of carbon credits?" asks a headline on the Department of Climate Change fact sheet.

The answer seems to be YES:

"In Australia, voluntary carbon credits can only be generated from emissions sources
that are not covered under the CPRS, and do not form part of Australia’s obligations
under the Kyoto Protocol." (Tick)

"Sound management of agricultural land can play an important role in reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. Changes in the management of agricultural soils and native pastures that reduce emissions are potential sources of carbon credits for
voluntary markets..." (Tick)

"These activities could be used to generate carbon credits providing that:
• they are not recognised as part of Australia’s reporting obligations under the Kyoto Protocol; and
• the measurement and reporting systems used meet the National Carbon Offset Standard when it is in place." (Waiting.)

"Measuring and attributing improvements in soil carbon to management practices will be essential for meeting the additional and permanent criteria under the National Carbon Offset Standard when it is in place. (Waiting)

"To address this issue, the Government and industry partners have committed over $20 million to soil carbon research under the Climate Change Research Program." (Waiting)

Now this research is starting, and will take 3 years, and could be overtaken by events. A letter from the Premier of Queensland, Anna Bligh, reveals that the final National Carbon Offset Standard "is planned to be in place by mid to late 2009."

The Premier also reveals that the Department is not 100% confident that it has the skillset to develop a workable standard for soils. "The National Carbon Offset Standard will establish a process for assessing methodologies for domestic offsets from uncovered sources for sale in the voluntary market. It will be possible for proponents to bring forward methodologies for generation of offsets under the Standard and assist in reducing Australia's national emissions."

Malcolm Turnbull told Parliament on 2 June: "Our greatest comparative advantage is our real estate—770 million hectares of it. Our massive land mass is our greatest advantage. We have the ability in Australia to offset hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO2 emissions through improving the soil carbon across Australia, improving the productivity of our soils and improving the productivity of our agriculture, yet that form of carbon sequestration, of carbon offset, is not to be recognised in this scheme. It is recognised in the United States. Those credits generated by farmers through more sustainable tillage and other agricultural practices are traded every day on the Chicago Climate Exchange. That is why we have proposed the establishment of a voluntary carbon market that can take advantage of credits of that kind and others, such as biochar, from the beginning of next year."

What is Carbon Farming?

What is Carbon farming? It's different things to different people. Every farm and every farmer is different. Each has its own list of advantages and disadvantages, talents and prejudices. For this reason every Carbon Farming solution will not be suitable in 100% of cases. A farmer should be free to chose from a portfolio of techniques, having been taught the difference between them and how they can be combined.

(The following definitions are truncated for the purposes of simplicity. Naturally there is more to each of the sectors and systems mentioned.)

Carbon Farming – any land management technique (or combination) that aims to sequester carbon in soils for whatever reason.

Holistic Management - a systematic method for making decisions about any shared resource; identified with ‘planned grazing’.

Natural Sequence Farming – a system for managing water in the landscape that seeks to replicate the native irrigation system that operated before white settlement.

Keyline Planning – a system of water engineering and subsoil ploughing that aims to restore farm landscapes and soil health.

Planned Grazing - known in the past as cell grazing, time control grazing, or rotational grazing, it has elements of each. Planned grazing involves planning the access of grazing animals to pasture based on the amount of time the vegetation needs to recover and grow a full complimentof ‘solar panels’ (blades of grass).

No-Till – a cultivation technique that reduces disturbance of the soil. Can be known as ‘direct drill’. Can involve heavy use of herbicide. “NoKill” variant uses no herbicide.

Pasture Cropping – direct drilling a cereal into a dormant perennial pasture to renovate pasture. Less emphasis on yield.

Perennial Cover Cropping – the reverse of pasture cropping. A perennial sward is kept covering the soil during old fallow time. Crop planted into sward.

Biological Farming – the name has been used by one of the two major organic certification standards in Australia; also the name used by the biofertiliser industry for a soil-biology-focussed farming approach – using compost teas, minerals, .etc.

Sustainable Biological Agriculture – a new term; applied to a combination of Natural Sequence Farming, biological farming and planned grazing.

Biodynamic Agriculture – known mainly for composting process involving on-farm manure placed in cow horns and buried for 12 months, then used to in a naturopathic style to produce a spray on liquid.

Organic Agriculture - growers are certified as running a toxic chemical free operation. Soil disturbance by ploughing allowed.
Probiotic Inoculants – Inoculants that contain microbial mixes selected for conditions and objectives. Sprayed onto vegetation.

Mulching – a soil repair technique using any suitable material to protect soil from heat and conserve water

Green Mulching – any crop grown to be ploughed in to soil to increase soil organic matter.

Composting – converting raw biomass into plant-available organic matter.

Compost Teas – tea-like solution created by determining microbe mix in composting process and steeping water in the mix; some operators use flow form structures to energise the water/teas befor application.

Dung Beetles - introduced species of dung dessicators which roll balls of mainly cow manure into holes and transport it metres down into the soil profile.

Forestry – grassy woodlands, shelter belts, wldlife corridors, and lantations are all options tha can be used to increase soil carbon.

These Carbon Farming alternatives divide themselves into the following:

1. Systems for decision making
a. Holistic Management
b. Grazing for Profit (RCS)
c. Principal Focus
d. ......................

2. Major Infrastructure foundational systems
a. Natural Sequence Farming
b. Planned Grazing
c. Keyline Planning
d. ......................

3. Marketing Assurance Systems
a. Organic farming
b. ..................

4. Cropping practices
a. Minimum vs No Till cultivators
b. Pasture cropping
c. ......................

5. Soil Treatments
a. Compost
b. Biofertilsers,
c. Inoculants
d. Worm Juice
e. Minerals & Trace elements
f. Mulch
g. Dung Beetles
h. ......................

6. Trees
a. Grassy woodlands
b. Shelter belts
c. Salt expressions
d. Carbon Plantings
e. Wildlife corridors
f. .........................

These alternatives can be combined in many ways:

1. Only one decision-making system: most will use a version of what has worked for them in the past
2. Only one water management system (NSF, Keyline): because there is major earthworks involved with hydrology systems, we call them "infrastructural'; as they involve a fundamental theory of landscape design, we call them 'foundational". The decision to install either will affect management decisions beyond the immediate activity.
3. Fencing infrastructure for planned grazing can be used with all except high yield broadacre cropping. It is also infrastructural and foundational.
4. Cropping practice could change with type of soil, yield requirement and objectives.
5. Soil treatments not exclusive.

The alternatives above divide themselves into 'fixed' and 'variable' activities, along the lines of how easy/inexpensive or hard/costly it is to get started. For instance, wire and water for planned grazing is more expensive than inoculating a crop.

There are no rules when it comes to Carbon farming. There are only options and a single objective: soil carbon.
And there are a million reasons to grow it.

Nation's top public servants have a 'soil carbon experience'

A unique and historic event in the soil carbon movement’s history took place on Friday 12 June at the Bylong property made famous by Peter Andrews and Natural Sequence Farming (NSF). The gathering – under the command of former Governor General Major General Michael Jeffery – saw heads of several key Government Departments ‘feel the carbon beneath their feet’ as they walked across the dense, rich pasture on Tarwyn Park, the property where Peter first demonstrated NSF in action.

The guests of honour included The Secretary, Department of Treasury, Ken Henry, the Secretary, Department of Environment,Water, Heritage and the Arts, Robyn Kruk, Dr Angela MacDonald (Prime Minister & Cabinet), Dr Brian Keating, Chief, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Mike Clarke, Department of Agriculture, Western Australia.

The theme of the day was NSF as the centrepiece of a sustainable biological system of farming that will regenerate the Australian landscape and capture enough carbon in soils to give society time to build alternative energy responses while burning coal in the interim. Soil carbon was front and centre in the presentations and not simply a bolt-on as it often is.

One of the 5 recommendations made to the Government representatives was: “Soil Carbon to be recognised as part of the solution to sequestering carbon in Australia’s Global Climate Change Policy (post Kyoto), with farmers able to generate recognised offsets to the CPRS (ie . A tradeable soil carbon credit.)”

The balance of the proposed recommendation to Government and Business includes:

1. The establishment of a high level Task Force ‘responsible for overseeing the implementation of Sustainable Biological Agriculture (SBA) based on NSF and including biological farming and planned grazing.’

2. Priority access to Caring For Our Country grants to establish demonstration farms linked with education programs.

3. Adopt as a nation the objective of 80% of Australia’s agricultural and rangelands converting to SBA by 2020.

4. Soil carbon as a tradeable offset under CPRS.

5. CSIRO and other scientific bodies assist in developing Measurement, Monitoring and Verification methodologies for soil carbon increases and nitrous oxide and methane emissions reductions.

The official guests were subjected to a program of presentations and site visits staged with military precision. The General spoke first of the crisis in Australia’s water and soils and how important the meeting was. Peter Andrews spoke of the natural irrigation system that the continent had created for itself centuries ago and the need that we should allow that system to re-emerge. Farmers had to learn how to read the landscape and understand the needs of the water cycle. Professor David Goldney gave a theoretical explanation of NSF, followed by Professor Richard Bush who reported on the scientific work he did on Gerry Havey’s NSF program at nearby property “Baramul”. David Mason-Jones (a journalist) demonstrated with a sponge and a jug of water how a floodplain fed by a river (in this case the Hunter) could hold 1.6 gigalitres of water in the soil while still releasing water for downstream users and losing far less to evaporation than conventional dams and irrigation systems allow. Then John White, whose company Ignite Energy controls 75% of Victoria’s brown coal, exlained how he had found a way to use his coal as a soil ameliorant, returning the peaty coal to the soil in a biofert combination devised by Adrian Laurie of LaurieCo. This and other biological soil treatments were positioned to the audience as the means of kickstarting the landscape before the NSF effect kicks in. Adrian Laurie gave a tight presentation on his Biological Farming Systems and Tony Lovell’s presentation explained how elements of Holistic Management (HM) fit in to the broader picture – and also made the plea for science to follow the market, the only sane solution.

The meshing together of NSF, HM, and biological farming in a single presentation was a brave attempt to present Carbon Farming as a holistic system, albeit with a ‘first among equals’ twist, placing NSF at the hub of the wheel. Peter’s system earned the right to “first” place by making the event happen. But life isn’t neatly arranged, and there are as many farmers passionate about planned grazing or pasture cropping (which did not get a guernsy on the day, though we spotted some oats direct drilled on Tarwyn Park.) The program was in danger of causing ‘soil carbon overload’ in the minds of the official guests. And those Carbon Farming techniques not present were acknowledged several times during the event.

Once in the outdoors Peter led a convoy of 4WDs to visit the pastures his system has produced. A rich, species diverse matress of luxuriant native perennials mixed with clovers, sewn once many years ago. The soil, which had been salt-ravaged in 1974 when Peter took on the property, is rich and dark. Then on to a weir built across the stream which slowed down the flow and turned an ‘incised’ V-shaped gully into a lush, ‘rainforest’.

The senior public servants were obviously impressed with the enthusiasm and knowledge of the presenters and observers (including Carbon Coalition affiliates Maarten Stapper, Walter Jehne, Martin Royds,and Tom Nicholas). The highest policy advisers in the land made themselves available, a tribute to Peter and the General. One was able to engage them in conversation easily and without ceremony. Ken Henry revealed that he had read both Peter’s books and used his techniques on his own property. Perhaps the most important official for the soil carbon movement was Ken Henry because the Government won’t have too many excess dollars for Agriculture. It wil be looking for good ROI from its investment. And Carbon Farming is a good investment.

Peter's NSF principles have always been considered to be a foundational infrastructure issue to be considered by every farmer wanting to grow carbon in soils and wanting to encourage natural fertility systems in their landscape. This event further reinforces that belief. Congratulations to the NSF organisation on a triumph.

Farmers on the front foot in Copenhagen

The International Federation of Agricultural Producers released a Declaration this week. It is called "Farmers’ solutions to climate change - proposals for including agriculture in a post-Kyoto agreement". (The NFF is a member of the IFAP).

It calls for Agriculture to be included as a full member of the post-Kyoto agreement, with full consideration of the unique contribution it can make and the unique challenges it faces.

HIGHLIGHTS:

"THE SPECIFICITY OF THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR HAS TO BE RECOGNIZED

"• Agriculture is different by nature and must be differentiated from other sectors
Most of agriculture’s green house gas (GHG) emissions are directly linked to natural biological cycles. The future accounting framework should allow a distinction to be made between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic emissions. Farmers cannot be held accountable for natural biological processes.

"• The origin, monitoring and reporting of emissions from agricultural land is inherently different from those associated with fossil fuels. Agriculture should not be penalized for natural emissions that are beyond human control, independent from management effects. Natural emissions are due to climate conditions such as variable rainfall, drought and bushfires.

"==> Agriculture cannot compete with other sectors in terms of cost-efficiency in reducing GHG emissions, unless its carbon sequestration and displacement potential are recognised."

DESIRED OUTCOMES:

"Specifically, farmers represented in IFAP are seeking the following desired outcomes from the negotiations

• Official recognition of agriculture as a sector that is adversely affected by the effects of climate change and, at the same time, as a sector with a huge potential to provide solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation.

• A commitment for a substantial increase in investments in and support for agriculture. The sector must be prioritised in international and national strategies as well as in budgets in order to increase agriculture’s resilience to climate change while boosting economic growth.

• Support for the full integration of agriculture in the post-Kyoto agreement. Agriculture being a cross-cutting issue, it should be mainstreamed under all the different components of the Bali Action Plan and beyond.

• Recognition of the specific characteristics and needs of agriculture in the post-Kyoto agreement in order to take full advantage of the sequestration and adaptation potential of the agricultural sector. The current Kyoto accounting rules do not reflect these specificities.

• Establishment of an appropriate financial mechanism to reward farmers for the carbon sequestration and ecosystem services that mitigate climate change, providing them with the right financial incentives to adopt the most sustainable practices.

• Recognition of Farmers’ Organizations as partners, as the link between farming communities and the international carbon market, and as the link to the international institutions. "

UN Supremo says soil carbon is on track

This is good news coming out of the Copenhagen process:

Addressing the participants at a Land Day gathering held on Saturday, 6 June, in Bonn, Germany, Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, stressed the significance of climate change on future food security and said 89% of mitigation in agriculture can be achieved by soil carbon sequestration through measures such as cropland management, restoration of organic soils and degraded land, bioenergy and water management.

De Boer said "Copenhagen is the time to make sure win-win effects become reality across the world."

Recalling that scientific and political challenges that inhibited the comprehensive elaboration of land-based adaptation and mitigation strategies for the Kyoto Protocol, De Boer said "science has since caught up, and monitoring carbon sequestration into soils can be monitored with much greater accuracy" and that "a successful outcome will include incentives for the agricultural and forestry sectors to adopt decisive mitigation measures."

While the climate change negotiating process was moving to better accounting processes, he said, progress will depend on the ability to manage some of the uncertainties, which, he added, "this forum, and by linking climate change to the broader development agenda can do." For the full statement visit: website: http://www.unccd.int/publicinfo/landday/docs/090606_speech_Bonn.pdf

Ostrich strategy still popular in Agricultural Industry Leadership

NSW Farmers Association Board Director Louise Burge took us aside one day in 2006 when we were about to address a group of landholders at Cobar and said, "You don't know what you are dealing with." Pretty positive way to start. She meant we were ignorant of the methane and nitrous oxide issues, the dark side of the soil carbon equation. And she was right: we were. But not for long. And when we understood the size of the downside, we believed even more in the need to win the right for farmers to trade in their soil carbon. What alternative is there: face the methane and nitrous oxide liability without offsets? Louise led us to believe that if we made a fuss about soil carbon, the Government would notice us. We would draw attention to agriculture and its emissions. It is the ostrich strategy. I thought it couldn't have been that blatant, that I must have misunderstood her. But in The Land this week there she is, still pushing the ostrich solution. "Proponents of carbon credits schemes are responding to perceived opportunities, perhaps without fully considering the carbon liabilities that will apply to agriculture." The Climate Change denialists, who dominated the debates for so long in agriculture, left the way clear for the Government to do whatever they want with Agriculture because as an industry we weren't at the negotiating table. The whole industry didn't turn up. They didn't get it. And the leadership so comprehensively failed the membership that they should resign en masse with an apology. Even today, they refuse to engage with the issues: "It is hard to see how the quantities of emissions now attributed to agriculture by the Federal Government can be offset by carbon storage in soils or in trees along the edges of paddocks." It's hard to see if you don't look. If, instead of seeking to block the soil carbon message and undermine us for three years, these people got behind the campaign and we got some real science behind the rate of growth and the tonnages possible that we know are possible, they would not be reduced to the traditional 'poor bugger me' defence. That worked when agriculture was a political force. But The Nationals are reduced to the clowning self promotion of Barnaby Joyce who gets the nod from John Hewson in the Australian Financial Review last Friday. Both Barnaby and Louise have got to face facts: there will be some form of carbon trade in permits or a tax - we have to pay. Penny Wong's people have told us agriculture will be covered one way or the other. I can't see the Nationals winning Government anytime in the next 100 years and reversing history. So, given that, why not try to get a fair deal for farmers? Why do they want to leave farmers exposed by opposing soil carbon credits? What is their motivation? Who benefits? (John Hewson's article is a gem. Whoever briefed him has our gratitude. You did a good job.)

PS. Jock Laurie, President of NSW Farmers, was the first prominent leader to endorse our campaign.

LAL LAYS DOWN THE LAW: Briefing Notes for Copenhagen

PROFESSOR RATTAN LAL, the world's leading soil carbon scholar, has written a briefing paper for the Copenhagen round of negotiations for The International Food Policy Research Institute. In it he has laid down some basic precepts that should inform the debate and lift the level of discussion.

PHOTOSYNTHESIS CAN BALANCE THE CARBON BUDGET: "The natural rate of photosynthesis in the global biosphere is about 120 billion mt of carbon per year. Fossil fuel combustion emits about 8 billion mt of carbon annually, and deforestation and land-use conversion emit another 1.6 billion to 2 billion mt of carbon per year, for a total of 9.6 to 10.8 billion mt of carbon emissions per year. Thus, if roughly 8 percent of the carbon being photosynthesized by the biosphere is retained within the soil and biotic pools, the global carbon budget would be balanced."

NO-TILL ALONE NOT ENOUGH: "Examples of soil and crop management technologies that increase soil carbon sequestration include no-till (NT) farming with residue mulch and cover cropping; integrated nutrient management (INM), which balances nutrient application with judicious use of organic manures and inorganic fertilizers; various crop rotations (including agroforestry); use of soil amendments (such as zeolites, biochar, or compost); and improved pastures with recommended stocking rates and controlled fire as a rejuvenate method."

50 YEARS: "The technical potential of carbon sequestration in world soils may be 2 billion to 3 billion mt per year for the next 50 years. Thus, the potential of carbon sequestration in soils and vegetation together is equivalent to a draw-down of about 50 parts per million of atmospheric CO2 by 2100."

CARBON JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PRODUCE: "One way to think of soil carbon is as a commodity. It can be produced and, if carbon markets exist, traded like any other farm produce. Additional income can be an important incentive for the resource poor farmers in developing countries to invest in soil restoration and adopt RMPs. The economic potential may be as much as 60 percent of the technical potential, or 1.2 to 2.0 billion mt of carbon per year. Furthermore, measuring and monitoring protocols of change in carbon pools at the landscape, farm, and regional scales are available to facilitate carbon trading."

DEGRADED SOILS HAVE HE MOST POTENTIAL: "The greatest potential for sequestration is in the soils of those regions that have lost the most soil carbon. These are the regions where soils are severely degraded and have been used with extractive farming practices for a long time..."

ONE TONNE CARBON PER HECTARE PER YEAR: "Most soils have a technical or maximum sink capacity of 20 to 50 mt of carbon per hectare that can be sequestered over a 20-to-50-year period."

COPENHAGEN GOALS: "Suggested negotiating outcomes:
Carbon sequestration in soils and plants is the only strategy that can remove carbon from the atmosphere and, over time, reduce atmospheric concentration of CO2. Initiatives to support reduced emissions from deforestation (REDD) are well underway. Funds for soil carbon mitigation should also be made available. Support should be provided for:
• crop mixes to include more plants that are perennial or have deep-root systems in order to increase the amount of carbon
stored in the soil;
• cultivation systems that leave residues and reduce tillage, especially deep tillage, in order to encourage the buildup of soil
carbon;
• shifting land use from annual crops to perennial crops, pasture, and agroforestry in order to increase both above- and belowground carbon stocks; and
• activities that restore degraded and desertified soils and ecosystems, especially those affected by accelerated erosion,
salinization, and nutrient depletion."

LOW-COST MONITORING: "Carbon offset payments should be allowed for carbon sequestered in soils where low-cost monitoring is available. Funds for the development of these monitoring systems should be part of any outcome."

WIN-WIN: "Soil carbon sequestration is a win–win strategy. It mitigates climate change by offsetting anthropogenic emissions; improves the environment, especially the quality of natural waters; enhances soil quality; improves agronomic productivity; and advances food security. It is a low-hanging fruit and a bridge to the future, until carbon-neutral fuel sources and low-carbon economy take effect."


...............


The Potential for Soil Carbon Sequestration
Rattan LaL Focus 16 • Bri eF 5 • May 2009

Rattan Lal (lal.1@osu.edu) is Director of the Ohio State University’s Carbon Management and Sequestration Center and Professor of Soil Science in the School of Environment and Natural Resources.

Agriculture and climate change are inextricably linked, and thus, agriculture must be on the Copenhagen agenda. Indeed, it must be on the agenda of negotiators well before COP15. The International Food Policy Research Institute’s (IFPRI) 2020 Vision Initiative approached leading experts around the world to share their views on the key negotiating outcomes that must be pursued now in order to effectively put agriculture on the climate change agenda. Their perspectives are compiled in a set of policy briefs on “Agriculture and Climate Change: An Agenda for Negotiation in Copenhagen”, which is available at http://www.ifpri.org/2020/focus/focus16.asp.

Is there a role for agriculturalists in soil research?

Here's a lesson: Unsound science looks like sound science if you don't know what you are looking at... Science can produce inaccurate results if the methodology adopted to simulate farming practices is unrealistic. For instance, in 2003 (just 6 years ago) The Australian Journal of Experimental Science published a scientific paper titled "Effects of Grazing and Management on Herbiage Mass..." 2003, 43, 892-905. They were trying to test the claims of Holistic Management and Grazing For Profit's grazing management systems that they produce more vegetation than conventional grazing. Practitioners of these grazing techniques will tell you that it can take approximately 7 years for the full impact of grazing management to kick in with any dramatic results, unaided. It seems that the soil biology has to reach a critical mass. As well, anything less that 35-55 paddocks defeats the purpose because rest (or freedom from grazing) is the key variable in vegetation growth. Animal impact - bunching them up so that they graze the paddock evenly, disturb the topsoil and fertilise it with their dung and urine - is a key part of the system, which is why such a time controlled grazier would graze 25-50 sheep per hectare for the period of grazing, which is in many case less than a week or two weeks. Table 1. compares how the simulation of the land management technique was designed for the experiment with reality of how that technique is practiced.

Naturally the researchers concluded that there was no effect on herbiage mass from rotational grazing. Therefore, they concluded 'recipes' (exotic grazing management systems) don't work. One alternative explanation that they did not consider was that they were not good rotational graziers. And had they been aware of what was necessary to make such a system work, perhaps they would have produced a more useful research result. As it is, this piece of research adds little to the knowledge base, but it was given the status of 'scientific fact' by virtue of its publication and no doubt used by extension officers and district agronomists to knock rotational grazing systems which are taught by the organisations mentioned above which engage their students in a mentoring relationship, which means they no longer rely on the extension staff for advice. They also promote a low-chemical/low artificial fertilizer regime which most extension officers would not have encountered in their training and would therefore be uncomfortable with.
But had practitioners been part of the research team and allowed to have input on the methodology, the findings might be more useful. The Evergraze project has 4 landholders consulting to the research team, I believe. Even then it has a 4 paddock and a 20 paddock rotation. The phenomenon of scientists being unable to verify what farmers on the ground are finding was demonstrated in a paper called Production-Oriented Conservative-Impact Grazing Management. It was prepared for a WA Department of Agriculture workshop in 2002, by Ben Norton. He points out that the majority of published research studies of rotational grazing find that continuous grazing is better than or comparable to rotational grazing in terms of either animal or plant production. Yet “Hundreds of graziers on three continents claim that their livestock production has increased by half or doubled or even tripled following the implementation of rotational grazing…” The answer to the conundrum lies in the methodology adopted by the scientists: the research trials employed only 16 paddocks or less in the rotation. A typical real-life rotational cell will have 40 to 80 paddocks, the high numbers affecting the amount of time animals are intensively grazing each paddock and the amount of time the paddocks have to recover.

Someone should tell them....

The St Paul of Soil Biology...

IS Maarten Stapper's story is a parable about Agricultural Science in Australia?.He is not the Messiah. IS he the St Paul of Biological Farming - his "Road To Damascus" was the road to Canberra. The Romans persecuting the earliest Christians - the CSIRO? The dominant paradigm (religion) Industrial/Dominate Nature vs Biological/Mimic Nature?
Does the aggressive response to the natural farming movement reflect the realisation by those in extension mentoring roles that they are losing contact with the farmers. (Both Scott Macalman and Peter Cook admit to hiding somewhere on their farms when the district agronomist came visiting.)
The GRDC is investing in its agronomist network in the CENTRAL WEST OF NSW, Home of Carbon Farming and Conservation Tillage. It has also announced a major investment in soil biology. Was the "Cost Of Humus" saga really The Chaser Team? Could be.... It was hinted at, at a major sustainability conference in Canberra recently when a very senior government manager, after sitting through presentations by Adrian Lawrie, Christine Jones, and Bob Wilson, said, of soil biology, "This is something we are yet to learn about."

A compassionate analysis: soil biology neglected in a country where the soil science is dominated by physicists and chemists. The industrial solution losing its effectiveness. The "Moron" response - put more on - also loses potency. Farmers demand for soil biology noted by NSWDPI 2004 (Tamworth event overbooked), Cotton CRC 2005 (survey)... meanwhile Arden Anderson and Elaine Ingham derided. Meanwhile Governments close agencies, slash staff (LWA, DPI, DAFF etc.). Carbon farming derided - "Mythbusters" seminars try to win back hearts and minds of landholders while justifying denying farmers access to carbon credits to offset against their emissions...

More farmers want to understand, don't want to be told. LawrieCo is forming support groups who learn from each other. "Microscope Clubs" are springing up - farmers search for and discuss the microbes they discover in their soil.

Grassroots farmers should not be ignored. They may not have PhDs, but they work in their laboratory (farm) everyday.

Tagasaste Bob Wins Inaugural GAIA Award

Carbon Coalition Counsellor Bob WIlson from WA won the first GAIA (Green Agriculture Innovation Award), selected by Dr Christine Jones. Bob, vice president of WA's Evergreen Farming Group, has earned the name "Tagasaste Bob" because of his work introducing new edible shrubs, including "Tagasaste" and other 'exotic' grasses such as native perennials (native to the eastern states) which grow well on the silver loams (ie. sand) in south western WA. Bob has been a guiding presence in the Carbon Coalition since we began 3 years ago. His award is recognition of his success as a pioneer. Bob's (and Tim WiIey's) work in adaptive grazing management has given hope to the farmers of the region and beyond. Well done, Bob.

PS. Christine Jones received a generous donation from businessman Alan Hill to establish the award hich will run for 5 years.

Photo:Minister for Agriculture Tony Burke was present to see Bob given his award at the Dinner as part of the 10th National Business Leaders Forum on Sustainable Development, held at Parliament House last night. Christine Jones is seen in the background.

Please take some grassroots action - read the Draft Standard

and make some comments...

THe American farmers' groups who have developed the Agricultural Soil Credit Standard are appealing to those with an interest to comment on it. Australian farmers have an interest in this Standard because of the global political environment in which the USA is flying the flag for Agriculture worldwide. Agriculture relies on grassroots action to see change. This standard is to be submitted to the US Government by the Iowa and Illinois Corn Growers Associations.

Click here for access to a pdf copy of the Draft Standard.

The group developed this standard to validate soil-based carbon offset methodologies and systems that can be broadly accepted. The standard used elements from ISO 9001, ISO Guide 65 and National Organic Program (NOP).


>> The comment period will last only until June 26, 2009

>> Please direct all comments to Gary DeLong, Managing Director of Novecta, by email.

His address is: garyd@novecta.com

>> Comments should be noted by page number and section as appropriate.

>> The comments will be assembled into a matrix format for review by the committee and any others who are interested in doing so.

>> At the conclusion of the comment period the comments will be review by the committee and then submitted to United States Department Agriculture (USDA) for review.

Land Management Practices for Carbon Credits

Land management practices are spelled out for farmers wanting to sell carbon credits based on soil carbon, in the Draft Agricultural Soil Credit Standard to be submitted to the US Government by the Iowa and Illinois Corn Growers Associations.
Click here for access to a pdf copy of the Draft Standard.

Part D - Management Practices
Sec. 400 General.
Projects generating credits for sale or trade shall comply with the applicable provisions of this Part. Management practices shall result in additional soil carbon or emission reduction. The practices shall be maintained or improved throughout the duration of the contract to sell carbon credits.

Sec. 405 Credit and Reduction Practices.
The net greenhouse gas impact in a carbon credit or emission reduction method shall be less than the greenhouse gas impact in standard agricultural practices. The following baseline or business as usual practices listed in (a) shall be changed by using one or more method listed in (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section.

(a) Baseline or business as usual includes:

(1) No soil management plan;
(2) No grazing plan for rangeland;
(3) No management plan for grassland;
(4) No nutrient management plan for crop, grassland, or rangeland to account for the
emission of GHGs; and
(5) No fuel use plan to reduce the quantity of petroleum-based fuels used.

(b) Cropping systems, including planted grassland or rangeland. Cropping systems shall reduce greenhouse gas impact by executing one or more of the following practices to sequester carbon in the soil:

(1) Reduction of soil disturbance when performing cropping activities such as no-till or
conservation tillage as defined by the current edition of the NRCS Handbook of
Conservation Practices;
(2) Modifying crop rotations to add biomass to the soil, including cover crops;
(3) Plantings crops that add carbon to the soil; and
(4) Any other practice or technology approved by the Agricultural Carbon Board that results
in additional carbon sequestration.

(c) Grazing Plan for Rangeland and Grassland. Grazing plans for rangeland and grassland shall increase carbon sequestration by increasing biomass from vegetation. All of the following requirements shall be met:

(1) Low-to-moderate grazing based on rainfall or irrigation;
(2) Seasonal rotation to increase vegetative production cycle; and
(3) Any other practice or technology that results in increased carbon sequestration in the plant material and the surrounding soil profile and that is approved by the Agricultural Carbon Board.
Note: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Field Office Technical Guides publish
guidelines for managing the controlled harvest of vegetation with grazing animals. Stocking rates
and livestock distribution criteria are defined according to County and State in the NRCS
“Prescribed Grazing Specification” code. A formal grazing plan may be developed with the input of
NRCS, BLM, USFS other non-profit agencies or private rangeland consulting firms. Regardless of
the source of the grazing plan, it shall at a minimum adhere to NRCS standards.

(d) Nutrient Planning. Methods used to enhance soil fertility shall facilitate net reductions of GHG emissions into the environment compared to the baseline; a nutrient plan shall include at least one of the following:

(1) Reduction of the amount of fertilizer used and variable rate application;
(2) Selection and use of fertilizer that reduces emissions, such as slow release fertilizers
(nitrification inhibitors, and urease inhibitors);
(3) Crop rotations that add nutrients to the soil;
(4) Management of the timing, placement and method of application of nitrogen fertilizer
(including split applications and not using fall application);
(5) Use of organic nutrient sources; and
(6) Any other fertilization practice approved by the Agricultural Carbon Board that results in
net reductions of GHG emissions.

(e) Fuel use plan. Cultural practices shall reduce the amount of petroleum-based fuel. A fuel use plan shall include at least one of the following:

(1) Overall reduction of fuel use;
(2) Use of biological-based fuel such as ethanol or bio-diesel;
(3) Use of equipment that reduces GHG emissions;
(4) Any other fuel reduction or emission method approved by the Agricultural Carbon Board that result in reduced carbon dioxide emissions.

MMV not revealed in Draft Agricultural Soil Credit Standard

MEASUREMENT NOT CONCLUSIVE

Although the detail of the Measurement approach adopted is not given in the draft*, it is described as a mix of “from modeling, assessment and quantification through approved methodologies. Methods of quantification methodology shall be scientifically evaluated, verified, validated and accepted as scientifically valid by a government agency, accredited university, or technical advisory committees of the Agricultural Carbon Board.” The latter is a governing body with stakeholders represented. “Approved methodologies include models, modeling and protocols with validation and verification developed on a foundation of statistically valid sampling representative of the conditions subject to carbon credit.” “The Project Owner or Aggregator shall use an approved quantification methodology to estimate the amount of net primary greenhouse gas change in the soil over time with statistical representation of the credit validated by appropriate direct measurement.”

*Draft Agricultural Soil Credit Standard to be submitted to the US Government by the Iowa and Illinois Corn Growers Associations. Click here for access to a pdf copy of the Draft Standard.

Sec. 302 Validation of quantification methods.
A quantification method shall:
(a) Determine net change in primary greenhouse gases in accordance with prevailing conventions for accuracy, precision of measurement and statistical validity. The quantification methods shall be robust to operate over an appropriate range of soils, cropping practices and environments, and scalable over the scope of the carbon credit. The methodology shall be replicable and thoroughly documented; and
(b) Be validated by an approved domestic or international body, which shall include those
organizations that can demonstrate no conflict of interest and whose work processes are
accredited by appropriate national and/or international accreditation agencies. The methodology for quantification shall conform to prevailing principles of quality management.