Double-edged benefit in carbon campaign

There is nothing but upside for farmers in the Carbon Coalition's campaign to have agricultural soils recognised as carbon sinks for the purposes of trading on the global greenhouse emissions offset market. While carbon credits must be bought by companies who cannot meet their greenhouse targets, famers could find themselves on the wrong side of the ledger. It is estimated that agriculture contributes between 19% and 25% of greenhouse emissions (more than the transport sector). Practices such as clearing native vegetation, overgrazing, ploughing and burning stubble release CO2 into the atmosphere. AS farmers manage more than two thirds of the earth's surface, the combined effect of their activities is massive. Soils were left out of the first round of Kyoto Protocols while carbon accounting issues were resolved. But they are expected to be included in the second round, starting in 2012. If the experts decide that there is no way to accurately estimate the amount of carbon present in a defined area of soils, and therefore soil carbon cannot be included in emissions trading, they cannot then turn around and charge farmers for CO2 they emit. How could they measure it? While computer models are used to estimate the amount of carbon sequestered in forests, higher levels of accuracy are demanded of soils. If a soil carbon credit system is introduced, farmers will be able to retain flexibility to use land management techniques that release CO2 by sequestering carbon in soils on other parts of their holding to offset their emissions. Either way, the Carbon Coalition's campaign to force the experts to take a position on soil carbon will protect the interests of landholders.