A BIG THANK YOU To THE SCIENTISTS WHO STOOD UP TO BE COUNTED

"Pastures can support rich growth of carbon credits," says the headline on the University of New England "NEWS" site (http://www.une.edu.au/news/archives/000710.html)

Then came the welcome news: "University of New England researchers have backed calls from the NSW Farmers Association for the introduction of a carbon credit trading scheme." The scientist 'outing' himself in this instance is Dr Wal Whalley, an Honorary Fellow in Botany at UNE. But even this was going a bit too far, and he qualified it with the old scientists' chestnut: "... scientific and economic know-how is not quite ready for the widespread use of such a scheme." Won't he get a surprise when we start trading next week without all that scientific palaver?

He says: "more work is needed on the details of measuring and trading these offsets to carbon emissions for the benefit of farmers." This in effect means nothing will ever happen. Why?
Because the more they learn about soil carbon the harder it becomes to pin it down scientifically. (The latest news from the laboratory comes to us via a senior soil scientist in the DNR who played a key role in the AGO work.) We know it's there. We just can't say how much right at this moment. It's a question of flux. Soil C is mercurial. It dances in and out. But we know there's lots there. And we also know a lot of other things about it, such as what the ground cover looks like, what the soil smells like, how it reacts to large downfalls of rain, and to no rain, what the bug life is like in the first 10 cms, what the general biodiversity situaiton is like, etc.

The Carbon Coalition says hair-splitting scientific accuracy is not required. What we need is a simple basis for trade - an agreement between two people as to what something is worth.

"It amazes me that we are still at this kindergarten stage with the science. Trying to find more accurate ways to measure is not the path to success," says Michael Kiely, Convenor of the Coalition. "The answer lies in estimates and indicators and averaging such as is done with everything else. Read the AGO's technical reports upon which all generalisations about Australian soils are based. They are full of surmises and estimations to bridge knowledge gaps."

Dr. Whalley was made a Member of the Order of Australia (AM) on Australia Day this year for his work on native grasses and grassland ecology. He says it is a "myth" that carbon credit trading schemes merely involve the "locking up" of forests. "Grasslands – and using grasslands for grazing – can provide more effective soil carbon storage than trees, as grasses have small, fibrous roots and quickly put carbon back into the soil," he said. "Through modern methods of grazing management and/or pasture cropping you can quickly increase the amount of organic matter in the soil. This is good for the grazing animals, the pasture and the soil."

"If the carbon credit trading scheme devised is simply with trees," he explained, "the science is easier because the estimation of the amount of carbon tied up in forests per year is relatively easy and commonly accepted. We don't know much about the measurement and forms of carbon increases in soils and grasslands, but our vast pastures and grasslands can probably lock up much more carbon than all our forests or plantations."

"Without standardised measurements of carbon increases, a widespread carbon credit trading scheme cannot exist, as there wouldn't be a fair way to work out the compensation amount*. I hope that research will yield results within the next few years." Can the world wait that long? Stern says we have 9 years, and many others agree with him. The polar bears. Keep your mind on the job. Their Arctic home is melting at 3 times the rate the experts thought. A lot of people care about polar bears.

In the same report we have news of further delaying tactics. One of Wal's colleagues "said that the other area in need of considerable research was an understanding of the nature of offsets, the potential products, and how to value and trade them across markets." When you see the words "considerable research' read "lots of time and money". Gentlemen, the enemy is at the city walls.

Markets do not need research studies or governments to tell them how to form. Free enterprise is just that. Two parties doing a deal. All that is needed is sufficient information to satisfy the buyer. Capitalism. Transactions based on perceived value.

"There is not a clear understanding as to exactly how these contracts would be entered into." Piffle. The market for the commodity already exists. This product would sit alongside them. And they would find their place by trial and error. There is scope for 'gourmet' bundles for the voluntary market. There is a world wide shortage of tradable carbon. Everyone in the business knows that. You have to get down off your camel to find these things out, though.

Well done, Wal. You supported us during the dark days. Now get down off that camel and help us make a market.

FOOTNOTE; *For those of you actively applying your minds to this conundrum, there is a line of enquiry you can follow that has yet to be exhausted. For what purpose do people buy carbon credits? There are many uses. But one of them is not to speculate in their value increasing, as you would with shares. (Who decides the value of shares and how?) In many cases it is to offset emissions which themselves are a vague estimation. EG> The methodology (widely used) put forward by the World Resources Institute enables the auditor to estimate the annual power usage of an office-based business by a formula based on floorspace. I don't get it. We've got to be 150% accurate with soil carbon but not with that end of the transaction process that decides how much soil carbon you need to buy to do the job. I don't get it. When I hear that a major energy company applies a margin of error to its estimates of fugitive emissions (go and look it up) of between -50% and +100% in order to operate in the real world, I can't help thinking there is a conspiracy against soil carbon. First among the soil carbon sceptics (we will never let them forget it) and then among the believers who cursed us with best wishes in the search for an accurate solution. But back to the speculation about motivation for buying carbon credits. Polar bears is one reason.

PS> UNE PRO Jim Scanlon wrote the original report that I have liberally plundered for this post. Thanks Jim.