This week Minister for Climate Change Penny Wong revealed that agriculture will not be ‘covered’ by the Emissions Trading Scheme when it opens in 2010. "(Agriculture Minister) Tony Burke and I have had a number of discussions with the agriculture sector. This is a complex issue. And it will be covered in the Green Paper we'll be releasing shortly," she says. The major issue is measurement of Methane and Nitrous Oxide, says Minister Wong.
THIS DOES NOT MEANS SOIL CARBON CANNOT BE TRADED. In fact the Department of Climate Change stated recently in a stakeholder consultation paper* "offsets can only come from projects that reduce emissions that are outside the scheme."
The "only" raises questions. But they are being ironed out.
*EMISSIONS TRADING STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AGENDA PAPER: OVERARCHING DESIGN PRINCIPLES - COVERAGE AND SCOPE FOR OFFSETS Canberra, 19 May 2008
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Soil Carbon: Burke still measuring
Agriculture Minister Tony Burke admitted in Parliament this week that he is still trapped in the old soil carbon measurement paradigm: ‘There is a general public policy principle that, if you are going to count something, you want to be able to count it accurately.”
Speaking to a Matter of Public Importance called by Member for New England Tony Windsor, Minister Burke said: “In any trading scheme, if you are going to be able to trade you need to be able to account and measure. The fact that the science of what is going on has not caught up with the measurement of the extent to which it is going on certainly does not preclude the government from investing seriously in trying to get the measurement issues up to speed as quickly as we possibly can.”
The Coalition told the Minister this investment will be wasted if the work it funds merely repeats the mistakes of the past: “If the names that appear on these new reports appeared on the old ones, then soil carbon trading is doomed,” we said. “It’s about a paradigm.”
He didn’t hear us, so soil carbon remains trapped in the vortex of exactitude, which is caused by the mistaken belief that greater accuracy in registering exact amounts is needed for trading to take place. The Minister was told by the Coalition and others that measurement for the purposes of trading is not the same thing. One senior Australia soil scientists made this remark: It is not true to say that the variability of soil carbon is so high that no reliable estimate of carbon density can be given for a paddock in terms of tonnes per hectare and to give an appropriate trading value”*
Notice two things: 1. The scientist did not want to be quoted. (Scientific opinion is dictated by the Peer Review System.*) 2. The word ‘estimate’ was used. In every other area of measurement in greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration, estimates are used. The amounts sequestered in trees is estimated. Emissions from energy plants are estimated. But not soil carbon.
Another person who declined to put their name to their words was one of Minister Wong’s most senior officials who said at a conference earlier this year: “Almost all measurement of emissions across both international greenhouse gas inventories reported to the international community and in emissions trading schemes around the world use estimates rather than direct measurement… Even when you have direct measurement, you take a sampling approach then you extrapolate up to the total amount of emissions. It’s the practical thing to do.”
At least the debate has risen above the outright denial of soil carbon: “We know carbon is being sequestered in the soil, that this is best practice,” said the Minister.
*See post below
Speaking to a Matter of Public Importance called by Member for New England Tony Windsor, Minister Burke said: “In any trading scheme, if you are going to be able to trade you need to be able to account and measure. The fact that the science of what is going on has not caught up with the measurement of the extent to which it is going on certainly does not preclude the government from investing seriously in trying to get the measurement issues up to speed as quickly as we possibly can.”
The Coalition told the Minister this investment will be wasted if the work it funds merely repeats the mistakes of the past: “If the names that appear on these new reports appeared on the old ones, then soil carbon trading is doomed,” we said. “It’s about a paradigm.”
He didn’t hear us, so soil carbon remains trapped in the vortex of exactitude, which is caused by the mistaken belief that greater accuracy in registering exact amounts is needed for trading to take place. The Minister was told by the Coalition and others that measurement for the purposes of trading is not the same thing. One senior Australia soil scientists made this remark: It is not true to say that the variability of soil carbon is so high that no reliable estimate of carbon density can be given for a paddock in terms of tonnes per hectare and to give an appropriate trading value”*
Notice two things: 1. The scientist did not want to be quoted. (Scientific opinion is dictated by the Peer Review System.*) 2. The word ‘estimate’ was used. In every other area of measurement in greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration, estimates are used. The amounts sequestered in trees is estimated. Emissions from energy plants are estimated. But not soil carbon.
Another person who declined to put their name to their words was one of Minister Wong’s most senior officials who said at a conference earlier this year: “Almost all measurement of emissions across both international greenhouse gas inventories reported to the international community and in emissions trading schemes around the world use estimates rather than direct measurement… Even when you have direct measurement, you take a sampling approach then you extrapolate up to the total amount of emissions. It’s the practical thing to do.”
At least the debate has risen above the outright denial of soil carbon: “We know carbon is being sequestered in the soil, that this is best practice,” said the Minister.
*See post below
The key to Minister Burke’s problem called “Measurement”
A buyer of offsets is buying an ‘aggregated tonne’ from a large ‘aggregated pool’ of tonnes that have been ‘equalised’ ie., flux is statistically ‘compressed’ (peaks and troughs equalised). The buyer buys from an aggregated pool of tonnes as part of an aggregated pool of buyers. The significant variations at individual tonne level are eliminated by statistical smoothing.
• This approach was first noted by Sandor and Skees who say that we need not worry about how much carbon is sequestered on an individual paddock, because, while estimates at an individual level may be flawed, the error has ‘typical statistical properties’ and that estimating many individual parcels and aggregating them into a single parcel will improve the estimate significantly. (Sandor, R. L. & Skees, J. 1999. Creating a market for carbon emissions. Choices 3rd Quarter, pp 13-17.)
• A similar note was sounded by the Australian Farm Institute: “if measurement or estimation systems are robust and unbiased… the aggregate result for the combined scheme will be relatively accurate due to the effect of combining many estimates together.” (The New Challenge for Australian Agriculture: How do you muster a paddock of carbon?)
• Wholesale aggregators are already commonly used in carbon markets and the system for aggregation exists. The Australian Greenhouse Office recognized the benefits of aggregation in forest sinks, called ‘carbon pooling’.
• The world’s leadng soil carbon scientist Dr Rattan Lal also sees the way forward in pooling: “[A protocol to trade C credits] will require development of routinely usable techniques to measure change in soil C pool at landscape level over a time span of 1 to 2 yr.” (“Soil Science and the Carbon Civilisation”, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 71 (3), Sept-Oct 2007.)
• Another leading soil carbon scientist, Dr John Kimble, called for a ‘real world’ approach to soil carbon measurement, to make a market possible. "It is often pointed out that soils have a large amount of variability, but with knowledge of soil sciences and landscapes, variability can be described and sampling protocols can be developed to deal with this," writes Dr Kimble. "One reason I feel people say that soils vary and SOC cannot be measured is that we soil scientists focus on showing variability, not on showing what we know about the variability… We too often focus on this [variability], worry about laboratory precision and field variation and do not look at the real world where most things are based on averages and estimated data. We tend to focus on finding variation and not on using our knowledge of soil science to describe what we know. All systems vary, but in soils we focus on a level of precision and accuracy that may not have any relevance to the real world because we can take so many samples and look at the variation." (Kimble, J., "Advances In Models To Measure Soil Carbon: Can Soil Carbon Really Be Measured?", in Lal, R., Cerri, C., Bernoux, M., Etchevers, J., and Cerri, E., eds., Carbon Sequestration in Soils in Latin America, Food Products Press, Birmingham, NY, 2006) Dr Kimble recently retired from the US Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Centre, Lincoln, Nebraska.
• This approach was first noted by Sandor and Skees who say that we need not worry about how much carbon is sequestered on an individual paddock, because, while estimates at an individual level may be flawed, the error has ‘typical statistical properties’ and that estimating many individual parcels and aggregating them into a single parcel will improve the estimate significantly. (Sandor, R. L. & Skees, J. 1999. Creating a market for carbon emissions. Choices 3rd Quarter, pp 13-17.)
• A similar note was sounded by the Australian Farm Institute: “if measurement or estimation systems are robust and unbiased… the aggregate result for the combined scheme will be relatively accurate due to the effect of combining many estimates together.” (The New Challenge for Australian Agriculture: How do you muster a paddock of carbon?)
• Wholesale aggregators are already commonly used in carbon markets and the system for aggregation exists. The Australian Greenhouse Office recognized the benefits of aggregation in forest sinks, called ‘carbon pooling’.
• The world’s leadng soil carbon scientist Dr Rattan Lal also sees the way forward in pooling: “[A protocol to trade C credits] will require development of routinely usable techniques to measure change in soil C pool at landscape level over a time span of 1 to 2 yr.” (“Soil Science and the Carbon Civilisation”, Soil Science Society of America Journal, 71 (3), Sept-Oct 2007.)
• Another leading soil carbon scientist, Dr John Kimble, called for a ‘real world’ approach to soil carbon measurement, to make a market possible. "It is often pointed out that soils have a large amount of variability, but with knowledge of soil sciences and landscapes, variability can be described and sampling protocols can be developed to deal with this," writes Dr Kimble. "One reason I feel people say that soils vary and SOC cannot be measured is that we soil scientists focus on showing variability, not on showing what we know about the variability… We too often focus on this [variability], worry about laboratory precision and field variation and do not look at the real world where most things are based on averages and estimated data. We tend to focus on finding variation and not on using our knowledge of soil science to describe what we know. All systems vary, but in soils we focus on a level of precision and accuracy that may not have any relevance to the real world because we can take so many samples and look at the variation." (Kimble, J., "Advances In Models To Measure Soil Carbon: Can Soil Carbon Really Be Measured?", in Lal, R., Cerri, C., Bernoux, M., Etchevers, J., and Cerri, E., eds., Carbon Sequestration in Soils in Latin America, Food Products Press, Birmingham, NY, 2006) Dr Kimble recently retired from the US Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Centre, Lincoln, Nebraska.
New Taskforce to be launched after Soil Summit
25 June 2008
The Agriculture Alliance on Climate Change (AACC) held a “Soil Summit” in Canberra on Wednesday, 18 June, to discuss options for the agricultural sector’s role in Australia’s climate change response through soil carbon sequestration.
The Summit was inspired by the Prime Minister’s valuation at ABARE Outlook ‘08 of the ‘potential of enhancing the carbon stored in our soils’ and ‘how better soil management can be part of Australia’s response to climate change.’ Summit participants spent the day exploring the means by which agricultural soils can be involved in both the voluntary and regulated carbon markets.
Participants in the Summit included farming and industry associations; science and research bodies; businesses and government.
It was agreed at the Summit to establish a Soil Taskforce to investigate all opportunities to make soil carbon sequestration an economic reality in Australia and to review the situation internationally where soil carbon already exists as a traded commodity.
The Summit participants also identified two key action items to be addressed:
o The need for consistent and on-going communication between all soil carbon industry stakeholders including farming groups, research organisations, governments and business. The Climate Institute will investigate resources for this activity.
o The urgent need for a permanent and centralised national database of soil information for farmers, research organisations, governments and industry modelled on the Bureau of Meteorology. This will require Commonwealth leadership and commitment.
The Taskforce will investigate national and international market models, develop possible market approaches for Australia and explore all economic options for farming and agriculture to play a role in reducing emissions and boosting sequestration of carbon through soil management.
The Taskforce will be active in developing networks and communicating with Federal, State and Territory Governments about the role soil can play and keep interested participants informed of possible economic opportunities as Australia strives to meet its Kyoto obligations.
Participants in the Summit acknowledged that:
o The agriculture sector must take responsibility for its share of the national greenhouse challenge and can benefit from taking a leading role in providing solutions; and
o A concerted effort must be made to research and understand soil’s potential in solving climate change in Australia.
To date, it is unclear if, how and when agriculture will be included in a national response to climate change. The Summit was organised to identify key players in Australia’s developing soil carbon industry as well as determine the initial steps for stakeholders to help shape soil’s role in Australia’s climate change response.
Participants at the Soil Summit:
The Climate Institute
Country Women’s Association of Australia
CSIRO
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF)
Bureau of Rural Sciences
Land and Water Australia
NSW Department of Primary Industries
Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW
Department of Primary Industries Victoria
SA Farmers
WA Farmers
GRDC/Grains Council of Australia
Department of Agriculture and Food WA
Central West Catchment Management Authority Victoria
Carbonlink
Soil Carbon (Australia) P/L
Organic Federation of Australia
BEST Energies
Ecos Corporation
Triple Helix
University of WA
Queensland University of Technology
For more information, contact Nicolette Boele, The Climate Institute: (02) 9252 5200.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this Communiqué are not necessarily some or all of the views of the representatives of the Soil Summit. The Communiqué has been created from the discussion recorded during the Soil Summit by individuals, rather than representatives of the organisations to which they are aligned. For this reason the content of the Communiqué should not be taken as full endorsement by some or all of the organisations represented at the Soil Summit.
The Agriculture Alliance on Climate Change (AACC) held a “Soil Summit” in Canberra on Wednesday, 18 June, to discuss options for the agricultural sector’s role in Australia’s climate change response through soil carbon sequestration.
The Summit was inspired by the Prime Minister’s valuation at ABARE Outlook ‘08 of the ‘potential of enhancing the carbon stored in our soils’ and ‘how better soil management can be part of Australia’s response to climate change.’ Summit participants spent the day exploring the means by which agricultural soils can be involved in both the voluntary and regulated carbon markets.
Participants in the Summit included farming and industry associations; science and research bodies; businesses and government.
It was agreed at the Summit to establish a Soil Taskforce to investigate all opportunities to make soil carbon sequestration an economic reality in Australia and to review the situation internationally where soil carbon already exists as a traded commodity.
The Summit participants also identified two key action items to be addressed:
o The need for consistent and on-going communication between all soil carbon industry stakeholders including farming groups, research organisations, governments and business. The Climate Institute will investigate resources for this activity.
o The urgent need for a permanent and centralised national database of soil information for farmers, research organisations, governments and industry modelled on the Bureau of Meteorology. This will require Commonwealth leadership and commitment.
The Taskforce will investigate national and international market models, develop possible market approaches for Australia and explore all economic options for farming and agriculture to play a role in reducing emissions and boosting sequestration of carbon through soil management.
The Taskforce will be active in developing networks and communicating with Federal, State and Territory Governments about the role soil can play and keep interested participants informed of possible economic opportunities as Australia strives to meet its Kyoto obligations.
Participants in the Summit acknowledged that:
o The agriculture sector must take responsibility for its share of the national greenhouse challenge and can benefit from taking a leading role in providing solutions; and
o A concerted effort must be made to research and understand soil’s potential in solving climate change in Australia.
To date, it is unclear if, how and when agriculture will be included in a national response to climate change. The Summit was organised to identify key players in Australia’s developing soil carbon industry as well as determine the initial steps for stakeholders to help shape soil’s role in Australia’s climate change response.
Participants at the Soil Summit:
The Climate Institute
Country Women’s Association of Australia
CSIRO
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF)
Bureau of Rural Sciences
Land and Water Australia
NSW Department of Primary Industries
Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW
Department of Primary Industries Victoria
SA Farmers
WA Farmers
GRDC/Grains Council of Australia
Department of Agriculture and Food WA
Central West Catchment Management Authority Victoria
Carbonlink
Soil Carbon (Australia) P/L
Organic Federation of Australia
BEST Energies
Ecos Corporation
Triple Helix
University of WA
Queensland University of Technology
For more information, contact Nicolette Boele, The Climate Institute: (02) 9252 5200.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this Communiqué are not necessarily some or all of the views of the representatives of the Soil Summit. The Communiqué has been created from the discussion recorded during the Soil Summit by individuals, rather than representatives of the organisations to which they are aligned. For this reason the content of the Communiqué should not be taken as full endorsement by some or all of the organisations represented at the Soil Summit.
The Peer Review Process: Why Scientists Can’t Speak Out
Don’t blame the scientists for botching soil carbon science. Blame the bars of the cell they work in.
Scientists can express only negative opinions about phenomena that have not been subject to the Peer Review system. This means that something like carbon sequestration in Australian soils does not exist for most scientists because it hasn’t been proven in enough trials that have been published in scientific journals that will report only findings that have been approved by a committee of scientists. This consensus system is meant to ensure only ‘good science’ gets the stamp of approval as “scientific fact”. Unfortunately the system doesn’t work when the scientific community’s knowledge of the context is poor. Ie. The design of the official soil carbon measurement projects conducted by the Australian Greenhouse Office was such that it failed to include soil management innovations which have greater sequestration potential than the traditional ways. Unaware of the gaps in the data sets which rendered the findings ‘unsound’, the scientific community felt free to declare soil carbon sequestration largely a non-event in Australia. That will remain the official position for years to come while we are shackled by ‘scientific fact’ that is not factual. Until 3-year trials are conducted, the data reported and reviewed by a group of scientists and published in a journal – which can add another 2 years to the process – soil carbon remains officially anchored in the 1970s. Scientists are free to attack anyone making a statement which does not reflect peer-reviewed reality, no matter how that ‘reality’ is. So, if you hear a scientist pouring scorn on soil carbon sequestration potential, you are hearing uninformed opinion which is unsupported by sound science. The more definite the negative opinion, the less credible is the source. The Peer-Review Process is designed to prevent ‘dodgy’ science slipping through the net and misleading people. But what can you do when it fails? When it prevents society from considering a solution to a crisis like climate change when every day that passes is a day lost and a day closer to disaster? Do scientists have a responsibility to act in ways that benefit society? Or is any outcome acceptable so long as we preserve the rules of a guild? The CSIRO’s Dr Mark Howden said recently that Australia has been politically slow to accept the threat of climate change, "putting us a decade behind where we could be". The science is also 10 years behind where we should be. And the Peer Review system seems destined to keep us there another 5 years.
Scientists can express only negative opinions about phenomena that have not been subject to the Peer Review system. This means that something like carbon sequestration in Australian soils does not exist for most scientists because it hasn’t been proven in enough trials that have been published in scientific journals that will report only findings that have been approved by a committee of scientists. This consensus system is meant to ensure only ‘good science’ gets the stamp of approval as “scientific fact”. Unfortunately the system doesn’t work when the scientific community’s knowledge of the context is poor. Ie. The design of the official soil carbon measurement projects conducted by the Australian Greenhouse Office was such that it failed to include soil management innovations which have greater sequestration potential than the traditional ways. Unaware of the gaps in the data sets which rendered the findings ‘unsound’, the scientific community felt free to declare soil carbon sequestration largely a non-event in Australia. That will remain the official position for years to come while we are shackled by ‘scientific fact’ that is not factual. Until 3-year trials are conducted, the data reported and reviewed by a group of scientists and published in a journal – which can add another 2 years to the process – soil carbon remains officially anchored in the 1970s. Scientists are free to attack anyone making a statement which does not reflect peer-reviewed reality, no matter how that ‘reality’ is. So, if you hear a scientist pouring scorn on soil carbon sequestration potential, you are hearing uninformed opinion which is unsupported by sound science. The more definite the negative opinion, the less credible is the source. The Peer-Review Process is designed to prevent ‘dodgy’ science slipping through the net and misleading people. But what can you do when it fails? When it prevents society from considering a solution to a crisis like climate change when every day that passes is a day lost and a day closer to disaster? Do scientists have a responsibility to act in ways that benefit society? Or is any outcome acceptable so long as we preserve the rules of a guild? The CSIRO’s Dr Mark Howden said recently that Australia has been politically slow to accept the threat of climate change, "putting us a decade behind where we could be". The science is also 10 years behind where we should be. And the Peer Review system seems destined to keep us there another 5 years.
Tony Windsor: Soil Carbon Champion
Congratulations to Tony Windsor, the Member for New England, who flies the flag for soil carbon in the National Parliament. He managed to stage a debate in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 during which the case for carbon farming was made.
Key points made during the debate were:
• The use of “no-till farming in some of the better farming areas, for instance, has effectively produced about 150 to 200 millimetres of moisture available for the cropping cycle.” (Tony Windsor)
• Mr Windsor had arranged for Minister Burke to visit carbon farmers in his electorate: “The minister would have seen some of the perennial pasture techniques that are out there now, where there have been quite massive gains in humus and organic matter in the soil and the impact those techniques have on the moisture infiltration and productivity of those pastures.
• These new techniques have the potential to drought-proof farms and sequester carbon.
• The scientific community made a mistake when they based their conclusions on old-style farming techniques:
“What is happening is that CSIRO and other institutions are basing their measurements and the capacity to measure on old-style farming techniques, not the newer cropping techniques and some of the newer pasture system techniques.” (Tony Windsor)
• The scientific community have not been focussed on soil carbon measurement, because it has been ‘too hard’: “What is happening is that CSIRO and other institutions are basing their measurements and the capacity to measure on old-style farming techniques, not the newer cropping techniques and some of the newer pasture system techniques.” (Tony Windsor)
• Growers groups should be funded to do research: “There are people out there across Australia—in Emerald, in Western Australia, in New South Wales, in Victoria and in South Australia—who are doing their own carbon monitoring work to look at this measurement problem. The challenge I made to the Prime Minister, and I do it again to the House now, is that the government should be funding these people, the innovators in agriculture, and providing measurement campaigns with those people, so if they are getting the numbers wrong, if what they are saying is not correct, it can be easily proven. What is happening is that CSIRO and other institutions are basing their measurements and the capacity to measure on old-style farming techniques, not the newer cropping techniques and some of the newer pasture system techniques.” (Tony Windsor)
• An Emissions Trading System without soil carbon would be unjust: “If we go into an emissions-trading system and we do not know what contribution agriculture can potentially make—not just through sequestration in trees but sequestration in our soils—we really will not know what charges to lay off against the major emitters if there is a more natural way of looking at the problem.” (Tony Windsor)
• Science has been looking in the wrong places: “Outside of the ocean, most of our carbon is held in our soils—not in our atmosphere; in our soils. We have let a little bit go by burning coal et cetera. Eighty-two per cent of the terrestrial biosphere is in our soils. Most of the work that has been done in carbon trade and carbon management has been about vegetation, has been about trees. Essentially, our scientists have not been focusing on one of the major contributors due to natural sequestration. As soon as they have come to a difficulty in the measurement, they have walked away from it. This is an issue about soil health. A healthy soil is a more productive soil; it is one that holds more moisture. If we are talking about drought policy, Minister, irrespective of whether this whole emissions-trading debate went away tomorrow, we should be looking at sequestering carbon in our soils much more thoroughly… (Tony Windsor)
• Minister Burke is critical of existing extension arrangements: “The investment of those agencies involved in developing some great practices which could be adopted on-farm all too often do not make it to the farmer.”
• The Government expects that there will be some farmers forced to leave the industry: “There will be some people, as they face the reality of the climate, who will reach the point where they simply believe that they need to pursue a life away from agriculture. The Climate Change Adjustment Program will have mechanisms in place to assist in the decision and that adjustment. Ultimately, if the decision is taken, the Rural Financial Counselling Service will assist with the adjustment itself.” (Tony Burke)
………….
UN FAO joins the call for soil carbon trading
The world food crisis has seen the UN Food & Agriculture Organisation (FAO) call for farmers to have access to soil carbon trading to help increase food production and avoid the forced displacement of large populations in search of food. The FAO crisis meeting in Rome earlier this month urged governments to help the world's farmers to participate in financial mechanisms to support climate change adaptation.* The High-Level Conference on World Food Security: the Challenges of Climate Change and Bioenergy, convened by UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 3-5 June, 2008 has called the international community to increase the resilience of world's food systems to climate change. On climate change, the conference Declaration said: "It is essential to address question of how to increase the resilience of present food production systems to challenges posed by climate change... We urge governments to assign appropriate priority to the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors, in order to create opportunities to enable the world's smallholder farmers and fishers, including indigenous people, in particular vulnerable areas, to participate in, and benefit from financial mechanisms and investment flows to support climate change adaptation, mitigation and technology development, transfer and dissemination. We support the establishment of agricultural systems and sustainable management practices that positively contribute to the mitigation of climate change and ecological balance."
One hundred eighty-one countries participated in the FAO Food Summit – 43 were represented by their Head of State or Government and 100 by high-level Ministers. Sixty Non-governmental and Civil Society Organizations were present as well.
One hundred eighty-one countries participated in the FAO Food Summit – 43 were represented by their Head of State or Government and 100 by high-level Ministers. Sixty Non-governmental and Civil Society Organizations were present as well.
New technology, old attitude
The CSIRO is trapped in the old paradigm of Australian soils: “Measuring carbon in soils is increasingly important world-wide due to its potential conversion to the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.” Soils are sources, not sinks, according to the CSIRO soil organic matter research team.
“Soil carbon is stored in a number of fractions with widely varying chemistry and stability. These soil carbon fractions can be converted to the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide,” it says.
These statements are made in a press release about electronic microscopy, a “new, fast and inexpensive technique for measuring carbon in soils. The CSIRO's technique will help predict the carbon status of any region in Australia.”
“Using mid-infrared (MIR) spectroscopy, the CSIRO team has been able to generate a spectrum of any soil similar to a 'fingerprint'. Such spectra contain a picture of all the various minerals and organic carbon fractions in the soil.
“When this 'fingerprint' is combined with previous measurements of carbon fractions across a range of soil types and analysed using a complex mathematical process, the amount of carbon and its allocation to carbon fractions can be predicted easily for additional soils.”
The team describes the MIR technique in a paper recently published in the Australian Journal of Soil Research. Janik LJ, Skjemstad JO, Shepherd KD, Spouncer LR. 2007. The Prediction of Soil Carbon Fractions Using Mid-Infrared-Partial Least Square Analysis. In: Australian Journal of Soil Research. 45(2): 73-81.
“To use MIR spectra for carbon modelling, spectra from a large test set of calibration soil samples are collected and then combined with previously determined allocations of carbon to the soil fractions for each of the calibration soils.” Let’s hope they don’t fall into the ‘data gaps’ that damaged the original work for the NCAS.
“The combined data is then analysed using a complex mathematical process called 'partial least-squares (PLS) analysis'. The model from this process can then be used to easily predict the amount of carbon in its various forms for unknown soils.”
The soundness of this science should be assured against distortion caused by the choice of calibration soil samples. Otherwise the value of all that brilliant technology is zero.
“Soil carbon is stored in a number of fractions with widely varying chemistry and stability. These soil carbon fractions can be converted to the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide,” it says.
These statements are made in a press release about electronic microscopy, a “new, fast and inexpensive technique for measuring carbon in soils. The CSIRO's technique will help predict the carbon status of any region in Australia.”
“Using mid-infrared (MIR) spectroscopy, the CSIRO team has been able to generate a spectrum of any soil similar to a 'fingerprint'. Such spectra contain a picture of all the various minerals and organic carbon fractions in the soil.
“When this 'fingerprint' is combined with previous measurements of carbon fractions across a range of soil types and analysed using a complex mathematical process, the amount of carbon and its allocation to carbon fractions can be predicted easily for additional soils.”
The team describes the MIR technique in a paper recently published in the Australian Journal of Soil Research. Janik LJ, Skjemstad JO, Shepherd KD, Spouncer LR. 2007. The Prediction of Soil Carbon Fractions Using Mid-Infrared-Partial Least Square Analysis. In: Australian Journal of Soil Research. 45(2): 73-81.
“To use MIR spectra for carbon modelling, spectra from a large test set of calibration soil samples are collected and then combined with previously determined allocations of carbon to the soil fractions for each of the calibration soils.” Let’s hope they don’t fall into the ‘data gaps’ that damaged the original work for the NCAS.
“The combined data is then analysed using a complex mathematical process called 'partial least-squares (PLS) analysis'. The model from this process can then be used to easily predict the amount of carbon in its various forms for unknown soils.”
The soundness of this science should be assured against distortion caused by the choice of calibration soil samples. Otherwise the value of all that brilliant technology is zero.
Australian Climate Exchange supports soil carbon
Tim Hanlon, ceo of the Australian Climate Exchange, made these recommendations to the Garnaut Inquiry:
‘ACX notes with interest that special mention was made of the potential contribution, as a “carbon sink”, that agricultural top-soils could make to the national inventory through changes in farm practices and land management. ACX strongly advocates that the Australian government allocates significant resources to an independent group tasked with coordinating and consolidating the past and current efforts of researchers and practitioners in this country in developing national standards for measurement and verification of soil carbon. Further this group should lead international discussions on reaching consensus
on the treatment of soil carbon within the UNFCCC framework.
Indeed this is an area that we have watched closely, due to the magnitude of CO2 that some experts claim that the soil could sequester over fairly short time frames. We would certainly endorse any and all measures that contribute to unlocking the potential of this sink capacity. ACX does not employ technical experts in this field so we will limit our comments to what we see as some of the structural barriers that currently exist that make the trading in soil carbon unfeasible at this time. These
barriers include:
• An apparent lack of consensus amongst scientists and practitioners as to emissions factors and above-soil indicators, rates of sequestration, weather and climate effects on carbon levels etc.
• There is no national standard or clear protocol for the measurement and verification of soil carbon that is consistent with UNFCCC national inventory reporting requirements, particularly the treatment of LULUCF under the Kyoto Protocol and Marakesh Accord.
• In the absence of the two points above it is impossible to design a cost effective sampling, measurement and verification regime suitable for the creation of a tradeable instrument under existing accreditation schemes.
• There remains considerable uncertainty and disagreement surrounding the treatment of carbon levels in terrestrial ecosystems and how human activity impacts on these levels at the international level. We acknowledge the “experiment” that the Chicago Climate Exchange have carried out in attempting to commoditise soil carbon produced from switching to no-till cropping techniques. This style of approach, while arguably appropriate for their internal voluntary trading program, is clearly inadequate for a compliance scheme designed to achieve real reductions to the national GHG inventory. The other major barrier is a framework for managing the liability for “releases” of soil carbon if permits are allocated for sequestered carbon under a trading scheme, similar to the treatment suggested by ACX for Forestry. (Obviously this could only occur once the National protocol for measurement is in place.) ACX further recommends that a “pool” or “carbon bank” approach to securitising the carbon sequestered in soil be developed, with the early stages underwritten by a government or Public Private Partnership entity. Registering the carbon on the title of the land and leaving the liability for “release” with the land owner is likely to be a major barrier to the take-up of such a scheme.”
‘ACX notes with interest that special mention was made of the potential contribution, as a “carbon sink”, that agricultural top-soils could make to the national inventory through changes in farm practices and land management. ACX strongly advocates that the Australian government allocates significant resources to an independent group tasked with coordinating and consolidating the past and current efforts of researchers and practitioners in this country in developing national standards for measurement and verification of soil carbon. Further this group should lead international discussions on reaching consensus
on the treatment of soil carbon within the UNFCCC framework.
Indeed this is an area that we have watched closely, due to the magnitude of CO2 that some experts claim that the soil could sequester over fairly short time frames. We would certainly endorse any and all measures that contribute to unlocking the potential of this sink capacity. ACX does not employ technical experts in this field so we will limit our comments to what we see as some of the structural barriers that currently exist that make the trading in soil carbon unfeasible at this time. These
barriers include:
• An apparent lack of consensus amongst scientists and practitioners as to emissions factors and above-soil indicators, rates of sequestration, weather and climate effects on carbon levels etc.
• There is no national standard or clear protocol for the measurement and verification of soil carbon that is consistent with UNFCCC national inventory reporting requirements, particularly the treatment of LULUCF under the Kyoto Protocol and Marakesh Accord.
• In the absence of the two points above it is impossible to design a cost effective sampling, measurement and verification regime suitable for the creation of a tradeable instrument under existing accreditation schemes.
• There remains considerable uncertainty and disagreement surrounding the treatment of carbon levels in terrestrial ecosystems and how human activity impacts on these levels at the international level. We acknowledge the “experiment” that the Chicago Climate Exchange have carried out in attempting to commoditise soil carbon produced from switching to no-till cropping techniques. This style of approach, while arguably appropriate for their internal voluntary trading program, is clearly inadequate for a compliance scheme designed to achieve real reductions to the national GHG inventory. The other major barrier is a framework for managing the liability for “releases” of soil carbon if permits are allocated for sequestered carbon under a trading scheme, similar to the treatment suggested by ACX for Forestry. (Obviously this could only occur once the National protocol for measurement is in place.) ACX further recommends that a “pool” or “carbon bank” approach to securitising the carbon sequestered in soil be developed, with the early stages underwritten by a government or Public Private Partnership entity. Registering the carbon on the title of the land and leaving the liability for “release” with the land owner is likely to be a major barrier to the take-up of such a scheme.”
Soil carbon protects crops against disease
Some farmers on Eyre Peninsula in South Australia lost up to 90% of their crops in 2007 to rhizoctonia, a disease that shrivels roots. But farmers in the mid-north Avon district were not affected. The difference between the two districts is soil carbon.
Adelaide University researcher Sjaan Davey, who is comparing soil from Eyre Peninsula and from Avon in the mid-north, said the mid-north has higher carbon levels, which could be making the difference. More rainfall and less soil disturbance are part of the answer. But no-till alone isn’t the answer: "Maybe despite the fact that a lot of people are maintaining residues and doing the direct drill and all of that there's just not enough carbon going back into the system," she said.
Adelaide University researcher Sjaan Davey, who is comparing soil from Eyre Peninsula and from Avon in the mid-north, said the mid-north has higher carbon levels, which could be making the difference. More rainfall and less soil disturbance are part of the answer. But no-till alone isn’t the answer: "Maybe despite the fact that a lot of people are maintaining residues and doing the direct drill and all of that there's just not enough carbon going back into the system," she said.
Monday, June 23, 2008
SPEECH WRITTEN FOR PM RUDD TO ANNOUNCE SOILS INITIATIVE
THE FOLLOWING WAS DESPATCHED TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA, KEVIN RUDD, TONIGHT
Dear Prime Minister,
We wrote the attached speech for you to dramatise an opportunity you have to launch a nation-building project greater in scope and effect than the Snowy Hydro Scheme was in its day.
Sincerely,
Michael Kiely
Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming
A SPEECH WRITTEN FOR THE PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA KEVIN RUDD BY THE CARBON COALITION AGAINST GLOBAL WARNING ANNOUNCING A NEW NATION BUILDING PROJECT ON THE SCALE OF THE SNOWY MOUNTAIN SCHEME
(EMBARGOED)
"TONIGHT I AM ANNOUNCING AN INITIATIVE OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT WILL RESONATE DOWN THE GENERATIONS FOR YEARS TO COME. SINCE 1788, WE AS A NATION HAVE LOST MORE THAN HALF OUR PRECIOUS TOP SOIL - THE FOUNDATION OF OUR WEALTH AND WELFARE AS A NATION.
HISTORY TELLS US THAT EVERY CIVILIZATION THAT ALLOWED ITS SOILS TO DEGRADE SOON DISINTEGRATED THEMSELVES.
OUR SOIL NOT ONLY NURTURES, FEEDS AND CLOTHES US, IT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS OUR STRONGEST SUIT IN THE BATTLE TO COME TO TERMS WITH CLIMATE CHANGE.
ACCORDINGLY, WE HAVE ENTERED A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE NATION'S FARMERS TO RESTORE AUSTRALIA'S SOILS TO HEALTH AND FERTILITY.
UNDER THE NATIONAL SOIL CARBON BASELINE PROGRAM, EACH FARM PROPERTY WILL BE MEASURED FOR ITS SOIL CARBON LEVELS IN THE LARGEST SOIL TESTING EXERCISE IN THE WORLD. THE FARMERS CAN THEN USE CARBON FARMING OR CONSERVATION FARMING TECHNIQUES TO INCREASE THEIR SOIL CARBON AND EARN CREDITS OR OFFSETS THAT THEY CAN TRADE ON THE CARBON MARKET.
SOIL CARBON IS THE ACTIVE INGREDIENT IN OUR AGRICULTURAL SOILS. WHEN SOILS ARE RICH IN CARBON THEY ARE FERTILE, RESISTANT TO EROSION AND SALINATION, AND A POWERFUL FORCE FOR BIODIVERSITY.
THIS IS A NATION-BUILDING PROJECT OF THE SIZE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE SNOWY MOUNTAIN SCHEME IN ITS HEYDAY BECAUSE IT COULD CHANGE THE COURSE OF HISTORY - REVERSING THE DEGRADATION OF THE PRODUCTIVE BASE FOR ALL OUR AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES WHILE AT THE SAME TIME FOSTERING A WIN-WIN OUTCOME FOR FARM LANDSCAPES AND ECOLOGIES AND HELPING US DEAL WITH CLIMATE CHANGE.
WITH THIS ANNOUNCEMENT, AUSTRALIA IS INVITING THE WORLD TO JOIN US IN REBUILDING OUR PRODUCTIVE BASE FOR GROWING FOOD TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE MILLIONS WHO DO NOT KNOW FOOD SECURITY, A RAPIDLY ESCALATING SITUATION THAT DIRECTLY CHALLENGES OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. TO FEED TWICE AS MANY PEOPLE BY 2050 WITH THE SAME AMOUNT OF LAND AND WATER WILL REQUIRE MORE THAN A SILVER BULLET.
IT WILL REQUIRE ALL THE POWERS OF NATURE WORKING ON OUR SIDE. THIS, I AM TOLD, IS WHERE SOIL CARBON IS MOST CAPABLE.
LEGENDARY HISTORIAN RUSSELL WARD TELLS US THAT THE FARMERS AND FARM WORKERS OF AUSTRALIA WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN FORGING OUR NATIONAL IDENTITY IN THE DAYS OF LAWSON AND PATTERSON, A TIME OF GREAT TURMOIL AND CHANGE IN OUR HISTORY, WHEN THE RESILIENT AND COURAGEOUS SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF THE LAND SHOWED US WHAT IT MEANT TO BE AUSTRALIAN.
AND SO WE TURN TO THEM AGAIN, IN THESE DAYS OF KYOTO AND CLIMATE CHANGE, TO APPLY THEIR SPIRIT OF INGENUITY, SELF-RELIANCE, AND SURVIVAL-AGAINST-THE-ODDS TO HELP US MEET THE CHALLENGES WE ARE FACING TODAY… AND TO LEAD US INTO A NEW ERA OF CARING FOR COUNTRY, IN THE BELIEF THAT, IF WE MAKE THE CHANGES NECESSARY, THE COUNTRY WILL CARE FOR US IN RETURN. I LOOK FORWARD TO SPENDING MORE TIME WITH THE PEOPLE ON THE FRONTLINE OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND SEEKING THEIR HELP AND ASSISTANCE IN THIS GREAT NATION-BUILDING PROJECT. THANK YOU."
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Fools rush in...?
A report in Australian Farm Journal (June 2008) features a farmer involved in the Landcare CarbonSmart program. The price of carbon dioxide was around $9/tonne when CarbonSmart launched, $20/tonne in March when the AFJ report was being written and $40/tonne in May when I read it. Industry watchers estimate the price will move quickly to $60 and some say it will eventually reach $100. Those who locked in at $9 deserve our sympathy. Tip: Don’t commit your whole property.
CarbonSmart's website contains this information:
"This example is based on a 10-hectare site near Wagga Wagga, NSW that was established by directseeding in 2000. Based on " today’s" price, this site will return over $4,000 in 10 years, this is before any expected price rises are passed onto the landholder. This equates to an average of $40/ha for 10 years. The project will average $270/ha for a total of over $8,000 in 30 years. This translates to $62/ha per year (average) for 10 years (that is, $25/acre)."
"The carbon will remain on site for at least 100 years after the final trade of that carbon."
Ben Keogh
Project Director, Landcare CarbonSMART
Tel: 0425 877 676
Email: benk@carbonsmart.com.au
CarbonSmart's website contains this information:
"This example is based on a 10-hectare site near Wagga Wagga, NSW that was established by directseeding in 2000. Based on " today’s" price, this site will return over $4,000 in 10 years, this is before any expected price rises are passed onto the landholder. This equates to an average of $40/ha for 10 years. The project will average $270/ha for a total of over $8,000 in 30 years. This translates to $62/ha per year (average) for 10 years (that is, $25/acre)."
"The carbon will remain on site for at least 100 years after the final trade of that carbon."
Ben Keogh
Project Director, Landcare CarbonSMART
Tel: 0425 877 676
Email: benk@carbonsmart.com.au
UN: "waiting for full scientific certainty before taking action will almost certainly be too late..."
KYOTO CONTRADICTION: There is an abiding contradiction in the Kyoto Principles that is possibly strangling the innovation likely to help the world meet the threat of climate change. For those who point to the need for ‘practicalities’ to be resolved before the soil carbon solution can be attempted, “as soon as practicable” means “never” to the Soil Carbon Pessimist because soil cannot fit the current prescriptive Kyoto rules. Yet Kyoto has a rule called The Precautionary Principle:
‘The “precautionary principle” responds to the dilemma that, although many uncertainties still surround climate change, waiting for full scientific certainty before taking action will almost certainly be too late to avert its worst impacts. The Convention, following many environmental treaties before it, thus calls for “precautionary measures” to combat climate change, stating that, “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures”.’ (A Guide To The Climate Change Convention And Its Kyoto Protocol, UNFCCC, Bonn, 2002)
Which Kyoto Principle takes precedence? When will the ‘threats of serious or irreversible damage’ be recognized? How many of Stern’s 10 years be consumed pursuing ‘full scientific certainty’?
‘The “precautionary principle” responds to the dilemma that, although many uncertainties still surround climate change, waiting for full scientific certainty before taking action will almost certainly be too late to avert its worst impacts. The Convention, following many environmental treaties before it, thus calls for “precautionary measures” to combat climate change, stating that, “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures”.’ (A Guide To The Climate Change Convention And Its Kyoto Protocol, UNFCCC, Bonn, 2002)
Which Kyoto Principle takes precedence? When will the ‘threats of serious or irreversible damage’ be recognized? How many of Stern’s 10 years be consumed pursuing ‘full scientific certainty’?
FREE Nitrogen fertilizer for Carbon Farmers
Soil organic matter (SOM) can supply much of your Nitrogen needs. “In cropping systems, as much as 50%-80% of the N can be supplied from SOM and nearly 100% of the N in native ecosystems,” writes Professor Charlie Rice in his book Soil Carbon Management. This percentage represents11-300kg N ha-1 for a crop*. At $1500/tonne for nitrogen fertiliser, this transates intoa value of $16.50-$450/ha/yr.
How can this be? Well Nitrogen, like Carbon, is mobile. It cycles. Most N in soils comes from the air and is absorbed by micro-organisms associated with legume plants. N is fixed by leumes and stored in the soil in organic forms,ot be broken down by other microbes – via two processes: mineralisation an nitrification, via which it is transformed into ammonium and nitrate.+
Former NSW Department of Agriculture agronomist Adam Wilson told The Land that the best way to build up a N bank is to add carbon to soils. Management that builds C also builds organic N because both processes rely upon interactions between rootmass and microbes. He recommends adding organic carbon via composts, green manures or planned grazing, avoiding highly alkaline fertilizers which burn up C and humus, minimum tillage, and a legume or pasture rotation.°
The indiscriminant use of nitrogenous fertilisers is carbon retrograde. Text books acknowledge the problem. ‘The of superphosphate and the ley farming of the times left a legacy of their own, in term of shallow-rooted pastures, dominance increased soil acidity, new weed invasions and nutrient imbalanced in many soils.# It burns up soil organic matter and takes calcium out of the soil. It can damage microbial communities and destroy their capacity to release natural sources of nitrogen. Contamination of aquifers, as in the USA, is also a dangerous problem.
*Smith, J.L., Papendick, R.I., Bezdicek, D.F., and Lynch, J.M., Soil organic matter dynamics and crop residue management, in Soil Microbial Ecology, Metting, F.B., Jr., Editor, Marcel dekker, Inc., New York, 1993, pp65-94.
+Charman, P.E.V., Soil Nutrient Decline in Charman, P.E.V. & Murphy, B.W., Soils: Their Properties and Management, Oxford U Press, 2000
° The Land, 5 June 2008, p.8.
#Zimmer, Gary, The Biological Farmer, Acres USA, 200
How can this be? Well Nitrogen, like Carbon, is mobile. It cycles. Most N in soils comes from the air and is absorbed by micro-organisms associated with legume plants. N is fixed by leumes and stored in the soil in organic forms,ot be broken down by other microbes – via two processes: mineralisation an nitrification, via which it is transformed into ammonium and nitrate.+
Former NSW Department of Agriculture agronomist Adam Wilson told The Land that the best way to build up a N bank is to add carbon to soils. Management that builds C also builds organic N because both processes rely upon interactions between rootmass and microbes. He recommends adding organic carbon via composts, green manures or planned grazing, avoiding highly alkaline fertilizers which burn up C and humus, minimum tillage, and a legume or pasture rotation.°
The indiscriminant use of nitrogenous fertilisers is carbon retrograde. Text books acknowledge the problem. ‘The of superphosphate and the ley farming of the times left a legacy of their own, in term of shallow-rooted pastures, dominance increased soil acidity, new weed invasions and nutrient imbalanced in many soils.# It burns up soil organic matter and takes calcium out of the soil. It can damage microbial communities and destroy their capacity to release natural sources of nitrogen. Contamination of aquifers, as in the USA, is also a dangerous problem.
*Smith, J.L., Papendick, R.I., Bezdicek, D.F., and Lynch, J.M., Soil organic matter dynamics and crop residue management, in Soil Microbial Ecology, Metting, F.B., Jr., Editor, Marcel dekker, Inc., New York, 1993, pp65-94.
+Charman, P.E.V., Soil Nutrient Decline in Charman, P.E.V. & Murphy, B.W., Soils: Their Properties and Management, Oxford U Press, 2000
° The Land, 5 June 2008, p.8.
#Zimmer, Gary, The Biological Farmer, Acres USA, 200
ALERT: "ADDITIONALITY" TRAP FOR CARBON FARMERS
Getting ready to trade? What about “Additionality”
Additionality. Unless you can prove that the change in land management which has led to the accumulation of carbon (whether in trees or soils) was made specifically with carbon in mind, the offsets or credits will not be recognised under Kyoto principles. All activity must be ‘additional’ to business-as-usual, not something you would have done anyway. This includes getting involved in “best practice’ programs sponsored by government bodies. Better to stay out of them for the time being until the government solves the “Additionality” problem.
The UNFCCC Methodological Tool , “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality” (Version 05)
is available at http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/AdditionalityTools/Additionality_tool.pdf
According to the experts, all projects that aim to earn carbon credits must pass the “Additionality” test. This is to prove that the emissions prevented or sequestered were the result of deliberate action designed to qualify for carbon credits and not the result of ‘business as usual’, ie. would not have happened anyway.
We cannot tell you what to do because the Government must decide. But here is the system presented by the UNFCCC. It is a 4-step process that analyses the project to ensure that it would not have happened without the revenue from the carbon credits.
STEP 1. Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent with
mandatory laws and regulations. Were there other viable options beside the carbon-related activity?
STEP 2. Investment analysis: Of the options, is the proposed project activity unlikely to be the most financially attractive or unlikely to be financially attractive?
STEP 3. Barrier analysis: (1) Is there at least one barrier preventing the implementation of the proposed project activity without the promise of credits; and (2) Is at least one alternative scenario, other than proposed project activity, not prevented by any of the identified barriers?
STEP 4. Common practice analysis:
(1) No similar activities can be observed?
(2) If similar activities are observed, are there essential distinctions between the proposed project activity and similar activities that can reasonably be explained?
NOT ADDITIONAL: A Project is not additional if it would be a financially-attractive option without the carbon credits and there are no insurmountable barriers preventing implementation that make the carbon credits essential.
ADDITIONAL: A Project is additional if, compared to other investment options, it is either financially unattractive or faces insurmountable barriers without the ingredient of carbon credits plus it is not common practice in the location or has unique features which make it a risky option.
COMMENTARY: These tests for Additionality were designed for CDM projects, usually clean energy projects in ’developing’ countries, not soil sequestration at home. But like so many Kyoto Principles invented for one purpose, they are likely to be applied inappropriately to other categories of climate change solution. The Investment Analysis would knock carbon farmers out because their low input regimes can turn a profit when high input farmers are struggling. The Common Practice test would rule no till cultivation out in WA and SA where more than 50% of farmers practice it.
But there is no escaping it. Additionality is the top rating issue with Voluntary Market offset buyers, according to the annual survey by Ecosystem Marketplace & New Carbon Finance.
Will “Additionality” rob you of soil carbon credits?
A report in Australian Farm Journal (June, 08) featured a farmer getting his first cheque from Landcare CarbonSmart for locking away land for 100 years, planting trees on it. The farmer said the planting would have happened anyway, without the small amount Landcare pays. And here’s where the Kyoto Accounting Principle “Additionality” rears its ugly head.
The Rule is: “Business-As –Usual” doesn’t qualify. It must be a change in land management in direct response to the climate change challenge and it must be dependent on the additional money for it to happen.. The carbon sequestered must be ‘additional’ to what would have been the case anyway.
It’s not hard to see a whole raft of farmers who have already moved to carbon farming techniques being locked out of the carbon credit market because the Kyoto accountants say they made the change without the promise of carbon revenues; or they are unable to prove that their intention was to sequester CO2 and their motive was money.
If the Government sets a date before which changes to carbon farming are not eligible and that date doesn’t go back far enough, then the pioneers who did the hard yards – like Col Seis who invented pasture cropping and has socked away hundreds of tonnes of carbon per hectare – will miss out. With 85% of WA farmers no-till and 50% in SA, you can see the scale of the injustice.
The Carbon Coalition has been told by senior public servants that the Government is keen to avoid “perverse outcomes” such as farmers left out of the scheme returning to the plough and stubble removal and set stocking for a spell so they can qualify for the credits. (The worst outcome.)
Why has no advice been given out to protect the interests of farmers willing to change to do their bit? Because while they would mention additionality in the long list of reasons why soil carbon could not ever be traded, they never thought the day would ever come when farmers would need to know about it.
There are several reasons why Additionality could be a blockage to maximizing our response to climate change:
1. It relies upon the fiction that a person’s intention can be known and that documents can prove it.
2. It ignores human nature and the impact on a carbon farmer who made the move early and missed out seeing their destructive neighbour being rewarded.
3. It is an absolute failure in its everyday application in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) market. Billions of dollars are being paid to Chinese energy companies for projects that clearly are not within the bounds of Additionality.
Additionality was introduced for CDM market. It is an international system established by the Kyoto process that allows rich countries to meet emissions targets by funding clean energy projects in developing nations. The market for CDM credits is is worth nearly $20bn a year, but this is expected to grow to over $100bn within four years.
Two senior Stanford University researchers examined more than 3,000 Chinese projects applying for or already granted up to $10bn of credits from the UN's CDM funds. They concluded that the majority should not qualify. "They would be built anyway," says David Victor, law professor at the Californian university. "It looks like between one and two thirds of all the total CDM offsets do not represent actual emission cuts." All new hydro, wind, and natural gas fired projects in China claim credit for emissions reductions under the CDM, each makes the argument that it would not have been constructed but for the carbon offsets. But the Chinese Government has policies to support clean generation. Even more revealing, nearly three quarters of all registered CDM projects were complete at the time of approval, suggesting that CDM money was not needed to finance them. International Rivers’ Patrick McCully, who makes the allegation, says: “ Judging additionality has turned out to be unknowable and unworkable. It can never be proved definitively that if a developer or factory owner did not get offset income they would not build their project."
Additionality. Unless you can prove that the change in land management which has led to the accumulation of carbon (whether in trees or soils) was made specifically with carbon in mind, the offsets or credits will not be recognised under Kyoto principles. All activity must be ‘additional’ to business-as-usual, not something you would have done anyway. This includes getting involved in “best practice’ programs sponsored by government bodies. Better to stay out of them for the time being until the government solves the “Additionality” problem.
The UNFCCC Methodological Tool , “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality” (Version 05)
is available at http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/AdditionalityTools/Additionality_tool.pdf
According to the experts, all projects that aim to earn carbon credits must pass the “Additionality” test. This is to prove that the emissions prevented or sequestered were the result of deliberate action designed to qualify for carbon credits and not the result of ‘business as usual’, ie. would not have happened anyway.
We cannot tell you what to do because the Government must decide. But here is the system presented by the UNFCCC. It is a 4-step process that analyses the project to ensure that it would not have happened without the revenue from the carbon credits.
STEP 1. Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent with
mandatory laws and regulations. Were there other viable options beside the carbon-related activity?
STEP 2. Investment analysis: Of the options, is the proposed project activity unlikely to be the most financially attractive or unlikely to be financially attractive?
STEP 3. Barrier analysis: (1) Is there at least one barrier preventing the implementation of the proposed project activity without the promise of credits; and (2) Is at least one alternative scenario, other than proposed project activity, not prevented by any of the identified barriers?
STEP 4. Common practice analysis:
(1) No similar activities can be observed?
(2) If similar activities are observed, are there essential distinctions between the proposed project activity and similar activities that can reasonably be explained?
NOT ADDITIONAL: A Project is not additional if it would be a financially-attractive option without the carbon credits and there are no insurmountable barriers preventing implementation that make the carbon credits essential.
ADDITIONAL: A Project is additional if, compared to other investment options, it is either financially unattractive or faces insurmountable barriers without the ingredient of carbon credits plus it is not common practice in the location or has unique features which make it a risky option.
COMMENTARY: These tests for Additionality were designed for CDM projects, usually clean energy projects in ’developing’ countries, not soil sequestration at home. But like so many Kyoto Principles invented for one purpose, they are likely to be applied inappropriately to other categories of climate change solution. The Investment Analysis would knock carbon farmers out because their low input regimes can turn a profit when high input farmers are struggling. The Common Practice test would rule no till cultivation out in WA and SA where more than 50% of farmers practice it.
But there is no escaping it. Additionality is the top rating issue with Voluntary Market offset buyers, according to the annual survey by Ecosystem Marketplace & New Carbon Finance.
Will “Additionality” rob you of soil carbon credits?
A report in Australian Farm Journal (June, 08) featured a farmer getting his first cheque from Landcare CarbonSmart for locking away land for 100 years, planting trees on it. The farmer said the planting would have happened anyway, without the small amount Landcare pays. And here’s where the Kyoto Accounting Principle “Additionality” rears its ugly head.
The Rule is: “Business-As –Usual” doesn’t qualify. It must be a change in land management in direct response to the climate change challenge and it must be dependent on the additional money for it to happen.. The carbon sequestered must be ‘additional’ to what would have been the case anyway.
It’s not hard to see a whole raft of farmers who have already moved to carbon farming techniques being locked out of the carbon credit market because the Kyoto accountants say they made the change without the promise of carbon revenues; or they are unable to prove that their intention was to sequester CO2 and their motive was money.
If the Government sets a date before which changes to carbon farming are not eligible and that date doesn’t go back far enough, then the pioneers who did the hard yards – like Col Seis who invented pasture cropping and has socked away hundreds of tonnes of carbon per hectare – will miss out. With 85% of WA farmers no-till and 50% in SA, you can see the scale of the injustice.
The Carbon Coalition has been told by senior public servants that the Government is keen to avoid “perverse outcomes” such as farmers left out of the scheme returning to the plough and stubble removal and set stocking for a spell so they can qualify for the credits. (The worst outcome.)
Why has no advice been given out to protect the interests of farmers willing to change to do their bit? Because while they would mention additionality in the long list of reasons why soil carbon could not ever be traded, they never thought the day would ever come when farmers would need to know about it.
There are several reasons why Additionality could be a blockage to maximizing our response to climate change:
1. It relies upon the fiction that a person’s intention can be known and that documents can prove it.
2. It ignores human nature and the impact on a carbon farmer who made the move early and missed out seeing their destructive neighbour being rewarded.
3. It is an absolute failure in its everyday application in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) market. Billions of dollars are being paid to Chinese energy companies for projects that clearly are not within the bounds of Additionality.
Additionality was introduced for CDM market. It is an international system established by the Kyoto process that allows rich countries to meet emissions targets by funding clean energy projects in developing nations. The market for CDM credits is is worth nearly $20bn a year, but this is expected to grow to over $100bn within four years.
Two senior Stanford University researchers examined more than 3,000 Chinese projects applying for or already granted up to $10bn of credits from the UN's CDM funds. They concluded that the majority should not qualify. "They would be built anyway," says David Victor, law professor at the Californian university. "It looks like between one and two thirds of all the total CDM offsets do not represent actual emission cuts." All new hydro, wind, and natural gas fired projects in China claim credit for emissions reductions under the CDM, each makes the argument that it would not have been constructed but for the carbon offsets. But the Chinese Government has policies to support clean generation. Even more revealing, nearly three quarters of all registered CDM projects were complete at the time of approval, suggesting that CDM money was not needed to finance them. International Rivers’ Patrick McCully, who makes the allegation, says: “ Judging additionality has turned out to be unknowable and unworkable. It can never be proved definitively that if a developer or factory owner did not get offset income they would not build their project."
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
THE END GAME: These are the Days of Decision
This post gives you access to three sets of documents. In each case, a brief Department of Climate Change Position Paper and the Carbon Coalition Response. There will be three of these sets of documents. We have posted them so you can access them. The links are below:
• Is it true that Kyoto Rules Don't Suit Soil Carbon?
• What do you think of the overarching principles the Minister will be using to make the decision Methane and Nitrous Oxide?
• What issues could keep Agriculture out of the trading system starting 2010?
•The response can be though the Coalition or if that is too tiresome and uninteresting, send them to directly to the Minister at penny.wong@climate change.gov.au.
• Is it true that Kyoto Rules Don't Suit Soil Carbon?
• What do you think of the overarching principles the Minister will be using to make the decision Methane and Nitrous Oxide?
• What issues could keep Agriculture out of the trading system starting 2010?
•The response can be though the Coalition or if that is too tiresome and uninteresting, send them to directly to the Minister at penny.wong@climate change.gov.au.
Friday, June 06, 2008
"A warning for you"
Many members of the Coalition received an invitation to a 'soil science summit' in recent weeks. Some were under the impression it was being organised by the Carbon Coalition. This is not the case. It is being staged by the Climate Institute. The Coalition welcomes the Climate Institute's entry into the soil carbon debate. Many hands make light work. The Climate Institute hasn't always been so interested in the soil carbon issue. The Coalition was unsuccessful when it approached the Climate Institute for support two years ago. Nonetheless we welcome a well-funded organisation's interest in our mission.
The Convenors of the Coalition were invited to the event, but are unable to attend due to two prior engagements. However the Coalition is well represented in the attendee list. Despite this, there is a danger that the soils issue could be sidetracked by other agendas and it is for this reason that the Coalition sent the following letter to the Institute's CO, John Connor:
John Connor, CEO,
The Climate Institute
Level 15, 179 Elizabeth Street,
Sydney, NSW 2000
A warning for you
Dear Mr Connor,
You organisationʼs entry into the field of Climate Change Agriculture last July and more recently, into the soil carbon trading issue, is most welcome. The Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming is a grassroots farmersʼ movement
that was formed in February 2006 with the mission to see soil carbon traded and farmers paid for what they grow. We have more than 550 members across Australia.
I share your sense of urgency about Climate Change and offer you the following:
There are already sufficient GHG in the atmosphere to send us through the 2°C mean temperature rise and into the “danger zone”. It will not be removed by reducing emissions; it can only be removed by photosynthesis. The only way to remove such tonnages in the decade we have been given by Stern and Hansen is agricultural soil carbon sequestration. The world has 5.5bn
hectares of soil under management by farmers. Small amounts sequestered per hectare can aggregate into a significant amount. Forests need 10 years to reach maximum sequestration, even if we could afford to plant sufficient trees.
Nothing else is within reach.
Only soil C sequestration can buy us the time we need to move to low emission technologies. Those who argue against soil sequestration argue against the only chance we have to launch a massive counterattack on GHG.
I have a warning for you. More an alert than a warning. Your organization can do great good or great harm to our cause, depending on how it handles the soil carbon issue. You are entering an issue that exists in parallel universes, based on opposing paradigms. You will know you are in one of these universes when you hear conventional scientists recite a list of “challenges” facing soil carbon, as though reciting the list is an argument and that the issues, such as temporal and spatial flux, permanence, and additionality, are insoluable.
Yet the science community has made little or no effort to solve these problems. Of the 400+ scientific projects currently underway in the field, climate change agriculture, only 9 relate to soils, according to an audit by the Climate Change Research
Strategy in Primary Industries Initiative. The research that had been done as part of the NCAS was so poorly resourced and incomplete that the AGO rushed to backfill the gaps once we pointed out the deficiencies. No one has officially acknowledged this situation. While $175m in Federal funds was given to the coal industry in 2006 to adapt to climate change, the AGO was
underfunding research in agriculture such that on the eve of the ETS, industry leaders wring their hands and wail about the lack of data on which to make decisions.
If you are trapped in the ʻscienceʼ paradigm of soil carbon trading, you will inevitably arrive at the conclusion ʻItʼs Not Practicableʼ. However the paradigm is based on myths and misunderstandings. (See attached document:
Common Myths About Soil Carbon) You will recognise the door to that trap by the way the question is framed. The
question should not be: “How can we measure soil carbon more accurately” or “How can we measure soil carbon with exactitude that matches other forms of carbon sinks or offsets?” Neither reflects the objective of the exercise. Rather,
the question should be: “How can we construct a measurement system that will make the trade in soil carbon possible?”
We believe that Carbon Farming is not a side issue. It is the key to short term global response to climate change. It is the best way to prepare the landscape for hotter, drier days ahead. It makes best use of water and suppresses erosion. It stimulates biodiversity and species density at all levels. Carbon Farming was invented by farmers, not government scientists. It allows
farmers their dignity because they are playing a leading role in Climate Change Mitigation, and being paid for what they grow. Carbon Farming is not a Government handout for stewardship or ʻenvironmental servicesʼ. (From our experience with Catchment Management Authorities we know such funds put the farmer in government shackles.) Farmers donʼt believe in taking the dole. When we approached your organization in 2006, soil carbon was not a respectable cause. The Prime Ministerʼs mention of it on 4 March has legitimised it. We could be resentful of the arrival of well-resourced people who get paid to do the work we have done for 2 years. But we welcome your interest. Naturally we are suspicious that behind the fine sentiments there lurks another agenda, ie. to hijack the farmersʼ cause on behalf of renewable energy. Not many farmers can benefit from wind generation or thermal. Biomass will be needed for feeding soils and grains needed for feeding people. Forestry is dangerous if allowed to sweep across the landscape, closing schools and post offices and stores. Biofuels have issues. Biochar is popular because no one understands the issues surrounding it. Algae offers opportunities for sequestration and biofuel, but needs time. But we are broad church and have an open mind. In our seminars we picture the Farm of the Future as incorporating wind, water, biofuel, forest, etc. options.
I hope we can work together on this.
Cheers!
Michael Kiely
Convenor
PS. I attach a document on MMV (the key issue blocking soil carbon). And a document on how scientists can get it wrong.
PS. We cannot make your “Soil Science Summit” in June because we are both of us speaking to different groups of farmers in Victoria and NSW. However we would like the opportunity to make a presentation to you, if possible. (BTW, our three seminars which brought farmers and scientists together to resolve soil carbon issues were called ʻsoil science summitsʼ)
PPS. In light of the serious questions arising from the science to date, we believe that there should be an independent audit of all such science as that guided Government policy. If there is to a methane and nitrous oxide liability incurred by farmers, they would like to know that the science behind that liability is bullet proof.
The Convenors of the Coalition were invited to the event, but are unable to attend due to two prior engagements. However the Coalition is well represented in the attendee list. Despite this, there is a danger that the soils issue could be sidetracked by other agendas and it is for this reason that the Coalition sent the following letter to the Institute's CO, John Connor:
John Connor, CEO,
The Climate Institute
Level 15, 179 Elizabeth Street,
Sydney, NSW 2000
A warning for you
Dear Mr Connor,
You organisationʼs entry into the field of Climate Change Agriculture last July and more recently, into the soil carbon trading issue, is most welcome. The Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming is a grassroots farmersʼ movement
that was formed in February 2006 with the mission to see soil carbon traded and farmers paid for what they grow. We have more than 550 members across Australia.
I share your sense of urgency about Climate Change and offer you the following:
There are already sufficient GHG in the atmosphere to send us through the 2°C mean temperature rise and into the “danger zone”. It will not be removed by reducing emissions; it can only be removed by photosynthesis. The only way to remove such tonnages in the decade we have been given by Stern and Hansen is agricultural soil carbon sequestration. The world has 5.5bn
hectares of soil under management by farmers. Small amounts sequestered per hectare can aggregate into a significant amount. Forests need 10 years to reach maximum sequestration, even if we could afford to plant sufficient trees.
Nothing else is within reach.
Only soil C sequestration can buy us the time we need to move to low emission technologies. Those who argue against soil sequestration argue against the only chance we have to launch a massive counterattack on GHG.
I have a warning for you. More an alert than a warning. Your organization can do great good or great harm to our cause, depending on how it handles the soil carbon issue. You are entering an issue that exists in parallel universes, based on opposing paradigms. You will know you are in one of these universes when you hear conventional scientists recite a list of “challenges” facing soil carbon, as though reciting the list is an argument and that the issues, such as temporal and spatial flux, permanence, and additionality, are insoluable.
Yet the science community has made little or no effort to solve these problems. Of the 400+ scientific projects currently underway in the field, climate change agriculture, only 9 relate to soils, according to an audit by the Climate Change Research
Strategy in Primary Industries Initiative. The research that had been done as part of the NCAS was so poorly resourced and incomplete that the AGO rushed to backfill the gaps once we pointed out the deficiencies. No one has officially acknowledged this situation. While $175m in Federal funds was given to the coal industry in 2006 to adapt to climate change, the AGO was
underfunding research in agriculture such that on the eve of the ETS, industry leaders wring their hands and wail about the lack of data on which to make decisions.
If you are trapped in the ʻscienceʼ paradigm of soil carbon trading, you will inevitably arrive at the conclusion ʻItʼs Not Practicableʼ. However the paradigm is based on myths and misunderstandings. (See attached document:
Common Myths About Soil Carbon) You will recognise the door to that trap by the way the question is framed. The
question should not be: “How can we measure soil carbon more accurately” or “How can we measure soil carbon with exactitude that matches other forms of carbon sinks or offsets?” Neither reflects the objective of the exercise. Rather,
the question should be: “How can we construct a measurement system that will make the trade in soil carbon possible?”
We believe that Carbon Farming is not a side issue. It is the key to short term global response to climate change. It is the best way to prepare the landscape for hotter, drier days ahead. It makes best use of water and suppresses erosion. It stimulates biodiversity and species density at all levels. Carbon Farming was invented by farmers, not government scientists. It allows
farmers their dignity because they are playing a leading role in Climate Change Mitigation, and being paid for what they grow. Carbon Farming is not a Government handout for stewardship or ʻenvironmental servicesʼ. (From our experience with Catchment Management Authorities we know such funds put the farmer in government shackles.) Farmers donʼt believe in taking the dole. When we approached your organization in 2006, soil carbon was not a respectable cause. The Prime Ministerʼs mention of it on 4 March has legitimised it. We could be resentful of the arrival of well-resourced people who get paid to do the work we have done for 2 years. But we welcome your interest. Naturally we are suspicious that behind the fine sentiments there lurks another agenda, ie. to hijack the farmersʼ cause on behalf of renewable energy. Not many farmers can benefit from wind generation or thermal. Biomass will be needed for feeding soils and grains needed for feeding people. Forestry is dangerous if allowed to sweep across the landscape, closing schools and post offices and stores. Biofuels have issues. Biochar is popular because no one understands the issues surrounding it. Algae offers opportunities for sequestration and biofuel, but needs time. But we are broad church and have an open mind. In our seminars we picture the Farm of the Future as incorporating wind, water, biofuel, forest, etc. options.
I hope we can work together on this.
Cheers!
Michael Kiely
Convenor
PS. I attach a document on MMV (the key issue blocking soil carbon). And a document on how scientists can get it wrong.
PS. We cannot make your “Soil Science Summit” in June because we are both of us speaking to different groups of farmers in Victoria and NSW. However we would like the opportunity to make a presentation to you, if possible. (BTW, our three seminars which brought farmers and scientists together to resolve soil carbon issues were called ʻsoil science summitsʼ)
PPS. In light of the serious questions arising from the science to date, we believe that there should be an independent audit of all such science as that guided Government policy. If there is to a methane and nitrous oxide liability incurred by farmers, they would like to know that the science behind that liability is bullet proof.
WHo is the Climate Institute and what do they want?
Who is the Climate Institute and what do they want?
Some members of the Coalition are concerned that the city-based Climate Instutute is making a grab for the Coalition’s role in the soil carbon debate now that the issue has become ‘hot’ since the PM’s 4th March announcement.
The Institute has convened a ‘soil science summit’ on June 18th in Canberra to ask the questions the Coalition’s 3 ‘soil science summits’ in 2007 sought answers for.
The Coalition sees the Institute’s interest as an opportunity to further our aims, while it is concerned there is room for confusion if two organizations are pushing different agendas. However those of us engaged in the issue might feel, we don't own "soil carbon" and welcome any assistance and extra resources. We have one aim: To see the day soil carbon is traded in Australia and farmers are paid for what they grow.
Who is the Climate Institute?
Established around the same time as the Carbon Coalition (late 2005), the Climate Institute was funded to the tune of $10 million by the Poola Foundation. The Institute’s rural connection is through Poola Foundation’s Mark Wootton (Institute chair) and his wife Eve Kantor who “own, manage and live on” a 12,000 acre grazing property at Hamilton, Victoria. The Climate Institute believes that “the extreme urgency of the situation requires decisive commitment and action from government and industry on a grand scale.” The Coalition congratulates and admires the Institute for its activity during the hard years under the Howard regime when all of us suffered from official spitefulness.
Apart from touring Dr Graeme Pearman through regional centres in 2006, the Institute, in August 2007, formed the "Agricultural Alliance on Climate Change”. The organisations included the Country Women’s Association of Australia, Westpac, South Australian Farmers Federation, AgForce, Visy, and the Australian Conservation Foundation. The PR release announcing the alliance said the organisations felt there was "one thing they have in common ─ a heightened sense of urgency … [and] that there are significant gains to be made from working on this issue collaboratively..."
Why collaborate with Westpac and Visy and not the NFF, NSW Farmers, MLA, AWI, etc.? Why not SANTFA – the South Australian No-till Farmers Association: the people who really know climate change farming.? Why not collaborate with the Carbon Coalition – the only farmer-based organization that is dedicated to climate change issues?
What is the Institute’s agenda?
"The Alliance supports the recommendations of the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change [members include Westpac, Visy and ACF] in particular that Australia can deliver significant greenhouse gas reductions at an affordable cost; while the longer we delay acting, the more expensive it becomes for business and for the wider Australian economy. We need to secure our future ─ decisive action is needed to move us to a clean energy economy now."
The Climate Institute did appear to have a classic Green 'renewable energy' agenda – eg. “Policy: Create effective and sustainable economic drivers from harvesting clean renewable energy, farming carbon and bio-diversity stewardship, such as setting a target for clean renewable energy." – until it did a deal with the coal industry to press for ‘clean coal’ technology.
The Alliance commissioned a report from the CSIRO "to help identify the potential, problems, and priorities for rural businesses and communities in contributing to Australian action on climate change.”
Soil clearly was not on the screen in the CSIRO report, but forests were: "The potential for creating offsets through vegetation sinks is very large..."
Soil is not understood as a sink in the CSIRO report for the Institute's Alliance. Soil carbon does not appear on a list of opportunities “selected on the basis of two key tests. First, does the issue represent a chance for rural business and communities to make a positive contribution to reducing emissions or addressing the impacts of climate change? Second, does the issue provide a new enterprise opportunity or source of income for rural people or businesses?”
SOil carbon is also invisible as a tradeable commodity to the Institute’s Alliance.
In an Alliance position paper based on the CSIRO report, soil carbon is mentioned once, not under the title ‘emissions trading’ but in a category with fertilizers.
Is the Institute a danger to the Coalition?
No. The Institute has many fronts to fight on. We have one. It has to develop expertise in many areas. We have one. It has many enthusiasms to maintain. We have one.
There is a danger that the Institute could cause confusion about several key elements of the Coalition’s Policy which aim to protect the interests of landholders: For instance, two notions that seem logical enough from a city perspective are stwardship payments for environmental services and locking livestock out of country to restore it.
Stewardship payments are no substitute for soil carbon offsets. They are handouts. The come with handcuffs. They can stop any time, ie. when government’s change. They will never be worth as much as selling carbon. They are paternalistic. They limit your freedom to farm.
Locking hoofed animals out of land permanently is inviting degradation. The symbiosis between plant and animal is based on the need for the soil to be disturbed and fertilized by dung and uneaten vegetation (grasses). Otherwise rank vegetation oxidizes and prevents new growth, resulting in bare ground and eventual desertification.
We welcome the Climate Institute's interest and enthusiasm for soil carbon.
Some members of the Coalition are concerned that the city-based Climate Instutute is making a grab for the Coalition’s role in the soil carbon debate now that the issue has become ‘hot’ since the PM’s 4th March announcement.
The Institute has convened a ‘soil science summit’ on June 18th in Canberra to ask the questions the Coalition’s 3 ‘soil science summits’ in 2007 sought answers for.
The Coalition sees the Institute’s interest as an opportunity to further our aims, while it is concerned there is room for confusion if two organizations are pushing different agendas. However those of us engaged in the issue might feel, we don't own "soil carbon" and welcome any assistance and extra resources. We have one aim: To see the day soil carbon is traded in Australia and farmers are paid for what they grow.
Who is the Climate Institute?
Established around the same time as the Carbon Coalition (late 2005), the Climate Institute was funded to the tune of $10 million by the Poola Foundation. The Institute’s rural connection is through Poola Foundation’s Mark Wootton (Institute chair) and his wife Eve Kantor who “own, manage and live on” a 12,000 acre grazing property at Hamilton, Victoria. The Climate Institute believes that “the extreme urgency of the situation requires decisive commitment and action from government and industry on a grand scale.” The Coalition congratulates and admires the Institute for its activity during the hard years under the Howard regime when all of us suffered from official spitefulness.
Apart from touring Dr Graeme Pearman through regional centres in 2006, the Institute, in August 2007, formed the "Agricultural Alliance on Climate Change”. The organisations included the Country Women’s Association of Australia, Westpac, South Australian Farmers Federation, AgForce, Visy, and the Australian Conservation Foundation. The PR release announcing the alliance said the organisations felt there was "one thing they have in common ─ a heightened sense of urgency … [and] that there are significant gains to be made from working on this issue collaboratively..."
Why collaborate with Westpac and Visy and not the NFF, NSW Farmers, MLA, AWI, etc.? Why not SANTFA – the South Australian No-till Farmers Association: the people who really know climate change farming.? Why not collaborate with the Carbon Coalition – the only farmer-based organization that is dedicated to climate change issues?
What is the Institute’s agenda?
"The Alliance supports the recommendations of the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change [members include Westpac, Visy and ACF] in particular that Australia can deliver significant greenhouse gas reductions at an affordable cost; while the longer we delay acting, the more expensive it becomes for business and for the wider Australian economy. We need to secure our future ─ decisive action is needed to move us to a clean energy economy now."
The Climate Institute did appear to have a classic Green 'renewable energy' agenda – eg. “Policy: Create effective and sustainable economic drivers from harvesting clean renewable energy, farming carbon and bio-diversity stewardship, such as setting a target for clean renewable energy." – until it did a deal with the coal industry to press for ‘clean coal’ technology.
The Alliance commissioned a report from the CSIRO "to help identify the potential, problems, and priorities for rural businesses and communities in contributing to Australian action on climate change.”
Soil clearly was not on the screen in the CSIRO report, but forests were: "The potential for creating offsets through vegetation sinks is very large..."
Soil is not understood as a sink in the CSIRO report for the Institute's Alliance. Soil carbon does not appear on a list of opportunities “selected on the basis of two key tests. First, does the issue represent a chance for rural business and communities to make a positive contribution to reducing emissions or addressing the impacts of climate change? Second, does the issue provide a new enterprise opportunity or source of income for rural people or businesses?”
SOil carbon is also invisible as a tradeable commodity to the Institute’s Alliance.
In an Alliance position paper based on the CSIRO report, soil carbon is mentioned once, not under the title ‘emissions trading’ but in a category with fertilizers.
Is the Institute a danger to the Coalition?
No. The Institute has many fronts to fight on. We have one. It has to develop expertise in many areas. We have one. It has many enthusiasms to maintain. We have one.
There is a danger that the Institute could cause confusion about several key elements of the Coalition’s Policy which aim to protect the interests of landholders: For instance, two notions that seem logical enough from a city perspective are stwardship payments for environmental services and locking livestock out of country to restore it.
Stewardship payments are no substitute for soil carbon offsets. They are handouts. The come with handcuffs. They can stop any time, ie. when government’s change. They will never be worth as much as selling carbon. They are paternalistic. They limit your freedom to farm.
Locking hoofed animals out of land permanently is inviting degradation. The symbiosis between plant and animal is based on the need for the soil to be disturbed and fertilized by dung and uneaten vegetation (grasses). Otherwise rank vegetation oxidizes and prevents new growth, resulting in bare ground and eventual desertification.
We welcome the Climate Institute's interest and enthusiasm for soil carbon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
