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.
No comments:
Post a Comment