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.