Thursday, November 19, 2009

Climate Institute celebrates Agriculture's good fortune by handing Wong another bullet

Agriculture dodges bullet, and the Climate Institute calls for another one to be loaded into the chamber. It doesn’t do much for the Institute’s standing with farmers.

Here's how it celebrated the good news: "Government and Opposition now need to put forward an alternative strategy for reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint, following the decision to permanently exempt farmers from any liability under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), The Climate Institute said today. “If it’s not going to be the CPRS, then Government and Opposition need to commit to an alternative that will reduce farm emissions, and ensure taxpayers and other businesses aren’t left carrying the burden,” said Corey Watts, The Climate Institute’s Regional Projects Manager.Mr Watts said that, currently, the rural sector is the country’s second biggest source of carbon pollution after electricity.

Corey, how do you justify bending the rules to shoehorn Agriculture into a cap and trade system when the vast majority of farm enterprises don't qualify for the 25,000t CO2-e floor on emissions? Why choose one group of small businesses and not any others? Why impose further burdens on an already over-burdened sector of the economy when the world's leaders are calling for a Herculean effort by farmers simply to feed the world when the population doubles in 40 years time? When the world's leading military and international security strategists predict massive global conflict sparked off by famine and flood resulting in mass migrations, especially in our region?
Why not call for incentives to encourage emissions reductions in agriculture? Have the same effect.

No comments: