Is God a vegetarian?

"[We simply must find] more productive, safer methods that put carbon back in the soil to produce safer and better food," Al Gore urged Americans in a recent interview in TGDaily. The former Vice President also said we need to initiate an organic vegetarian diet for the general population since industrial agriculture is contributing to the relentless, growing problem of global warming. According to him, meat eating has prompted forests to clear due to higher demands for cattle, adding that synthetic nitrogen use in fertilizers continues to contribute to global warming. Mr Gore was only half wrong. The Tea Party's Michelle Bachmann - the leading Republican Presidential contender - said yesterday the cyclones and tempests slamming into the US are God's warning to Americans to change their ways. Maybe God's a vegetarian, too. In response to the laughter her comments elicited she said her remarks were meant to be a joke. And they were. Neither Mr Gore nor Ms Bachmann will be attending the Gala Awards Dinner at the Carbon Farming Conference, but there will be jokes aplenty and poetry and songs galore as part of our Talent Quest. Bring your guitar, your bush poetry and your best smile.

Turning the CARBON FARMING INITIATIVE into CASH FLOWING IN

Trading under the CFI begins in November this year. That is why ‘preparing to trade’ is a central theme of this year’s Carbon Farming Conference. We have secured expert speakers from the global world of carbon trading and the highest levels of the Government.

James Schultz knows how to get the money flowing from international carbon markets. James, Director of GreenCollar Climate Solutions, has worked for the World Bank, the African Union and the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, in setting up climate change adaptation/mitigation strategies and environment and natural resource management investment programs.

He will answer key questions like: What does a farmer need to know? What is "Greenhouse Gas Accounting"? Trading Experience- who has traded, and in what, and what are the results?

Shayleen Thompson is an insider. She was Australia’s lead negotiator on land issues on the Kyoto Protocol. She is First Assistant Secretary, Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

Shayleen is the head of the Land Division which is responsible for delivering Australia’s national accounts for carbon emissions, leading on land issues in the international negotiations, implementing the Carbon Farming Initiative. She will reveal how farmers can get involved, what a methodology is, who can submit one, which methodologies have been submitted already, who has started to trade, who will buy?

Freddy Sharpe is CEO of Climate Friendly, Australia’s leading carbon management business. Freddy knows how to create offsets and sell them – or “delivering easy and innovative carbon solutions to businesses and individuals.” He will explain what a carbon exchange is and how it works, carbon credits trading for farmers, aggregation (ie. who do you deal with), where brokers fit in, how much middlemen take, and what to expect. www.carbonfarmingconference.com.au

Carbon Cocky of the Year Entries close 12th September

The Carbon Cockies of the Year 2007

Who Will Be Carbon Cocky Of The Year? Call for entries

The search for Australia’s best ‘carbon farmer’ is on as part of the Carbon Cocky of the Year Awards. What started as a competition for farmers in the Central West of NSW five years ago has now gone national to celebrate the passing of the Carbon Farming Initiative legislation which provides incentives for farmers to adopt sustainable practices. More than 35 carbon farmers have been recognised in the Awards since they started in 2007. “At that time the link between farming and climate change was all negative, focussing on emissions. But the positive contribution agriculture can make by extracting CO2 from the atmosphere was best communicated by celebrating the people who invented carbon farming: carbon farmers,” says Louisa Kiely, organiser of the Awards. Notable farmer/innovators in the Central West include Col Seis from Gulgong (pasture cropping), Bruce Maynard from Narromine (no-till/no-kill cultivation0, and Michael Inwood of Bathurst (electric utility truck). The Awards are being conducted as part of Carbon Farming Week on 27-29 September, 2011 in Dubbo NSW. They are to be presented at the Gala Awards Dinner which is to be staged during the Carbon Farming Conference & Expo. The theme of the conference is “Preparing farmers to trade”, reflecting the new opportunities to earn carbon credits by on-farm activities including storing carbon in soils and trees, reducing emissions from animals and reducing emissions from fertiliser. The Award is still open for 2011 for conservation graziers and conservation farmers who have innovated their farm management for greater sustainability. Entry details are available at www.carbonfarmingconference.com.au. High profile sponsors of this year’s awards include Best Environmental Technologies, Ylad Living Soils, and Principle Focus. Organising the Awards and the Conference and Expo is Carbon Farmers of Australia, a not-for-profit company which provides education, information and representation services for carbon farmers. Carbon Farmers of Australia is part of a consortium which has submitted a methodology for soil carbon credits to the Department of Climate Change & Energy Efficiency’s expert panel, the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee, for approval. Once approved, it will be the only national soil carbon offsets system operating in the world. For more information, call (02) 6374 0329 or visit www.carbonfarmingconference.com.au

“We won’t abolish the Carbon Farming Initiative”: Opposition

The Carbon Farming Initiative is safely home and hosed. It is now law after passing through the Senate and the House of Representatives for the last time this week. The Opposition announced that it would not repeal the CFI: “We will not be abolishing the bill,” said Shadow Minister Greg Hunt on Tuesday. “It is important to give this message to potential actors and investors in the space.” It should be remembered that the Opposition endorsed Carbon Farming before the Government announced the CFI. The promise to “seek a better and more workable agreement in relation to the concept of permanence’ is welcome. “The 100-year rule will ultimately be self-defeating and destructive…” said Mr Hunt. We agree.

NFF supports Carbon Farming Initiative: NFF president Jock Laurie has been a supporter of Carbon Farming since we first briefed him in 2006 when he was with NSW Farmers Association. He said the NFF had been broadly supportive of the concept and intent of the CFI from the outset. “We have long said that voluntary, market-based mechanisms, using a carrot rather than a stick approach to carbon abatement, is the best way to engage with farmers in this challenge. The CFI fits this description,” he said.

Carbon Farmers cautioned against unsound science

Farmers interested in increasing carbon sequestration in their soils should beware reports coming out of the Soil Carbon Research Program (SCRP) because they mistake conventional farming for ‘carbon farming’. “Carbon Farming, under the Carbon Farming Initiative, requires a change in land management with a switch to one or more new practices, not business as usual. Yet the reports coming out of the SCRP claim to give results over periods of 30 and 40 years which make no reference to changes in land management,” says Michael Kiely, chairman of the Carbon Farming & Trading Association. The results of a stocktake of soil organic carbon on the Esperance sand plain are the first revealed in WA from the national SCRP. The Department of Agriculture and Food WA (DAFWA), cautioned farmers interested in increasing carbon sequestration, as the Esperance results showed changes might be small and would occur slowly over time. “Scientists cautioning farmers against expecting to grow soil carbon are like the scholars who predicted that Columbus would sail off the end of the earth because it was flat. They could say that only because they hadn’t been there.” Mr Kiely maintains that scientific studies commonly under report carbon sequestration rates for many reasons. “They focus on a limited number of practices one at a time, whereas carbon farmers usually apply several techniques together,” he says. “The combined effect of these practices applied with the skill of an experienced carbon farmer explains why they commonly report soil carbon sequestration rates up to 10 times those recorded by scientists.” Another reason for under-reporting is failure to sample soil deep enough in sandy soils. “Roots from perennials have been recorded reaching down as far as 7 metres in WA. Where there are roots there is carbon. These SCRP reports are based on only 30cm samples.” The most commonly-quoted ‘fact’ quoted to scare farmers rears its head in this report: soil carbon ties up nutrients such as N and P which are needed for plant growth, making them unavailable and therefore requiring that expensive fertilizer be added. “We need plant growth for carbon sequestration as well, so we have this Alice in Wonderland proposition: we can’t grow soil carbon because it will prevent the growth of soil carbon,” he says. But the “C locks up N, P and S” Conundrum exists only in the world of Theoretical Soil Chemistry. It takes no account of the impact of carbon on factors such as water retention and Phosphorus availability, he says. “Again, conventional science sees sequestration as a zero/sum game instead of the win/win proposition that it is.” The research is funded by the Australian Government’s Climate Change Research Program and the Grains Research and Development Corporation.

CFI legislation a world first

The Carbon Farming Bill passed last night by the Australian Senate is the world's first national scheme that regulates the creation and trade of carbon credits from farming and forestry. It is the first major legislation passed by the government with Greens support in the Senate since the Greens took the balance of power on July 1. "Green carbon is one of the four pillars of the climate package, alongside putting a price on pollution and investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency," Greens deputy leader Christine Milne said. Australian industries which buy carbon offsets will need to ensure at least 50 percent of the offsets are domestic credits. The government estimates the carbon farming initiative will help cut Australia's carbon emissions by 460 million tonnes by 2050. "There is increased interest in the CFI from across market and the first wave of investment activity will start to unfold now the Act has been passed," said Martijn Wilder, global team leader for environmental markets at law firm Baker & McKenzie in Sydney. "But the really significant activity under the CFI will come with the approval of carbon pricing laws." The Opposition strongly opposes putting a price on carbon and will scrap the scheme if it wins the next election, due in the second half of 2013. It would have to wait until mid-2016 before they could win enough seats in the Senate to repeal the carbon laws, and its direct action plan for tackling emissions could be delayed until 2018, according to Reuters. These and many other issues will be canvassed at the Carbon Farming Conference, 27 - 29 September, 2011 in Dubbo NSW.

CFI PASSES SENATE - ONWARDS!

Hi,

Below is an email from Minister Combet's Senior Adviser giving us the good news that the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 passed the last hurdle last night. This is a special day.

We started this campaign 6 years ago with a statement: the Soil Carbon Manifesto. We have never lost faith. And now we are on the threshold: a methodology for soil carbon is finalised for submission to start the process of building a platform for rapid, widespread change in land management - generating new income for farmers, new opportunities for consultants and training organisations, new resources for NRM agencies, new demand for suppliers of carbon farming products and processes, new budgets for scientists. Now is the time to learn how to turn this opportunity to restore our soils and waterways into reality - the theme of the Carbon Farming Conference this year is "preparing to trade"... with insights from senior departmental decision-makers, carbon market experts, and experienced environmental entrepreneurs. It's a whole new set of skills to learn... We need a show of strength to put pressure on the processes that will help our methodology succeed. Please register now. And if you worry about politics, remember both Government and Opposition support soil carbon sequestration. Onwards!

Cheers!

Michael Kiely

The Soil Carbon Manifesto

Carbon Coalition is a group of concerned Australians who believe the globe is facing a crisis of CO2 overload leading to Global Warming and that one of the most effective strategies for locking up carbon in our atmosphere is to be found in fostering deep-rooted plant species on land used for agriculture. Capturing more carbon in agricultural soils will mean water is used where it falls, leading to cleaner waterways and less silting. We urge governments and the business community to acknowledge the role that agricultural soils can play in addressing the Global Warming crisis. Farmers can play a central role in sequestering carbon in their soils by fostering deep-rooted perennial plant species that have significant biomass in their root systems. Soil biomass is a natural carbon sink and should be used to create carbon credits which can be traded alongside those currently traded for forests.

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Nicholas, Peter"

Date: 22 August 2011 6:53:45 PM AEST

To: undisclosed-recipients:;

Subject: CFI through the Senate [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi all,

Just letting you know the CFI passed the Senate tonight despite the opposition from the Coalition and their attempts to delay the debate for as long as possible.

It needs to go back to the House to have a few minor amendments agreed to, but that should be a formality sometime this week.

Peter

Peter Nicholas

Senior Adviser

The Hon Greg Combet AM MP

Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency

Federal Member for Charlton

Parliament House

Farm Carbon Credits: What's IN, What's OUT?

Although the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 is being filibustered in the Senate, it will pass on the numbers. The CFI enables crediting of abatement of greenhouse gas in the land sector which is achieved by: · reducing or avoiding emissions, for example, through capture and destruction of methane emissions from livestock manure; or · removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in soil or trees. Australian carbon credit units (ACCUs) will be issued for each tonne of abatement generated by such activities. These units will be able to be sold into a variety of domestic and international markets; Kyoto ACCUs can be converted into Kyoto units and sold into international compliance markets. Projects will only generate ACCUs if they meet scheme eligibility requirements. One requirement is ‘the additionality test’. A 'positive list' identifies activities that are not considered to be common practice within relevant industries or environments. If a project consists of activities listed in the positive list, and is not required to be carried out by law, then the project passes the additionality test. The positive list will grow over time as new abatement activities are identified.

Activities on the positive list

1. Establishment of permanent environmental plantings after 1 July 2007. Environmental plantings consist of species native to the local area, typically a mix of trees and understorey species but can be single species where monocultures naturally occur. Permanent environmental plantings are not harvested but may undergo thinning for ecological purposes and removal of firewood and bush foods for household use.

2. Establishment of permanent mallee plantings after 1 July 2007. (Some mallees are harvested for production of biomass energy and biochar. The Government is assessing how common this practice is.)

3. Re-growth of native vegetation on private land through the exclusion of stock, the management of the timing and extent of grazing, the management of feral animals, the management of weeds or cessation of mechanical or chemical destruction.

4. Restoration of drained wetlands on private land.

5. Application of biochar to soil.

6. Capture and combustion of methane from waste deposited in a landfill facility before 1 July 2012.

7. Capture and combustion of methane from livestock manure.

8. Early dry season burning of savanna areas greater than 1 km²

9. Management of feral camels on private land.

10. Using tannins as a feed supplement for ruminants (cattle and sheep)

11. Incorporating Eremophila into feed for ruminant livestock. Eremophila is a native Australian plant commonly called Emu Bush.

12. Manipulation of gut flora in ruminant livestock.

13. Application of urea inhibitors to reduce nitrification in manure.

14. Application of urea inhibitors to fertiliser.

15. Composting: Diversion of putrescible waste from a landfill facility to an alternative waste treatment facility before 1 July 2012. Alternative waste treatment facilities convert organic waste to energy, compost and other products. Household compost bins and worm farms are not considered alternative waste treatment facilities. From 1 July 2012, waste will be covered by the carbon price and no longer eligible to generate offsets.

WHERE IS SOIL? The many various land management practices that sequester soil carbon will each be subject to the 5% common practice test when soil methodologies are under consideration. This will be occurring very soon.

The negative list

The negative list identifies activities that are ineligible in circumstances where they pose a significant risk to communities or the environment.

Activities are included on the negative list if there is a high risk that they will have an adverse impact on the availability of water, the conservation of biodiversity, employment or the local community. Risks to employment and local communities could arise if carbon farming projects reduce access to agricultural land for food production or if reductions in primary production affect the viability of upstream processing facilities such as abattoirs or mills and this has a flow on effect for other producers within the region. Like the positive list, the negative list will grow over time as new methodologies are developed and risks are identified. Some activities will not pose risks when undertaken by only a few landholders, but would have impacts when undertaken on a broad scale. Activities such as these may not be included on the list when first approved, but would be added before they reached that threshold where adverse impacts could occur. Regional NRM plans will also assist is identifying and managing the cumulative adverse impacts of carbon farming projects.

Activities on the negative list

1. Projects that were mandatory at 24 March 2011.

2. Establishment of vegetation on land subject to clearing of native forest or draining of a wetland within 3 years of application as an eligible offsets project.

3. Planting a known weed species.

4. Establishment of a forest as part of a forestry managed investment scheme.· These types of projects are excluded to ensure the additive effect of the forestry managed investment scheme incentives and the CFI does not have adverse impacts on access to agricultural land, communities and employment.

5. Cessation or avoidance of harvest of a plantation forest. Projects that involve suitable management regimes, or convert a plantation forest into a permanent environmental planting, could be eligible.

6. Planting trees in an area that receives more than 600mm long-term average annual rainfall. Except when the project is a permanent environmental planting; the project contributes to the management of dryland salinity; the project holds a suitable high security water access entitlement for the life of the project.

PS> The complete document from which this was extracted is available here. It is published for comment. Please feel free to make a submission.

Abbott's bold stand on food security and farmland

Tony Abbott has given his support to the farmers'' rights to lock mining companies out of farming land. He agreed to back farmers and their struggle against the expansion of mining and gas. On Alan Jones's Sydney radio program, Tony Abbott said the criteria of the Foreign Investment Review Board should be reviewed and restrictions made on foreign companies buying land. Only foreign land acquisition above $231 million is reviewed. Mr Abbott said that may have to be lowered. Minerals and resources are owned by the Commonwealth and farmers have to negotiate land access with mining companies. "If you don't want something to happen on your land, you ought to have the right to say no," Mr Abbott said. Farmers can argue that their losses from mining extend far beyond the loss of production due to water supply problems. Include the potential revenue from the Carbon Farming Initiative - soil carbon offsets, offsets for avoided emissions from animals and fertilisers, etc. - and the losses mount up exponentially. The Carbon Farming Conference 2011 will reveal the potential returns to farmers as the markets for farm-based offsets come on stream in the following months.

Crop breeding could stop CO2 increase 'stone dead'

A British scientist has calculated that breeding crops with deeper roots can draw down enough CO2 to stop the increase in Global Warming 'stone dead'. Carbon dioxide levels in the air have risen 40 percent to 390 parts per million (ppm) since the start of the Industrial Revolution and are growing about 2 ppm a year. "If you add an extra 2 ppm a year and you can effectively trap that by increasing the amount of roots by an equivalent amount, you can stop the increase stone dead. To take about 100 ppm from the atmosphere is highly feasible and that equates to an extra 100 tonnes per hectare on average for two years," says Professor Douglas Kell of the University of Manchester in the Annals of Botany journal. "Doubling root biomass to a nominal two meters is really the key issue, together with the longevity of the carbon they secrete and sequester below-ground." Previous studies have doubted the benefits of deep roots locking away large amounts of carbon. But this was because the studies did not take soil measurements much below a meter. "What matters is not so much what is happening now as what might be achieved with suitable breeding of plants with deep and reasonably long-lived roots. Many such plants exist, but have not been bred for agriculture," he says. Professor Kell calculated that even a 2 percent increase in soil carbon down to 2 meters could lead to an extra 100 tonnes of carbon per hectare if that carbon stays in the soil for at least two years, reports Reuters. Professor Kell have a carbon calculator that shows how much carbon could be sequestered depending on depth and percentage of carbon uptake over the total area of global crop and grasslands.The calculator can be found here.

Carbon tax negativity "a beat-up"

Speculation about the negative effects of the carbon tax was "a beat-up" and was causing a lot of unnecessary fear, according to ag consultant Steve Hossen. He believes the effects of the carbon tax on farming will be no worse than seasonal variations. "Agricultural products go through phases of supply and demand and it ebbs and flows. When there is good demand for your product, the price will rise, and when it is over supplied, prices will be weak and will affect the farming sector. The likely impact on costs and potential inflation have been detailed by the Productivity Commission and are not as high as they're being made out to be." Mr Hossen told Farming Weekly that Australia's carbon tax was similar to New Zealand's emissions trading scheme (ETS) introduced in 2009 with agriculture exempt until 2015, where it had made little impact."The New Zealand farming magazines are full of the normal stuff, sales, technology and farm-based chit chat. I suspect that if you ask a 100 farmers in New Zealand what they know about the carbon tax and what damage it has done, they would say 'I don't know'."

A Policy of Unreadiness: what is the Tea Party drinking?

Americans are risk-takers, for sure. Look what happens when you hand the reins of power to people who think climate change is crap: A rider in the US Governments Agriculture appropriation (Sec. 755)blocks the Agriculture Department (USDA) from carrying out its Policy Statement on Climate Adaptation. The rider by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) would prevent the USDA from even assessing what impacts climate change might have on farmers, foresters and other landholders. Approved by a House vote of 238-179. "The amendment... would prohibit USDA from using funds to implement its June 3 departmental regulation calling for an assessment of how increased occurrence of severe weather events linked to climate change may affect the department's operations -- and the farmers it serves. A final assessment of USDA's vulnerabilities to climate change is due to be completed by March 2012."

12 'wrong facts' about soil carbon

There are at least 10 wrong 'facts' about soil carbon put about by people for various reasons: 1. Only small amounts of carbon can be sequestered in soil, and then it takes a long period. (There is no peer-reviewed science that confirms this assertion.) 2. Kyoto rules will prevent soil carbon being traded at any worthwhile prices. (After next year the Kyoto rules run out. There is no rush to renew them.) 3. Australian soil carbon offsets will be forced to trade on the domestic voluntary market which will only offer low prices. (In at least one case recently the voluntary units sold for close to 10 times as much as the compliance market units, proving that nothing is inevitable about price.) 4. Degraded soils are best rehabilitated by tree plantings. (No soil is so degraded that it cannot be restored by carbon farming techniques. The emptier the glass, the more we can fill it.) 5. Soil carbon is so unstable that it disappears soon after it is captured. (Humus colloids can last 1000 years.) 6. A farmer has to choose between producing food and fibre or growing soil carbon levels. (Soil carbon is grown fastest and longest in actively managed soils.) 7. Soil carbon levels are dictated by rainfall, so it is beyond the control of the farmer. (Several experienced carbon farmers recorded between 2% and 3% increases in soil carbon during the recent decade long drought.) 8. When a farmer sells soil carbon offsets, they must farm for the new owner. (Offsets are not property rights. They represent the performance of a service. There is no new owner.) 9. A farmer has to hold the carbon captured in soils for 100 years because science tells us it takes that long for CO2 to disappear from the atmosphere. (Scientists do not say this because it is not true. Various time scales have been suggested, but 100 years was decided by delegates to Kyoto talks. Politicians. Besides there are several ways to achieve Permanence other that signing a 100-year contract.) 10. Peer-reviewed science is a reliable guide to the potential of Australian soils to sequester carbon. (There is no peer-reviewed science that measures the real world performance of a skilled carbon farmer applying several carbon farming practices in combination that can be relied upon.) 11. A farmer growing soil carbon levels locks up nutrients in humus that cost far more to replace than the returns on offsets sales. (God did not have to order fertiliser from Incitec Pivot when He was making the soil rich in the beginning. Soil biology can make available millions of tonnes of nutrient locked up in soils.) 12. Farmers shouldn't need to be paid to increase carbon in their soils because it is a good thing to do. (Then why haven't they done it already? Only a non-farmer could make a statement like that. Everyone else can earn money from offsets - alternative energy, forestry, light bulbs - but not the farmer. She's got to do it because it is good for her. "The good farmers are already doing it," says a politician. "Therefore the rest should follow." That's implied. "Pay them a pittance... or nothing at all. No need. Crisis? What Crisis?"There are at least 10 wrong 'facts' about soil carbon put about by people for various reasons: 1. Only small amounts of carbon can be sequestered in soil, and then it takes a long period. (There is no peer-reviewed science that confirms this assertion.) 2. Kyoto rules will prevent soil carbon being traded at any worthwhile prices. (After next year the Kyoto rules run out. There is no rush to renew them.) 3. Australian soil carbon offsets will be forced to trade on the domestic voluntary market which will only offer low prices. (In at least one case recently the voluntary units sold for close to 10 times as much as the compliance market units, proving that nothing is inevitable about price.) 4. Degraded soils are best rehabilitated by tree plantings. (No soil is so degraded that it cannot be restored by carbon farming techniques. The emptier the glass, the more we can fill it.) 5. Soil carbon is so unstable that it disappears soon after it is captured. (Humus colloids can last 1000 years.) 6. A farmer has to choose between producing food and fibre or growing soil carbon levels. (Soil carbon is grown fastest and longest in actively managed soils.) 7. Soil carbon levels are dictated by rainfall, so it is beyond the control of the farmer. (Several experienced carbon farmers recorded between 2% and 3% increases in soil carbon during the recent decade long drought.) 8. When a farmer sells soil carbon offsets, they must farm for the new owner. (Offsets are not property rights. They represent the performance of a service. There is no new owner.) 9. A farmer has to hold the carbon captured in soils for 100 years because science tells us it takes that long for CO2 to disappear from the atmosphere. (Scientists do not say this because it is not true. Various time scales have been suggested, but 100 years was decided by delegates to Kyoto talks. Politicians. Besides there are several ways to achieve Permanence other that signing a 100-year contract.) 10. Peer-reviewed science is a reliable guide to the potential of Australian soils to sequester carbon. (There is no peer-reviewed science that measures the real world performance of a skilled carbon farmer applying several carbon farming practices in combination that can be relied upon.) 11. A farmer growing soil carbon levels locks up nutrients in humus that cost far more to replace than the returns on offsets sales. (God did not have to order fertiliser from Incitec Pivot when He was making the soil rich in the beginning. Soil biology can make available millions of tonnes of nutrient locked up in soils.) 12. Farmers shouldn't need to be paid to increase carbon in their soils because it is a good thing to do. (Then why haven't they done it already? Only a non-farmer could make a statement like that. Everyone else can earn money from offsets - alternative energy, forestry, light bulbs - but not the farmer. She's got to do it because it is good for her. "The good farmers are already doing it," says a politician. "Therefore the rest should follow." That's implied. "Pay them a pittance... or nothing at all." STAND UP FOR SOIL CARBON: Register now for the Carbon Farming Conference -- 28/29 September, 2011

How will the Biodiversity Fund benefit farmers?

One billion of the $1.5bn contribution from the Carbon Price to the "Land Sector" is assigned to The Biodiversity Fund "for landholders to undertake projects that establish, restore, protect or mmanage biodiverse carbon stores"- sounds to us like a lot of trees will be planted and not much else. The nation would be short-changed were this the case. And the Government would hand a stick to its enemies to beat it with. Biodiversity means landscape resilience which means the more complex the web of existence, the stronger is its ability to withstand degradation. Two areas where biodiversity translates into food security are: 1. soil microbiology and 2. grass species. The trigger is No.1. As below the ground, so above the ground. Biodiversity above the ground seems to follow biodiversity beneath the ground. The food chain stretches from lower to higher order species. Simply planting trees is a superficial response to monoculture. Even native plantings of the type envisaged by the RM Williams organisation at Henbury Station are a simplistic solution. We would hope to see some of that big budget item branded Biodiversity devoted to encouraging farmers to increase biodiversity where it counts.