This offer from the Government is either a winning first division Lotto ticket or a notice of foreclosure - it is all in the details. The mailed fist in the velvet glove. So far these are just words on paper. It's not what is on paper that will determine our fates, but what is in Penny Wong's heart. How she will interpret those words.
"Agriculture excluded ... indefinitely from the CPRS". This means that Agricultural enterprises will not be subject to the 'cap and trade' system - which is a compulsory emissions reduction scheme that applies to the top 1000 emitters in our economy and which covers 75% of national emissions. Leaving Agriculture out is not a curious development: no other sector of small to medium size enterprises was targeted for inclusion. The floor for entry into the cap-and-trade system is 25000 tonnes/year.
Even if set in stone in legislation, it is an easy thing for this Government or a new one to change the deal: The Wong Offer Document admits this point: "The Government makes a policy commitment to exclude agriculture... The Government will amend the CPRS bill to explicitly exclude agriculture emissions from the scheme: – this means that a future act of Parliament would be required to reverse this decision, providing additional certainty to the sector." How hard is it to pass a BIll and reverse the decision?
When Agriculture was left out of the CPRS, it was never going to be "business as usual". Those emissions have got to come down some other way. Using an Big Brotherly tone, the paper promises that "The Government will work with industry to: • monitor world‟s best practice in reducing agricultural emissions and consider a range of ways in which the agriculture sector can contribute to the transition to a low-pollution economy; and • introduce voluntary emissions reporting trials in 2011 to allow the sector to better understand and manage its emissions." To keep us all honest the Productivity Commission will review the industry in 2015 to see "whether the sector is at world‟s best practice mitigation and an examination of the potential measures to achieve this." There is no escape.
But there's a lot of carrot: credits for emissions reductions. "The Government will introduce amendments to provide for crediting of abatement from agricultural emissions ... that are counted towards Australia‟s international climate change obligations...'.
THERE IS a poison pill in the deal, as we predicted when the negotiations started. The offsets must "meet internationally accepted principles of permanence, additionality, measurability, avoidance of leakage, independent audit and registration" - which, under the distorted Kyoto Rules, will never be workable. The Copenhagen Solution must be accepted or this offer is a charade.
The Government is to appoint "an independent expert committee ... to vet offset methodologies and recommend robust methodologies". It will accept or reject recommendations, but it promises not to tinker with them. Anyone can submit a standard or methodology to this committee which will become a focal point (taking the heat off the Department and the Minister. It is a tacit admission that the Department does not have the smarts to do this kind of work - hence no Voluntary Standard yet.)
The independent expert committee will be very busy - it will approve projects and credit abatement from commencement of the CPRS; it will set the ground rules - including monitoring, reporting, record-keeping, auditing and enforcement; and allow new sources to be included once they are "recognised in Australia‟s international commitments."
• CPRS credits will be given for emissions reductions "that are counted towards Australia‟s international commitments" and that are covered by "robust methodologies". These include: methane from livestock and manure management, reduced N2O from more economical fertiliser use, the burning of savannas by traditional owners, burning crop trash, rice cultivation , avoided deforestation, a new term called " legacy waste".
No soil mentioned in the CPRS system because of the absurd Kyoto Rules (in section 3.3 and 3.4) that say any country wanting to claim carbon has to count emissions caused by 'acts of God", not humanity - another piece of Kyoto madness. Our Government "will continue advocating" for an end to this lunacy. While we can't play in the big sand pit, the Government will build a smaller one - it will promote voluntary market offsets by implementing a National Carbon Offset Standard (NCOS). This will provide scope for a market for abatement from "agricultural soils (grazing and crop land management), including biosequestration through soil carbon and biochar; and non-forest revegetation and vegetation management."
The plan is to transition to the CPRS market once the 'accountants who are deciding the world's fate' realise what's at stake. (Prime Carbon should send the Department a Bill for policy development work.)
NCOS methodologies would be assessed by the same expert independent expert committee, further adding to its workload.
The question arises: who is "independent" among experts and what is an 'expert'? Will it be a committee full of science, chasing the min-min light of exactitude. Or will it include market and commodity economists, and when will the buyers get a turn?
As a footnote, there is a few million for (more) research into measurement and just as much again for 'stewardship and biodiversity' projects. It is to be hoped that there is some sort of strategy behind all this. It all looks and feels like there isn't.
Payment for farming in a less exploitative manner has been a long time coming. It acknowledges that farmers were not soley responsible for degrading the landscape. Out market economy has conspired to pay less that fair value for produce while our society has enjoyed the luxury of cheap products, at the same time demanding the producer go easy on the soil. Soil carbon credits are the logical way to redress the imbalance while the reconstruction of the natural resource base is underway. How we avoid returning to the same perverse system of market failure and destruction is yet to be seen. But paying farmers to exercise their skills in conserving and encouraging Nature to be bountiful must become part of our culture if our civilisation is to continue to be so described.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
DETAILS OF PROPOSED CPRS CHANGES (Agriculture)
24 November 2009
The following is the section of the Australian Government's offer to the Opposition to wintheoir support in the Senate for the CPRS Package.
3. AGRICULTURE
Agriculture excluded
• The Government makes a policy commitment to exclude agriculture indefinitely from the
CPRS.
• The Government will amend the CPRS bill to explicitly exclude agriculture emissions from
the scheme:
– this means that a future act of Parliament would be required to reverse this decision,
providing additional certainty to the sector.
• The Government will work with industry to:
– monitor world‟s best practice in reducing agricultural emissions and consider a range of
ways in which the agriculture sector can contribute to the transition to a low-pollution
economy; and
– introduce voluntary emissions reporting trials in 2011 to allow the sector to better
understand and manage its emissions.
• The Government commits to conducting a Productivity Commission review in 2015 of
whether the sector is at world‟s best practice mitigation and an examination of the potential
measures to achieve this.
Implementation:
- Legislative amendment in the November sitting.
- Policy commitment to be incorporated in Hansard or laid before Parliament.
- Government will work with stakeholders to revise the work programme to incorporate policy
commitments.
Offsets
• The Government will introduce amendments to provide for crediting of abatement from
agricultural emissions and other sectors not covered by the CPRS (for example, legacy waste)
that are counted towards Australia‟s international climate change obligations, with the
following features:
– a policy and legislative framework that ensures any domestic offsets meet
internationally accepted principles of permanence, additionality, measurability,
avoidance of leakage, independent audit and registration;
– promotion of best practice standards;
– an independent expert committee will be established to vet offset methodologies and
recommend robust methodologies to the Minister for approval: This means that the Minister would accept or reject methodologies, but would not be able to modify the committee‟s recommendations
– provisions for interested persons to refer methodologies for assessment by the
independent expert committee;
– approval of projects and crediting of abatement from commencement of the CPRS on
1 July 2011;
– compliance requirements, including monitoring, reporting, record-keeping, auditing and
appropriate enforcement mechanisms; and
– legislation would be flexible and would allow new sources to be included once they are
recognised in Australia‟s international commitments.
• CPRS permits will be provided for abatement from the sources that are counted towards
Australia‟s international commitments, subject to the development of robust methodologies:
– livestock
– manure management
– fertiliser use
– burning of savannas
– burning of agricultural residues
– rice cultivation
– avoided deforestation
– legacy waste
– emissions from closed landfill facilities.
• The Government will continue advocating in the international climate change negotiations to
ensure the post-2012 accounting rules only require countries to account for emissions and
removals of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity.
• In the meantime, the Government will promote voluntary market offsets through
implementation of the National Carbon Offset Standard. This will provide scope for a market
for abatement from the following sources that are not counted towards Australia‟s
international commitments:
– agricultural soils (grazing and crop land management), including biosequestration
through soil carbon and biochar;
– enhanced forest management; and
– non-forest revegetation and vegetation management.
• Abatement from these sources will transition into the CPRS once abatement is internationally
recognised and provided that other CPRS requirements are met.
• To facilitate this, NCOS methodologies would be assessed by the same expert independent
expert committee responsible for advising the Minister on CPRS offset methodologies and
NCOS requirements would be consistent with those of the CPRS wherever possible.
• To further enhance the environmental outcomes from the CPRS, the Government will also:
– provide credits for regrowth forests on deforested land (legally cleared between 1990
and 31 December 2008);
– provide credits for soil carbon on deforested land (for land legally cleared between 1990
and 31 December 2008) from 2013;
– include conditions for forests earning forest credits to have adequate water entitlements
and planning approvals; and
– require that offset projects do not involve, or include material obtained as a result of,
clearing or harvesting of native forests.
Implementation:
- Offset chapter to be included in amendment in November sitting and detailed in supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum.
- Regrowth forests to be included in amendment in 2010.
- Other environmental enhancements to be included via amendments in 2010.
- NCOS to be implemented outside of legislation. Government to advocate improved international
accounting in international negotiations.
- Policy commitments to be incorporated in Hansard or laid before Parliament .
R&D into agricultural abatement
• To assist farmers to take advantage of these expanded offset opportunities, the Government
will provide additional R&D investment of $50 million into the development and on-farm
testing of emissions reduction options, including biosequestration and livestock, supported by
the voluntary reporting trial. This funding would include support for the development of a
global alliance on agricultural mitigation research proposed by New Zealand.
Green Carbon Fund
• The Government will establish a $40 million Green Carbon Fund to build the resilience of
natural ecosystems that are under threat from climate change.
• The first stream of the fund will provide support to monitor and plan for the impact of climate
change on biodiversity and land and water resources. The second stream will support initiatives to encourage environmental stewardship and biodiversity where there are carbon co-benefits.
Implementation:
- Program appropriated in future Budgets.
- Policy commitments to be incorporated in Hansard or laid before Parliament .
The following is the section of the Australian Government's offer to the Opposition to wintheoir support in the Senate for the CPRS Package.
3. AGRICULTURE
Agriculture excluded
• The Government makes a policy commitment to exclude agriculture indefinitely from the
CPRS.
• The Government will amend the CPRS bill to explicitly exclude agriculture emissions from
the scheme:
– this means that a future act of Parliament would be required to reverse this decision,
providing additional certainty to the sector.
• The Government will work with industry to:
– monitor world‟s best practice in reducing agricultural emissions and consider a range of
ways in which the agriculture sector can contribute to the transition to a low-pollution
economy; and
– introduce voluntary emissions reporting trials in 2011 to allow the sector to better
understand and manage its emissions.
• The Government commits to conducting a Productivity Commission review in 2015 of
whether the sector is at world‟s best practice mitigation and an examination of the potential
measures to achieve this.
Implementation:
- Legislative amendment in the November sitting.
- Policy commitment to be incorporated in Hansard or laid before Parliament.
- Government will work with stakeholders to revise the work programme to incorporate policy
commitments.
Offsets
• The Government will introduce amendments to provide for crediting of abatement from
agricultural emissions and other sectors not covered by the CPRS (for example, legacy waste)
that are counted towards Australia‟s international climate change obligations, with the
following features:
– a policy and legislative framework that ensures any domestic offsets meet
internationally accepted principles of permanence, additionality, measurability,
avoidance of leakage, independent audit and registration;
– promotion of best practice standards;
– an independent expert committee will be established to vet offset methodologies and
recommend robust methodologies to the Minister for approval: This means that the Minister would accept or reject methodologies, but would not be able to modify the committee‟s recommendations
– provisions for interested persons to refer methodologies for assessment by the
independent expert committee;
– approval of projects and crediting of abatement from commencement of the CPRS on
1 July 2011;
– compliance requirements, including monitoring, reporting, record-keeping, auditing and
appropriate enforcement mechanisms; and
– legislation would be flexible and would allow new sources to be included once they are
recognised in Australia‟s international commitments.
• CPRS permits will be provided for abatement from the sources that are counted towards
Australia‟s international commitments, subject to the development of robust methodologies:
– livestock
– manure management
– fertiliser use
– burning of savannas
– burning of agricultural residues
– rice cultivation
– avoided deforestation
– legacy waste
– emissions from closed landfill facilities.
• The Government will continue advocating in the international climate change negotiations to
ensure the post-2012 accounting rules only require countries to account for emissions and
removals of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity.
• In the meantime, the Government will promote voluntary market offsets through
implementation of the National Carbon Offset Standard. This will provide scope for a market
for abatement from the following sources that are not counted towards Australia‟s
international commitments:
– agricultural soils (grazing and crop land management), including biosequestration
through soil carbon and biochar;
– enhanced forest management; and
– non-forest revegetation and vegetation management.
• Abatement from these sources will transition into the CPRS once abatement is internationally
recognised and provided that other CPRS requirements are met.
• To facilitate this, NCOS methodologies would be assessed by the same expert independent
expert committee responsible for advising the Minister on CPRS offset methodologies and
NCOS requirements would be consistent with those of the CPRS wherever possible.
• To further enhance the environmental outcomes from the CPRS, the Government will also:
– provide credits for regrowth forests on deforested land (legally cleared between 1990
and 31 December 2008);
– provide credits for soil carbon on deforested land (for land legally cleared between 1990
and 31 December 2008) from 2013;
– include conditions for forests earning forest credits to have adequate water entitlements
and planning approvals; and
– require that offset projects do not involve, or include material obtained as a result of,
clearing or harvesting of native forests.
Implementation:
- Offset chapter to be included in amendment in November sitting and detailed in supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum.
- Regrowth forests to be included in amendment in 2010.
- Other environmental enhancements to be included via amendments in 2010.
- NCOS to be implemented outside of legislation. Government to advocate improved international
accounting in international negotiations.
- Policy commitments to be incorporated in Hansard or laid before Parliament .
R&D into agricultural abatement
• To assist farmers to take advantage of these expanded offset opportunities, the Government
will provide additional R&D investment of $50 million into the development and on-farm
testing of emissions reduction options, including biosequestration and livestock, supported by
the voluntary reporting trial. This funding would include support for the development of a
global alliance on agricultural mitigation research proposed by New Zealand.
Green Carbon Fund
• The Government will establish a $40 million Green Carbon Fund to build the resilience of
natural ecosystems that are under threat from climate change.
• The first stream of the fund will provide support to monitor and plan for the impact of climate
change on biodiversity and land and water resources. The second stream will support initiatives to encourage environmental stewardship and biodiversity where there are carbon co-benefits.
Implementation:
- Program appropriated in future Budgets.
- Policy commitments to be incorporated in Hansard or laid before Parliament .
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Robust Science of Methane
Corey,
Your robust criticism of Matt Cawood (The Land) and Charles Armstrong (NSW Farmers') for misreading a scientific paper invites a reply, if only to congratulate you for your enthusiasm. I endorse your intention to engage the farm community in the issues, and in this same spirit of bridge-building I offer this defence of Matt and Charles:
While they erred in using the Californian figure for methane as a global figure, their crime pales into nothing when measured against the 2006 FAO report called “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, famous only for being an embarrassment for the organization. The use of the 'data' by Animal Liberation and WWF was scandalous. The University of California study of the U.N.’s data, titled "Clearing the Air: Livestock’s Contribution to Climate Change," politely accuses it of almost being ‘junk science’ in the hands of those ideologically disposed to politicise the methane issue.
“For example, the statement that 18 percent of anthropogenic global GHGs is caused by livestock production and that livestock produces more GHG than transportation (FAO, 2007) is based on inappropriate or inaccurate scaling of predictions,” says lead author of the study, Frank Mitloehner. The sleight-of-hand to reach a point where cattle contributed more emissions than the entire global transport industry involved two subtle shifts of the data: 1. The FAO “Long Shadow” Report included in livestock’s list of liabilities the massive clearance of forest in South America and elsewhere to graze cattle. The UCal report notes that the chief source of greenhouse gases from livestock production isn’t the animals themselves but deforestation for livestock production. 2. At the same time, when making the comparison with the transport sector, the FAO report did not take such a whole of lifecycle approach, thus lightening the sector’s load. And making methane look worse.
So, the argument that “methane is such a big problem, we can’t let farmers get off scot free” loses momentum. Where does it represent 18% and compared to what? The truth is that nowhere does it represent 18%. The authors of the FAO report were too quick on the trigger to be credible.
An even bigger credibility problem for those who promote the “Big Methane Problem” syndrome: Cattle may not cause methane increases at all, according to research sponsored by the FAO. “Since 1999 atmospheric methane concentrations have levelled off while the world population of ruminants has increased at an accelerated rate,” it reports at http://www.naweb.iaea.org/nafa/aph/stories/2008-atmospheric-methane.html “Prior to 1999, world ruminant populations were increasing at the rate of 9.15 million head/year but since 1999 this rate has increased to 16.96 million head/year. Prior to 1999 there was a strong relationship between change in atmospheric methane concentrations and the world ruminant populations. However, since 1999 this strong relation has disappeared.” Since 1999, there was an atmospheric increase of 0.3 ppb methane/year. This contrasts with the 10.8 ppb/year for the previous time period of 1979 to 1999.
How can this be? No one can explain it. Even Australia’s most senior scientists say “It might be this… It might be that…” What is a farmer to think? How credible does this tangled story sound? "Trust us, we're scientists."
Science claims to be able to tell us what our global methane emissions and our national emissions are, but not our herd emissions. Why? How did they get the global number? By adding up the national numbers? How did they get the national numbers? They have no herd numbers. They estimated it? Based on what? Whose Science? What was the predisposition of the individual scientist who did the estimation? In a report from the very frontiers of methane measurement science, Dr Ed Charmley (CSIRO Livestock Industries) has developed a laser that he shoots over the top of a herd. But he despairs of 100% accuracy. “You’re never going to have a definitive answer, but compared to the way methane is estimated currently, we’re looking for more elegance in the way it’s done.”
More elegance. More Dinkum Science.
Australian farmers won't shirk their duty. But give us something we can believe in.
Your robust criticism of Matt Cawood (The Land) and Charles Armstrong (NSW Farmers') for misreading a scientific paper invites a reply, if only to congratulate you for your enthusiasm. I endorse your intention to engage the farm community in the issues, and in this same spirit of bridge-building I offer this defence of Matt and Charles:
While they erred in using the Californian figure for methane as a global figure, their crime pales into nothing when measured against the 2006 FAO report called “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, famous only for being an embarrassment for the organization. The use of the 'data' by Animal Liberation and WWF was scandalous. The University of California study of the U.N.’s data, titled "Clearing the Air: Livestock’s Contribution to Climate Change," politely accuses it of almost being ‘junk science’ in the hands of those ideologically disposed to politicise the methane issue.
“For example, the statement that 18 percent of anthropogenic global GHGs is caused by livestock production and that livestock produces more GHG than transportation (FAO, 2007) is based on inappropriate or inaccurate scaling of predictions,” says lead author of the study, Frank Mitloehner. The sleight-of-hand to reach a point where cattle contributed more emissions than the entire global transport industry involved two subtle shifts of the data: 1. The FAO “Long Shadow” Report included in livestock’s list of liabilities the massive clearance of forest in South America and elsewhere to graze cattle. The UCal report notes that the chief source of greenhouse gases from livestock production isn’t the animals themselves but deforestation for livestock production. 2. At the same time, when making the comparison with the transport sector, the FAO report did not take such a whole of lifecycle approach, thus lightening the sector’s load. And making methane look worse.
So, the argument that “methane is such a big problem, we can’t let farmers get off scot free” loses momentum. Where does it represent 18% and compared to what? The truth is that nowhere does it represent 18%. The authors of the FAO report were too quick on the trigger to be credible.
An even bigger credibility problem for those who promote the “Big Methane Problem” syndrome: Cattle may not cause methane increases at all, according to research sponsored by the FAO. “Since 1999 atmospheric methane concentrations have levelled off while the world population of ruminants has increased at an accelerated rate,” it reports at http://www.naweb.iaea.org/nafa/aph/stories/2008-atmospheric-methane.html “Prior to 1999, world ruminant populations were increasing at the rate of 9.15 million head/year but since 1999 this rate has increased to 16.96 million head/year. Prior to 1999 there was a strong relationship between change in atmospheric methane concentrations and the world ruminant populations. However, since 1999 this strong relation has disappeared.” Since 1999, there was an atmospheric increase of 0.3 ppb methane/year. This contrasts with the 10.8 ppb/year for the previous time period of 1979 to 1999.
How can this be? No one can explain it. Even Australia’s most senior scientists say “It might be this… It might be that…” What is a farmer to think? How credible does this tangled story sound? "Trust us, we're scientists."
Science claims to be able to tell us what our global methane emissions and our national emissions are, but not our herd emissions. Why? How did they get the global number? By adding up the national numbers? How did they get the national numbers? They have no herd numbers. They estimated it? Based on what? Whose Science? What was the predisposition of the individual scientist who did the estimation? In a report from the very frontiers of methane measurement science, Dr Ed Charmley (CSIRO Livestock Industries) has developed a laser that he shoots over the top of a herd. But he despairs of 100% accuracy. “You’re never going to have a definitive answer, but compared to the way methane is estimated currently, we’re looking for more elegance in the way it’s done.”
More elegance. More Dinkum Science.
Australian farmers won't shirk their duty. But give us something we can believe in.
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.
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.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
PENNY WONG ANNOUNCES SOIL CARBON CREDITS
"Agriculture excluded from ETS: govt" screams the headline this Sunday morning. And Penny Wong is on ABCTV's Insiders program discussing the 'OFFER' that farmers be exempt from emissions caps for methane and nitrous oxide... and that they will be given the opportunity to earn carbon credits for changed land management. The OFFER is on the table, conditional on the Opposition supporting the ETS legislation. SO the bird isn't in the hand, yet. It is not time to celebrate yet, but the signs are good
SIGNS:
1. Penny Wong looked relaxed and comfortable making the announcement, as though it is a done deal.
2. It allows the Government to go to Copenhagen with an Agriculture positon that reflects the Obama Administraton's preferred outcome.
3. Kevin Rudd is meeting right now (this minute) with 17 of the top 20 nations at breakfast at which President Obama will be present. (Giving him a chance to shine in public. He loves it.)
4. It allows Turnbull to wedge the dissenters over the ETS and makes people like the Barnaby Nationals look silly.
Congratulations should go to Greg Hunt (Shadow Environment Minister) who first introduced soil carbon to Turnbull. Congratulations also to Turnbull. And Congratulations to Ian Macfarlane, the surprise package in the Opposition's Climate Change response. A former denialist, he proved to be a skilled negotiator, charming the stoic Wong by giving what appeared to be sincere praise from the gravel-voiced old farmer.
Congratulations to all of us. And shame on those who peddled worst case scenario visions of the future to those whose greatest need is hope.
To those inevitably outraged by this special treatment for Agriculture - which by some twisted arithmetic is responsible for 51% of world emissions - consider the following;
Farmers are small business operators.
Farmers emit less than the 25000 tonnes CO2-e over a year - which is the threshold entry point for other businesses into the ETS. No other small businesses are included.
Farmers are the only people who can feed the world. Famine is a major cause of world armed conflict.
Emissions estimations have been based on questionable science.
Most opponents of the farm sector are ideologically incapable of assessing its contribution and the nature of its emissions profile.
Farmers genuinely work in a unique environment.
Farmers are expected to perform socially-valuable environmental work (with no compensation) by a society which at the same time refuses to pay the full value for what they grow.
Farmers are the only hope we have got to stall Climate Change long enough for renewable energy alternatives can reach critical mass.
The soil carbon credit is the first recognition of this special role of the farmer. They are bearing the brunt of climate change. They deserve support.
Well done, Minister Wong.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
To Market, To Market
The following factors have become clear to us as we are recruiting farmers for baselining in preparation for measuring their soil carbon increases for the voluntary market that is soon to open and reports coming back from negotiations with buyers (big emitters) overseas and locally...
1. Ultimately only two parties will decide the shape of the voluntary market: buyers (emitters) and growers (sellers). If either party refuses to play, there is no game. The rest of us are spectators.
2. Growers will not get involved if the risks are too great (permanence), the costs too high (measurement), or the rules too strict (additionaiity).
3. Buyers will get involved if The Objective is to stall climate change for a period of 30-50 years while the world shifts from coal to renewables. Lal thinks it can be done.
4. To reach the Objective we need almost universal switching to carbon farming practices immediately.
5. The preferred method of incentive for change among growers is a market-based instrument (soil carbon offsets). There is no faith in government stewardship payments.
6. Issues of additionality, permanence, measurement, etc. are barriers to achieving the objective of universal grower involvement.
7. Issues like additionality, permanence, etc are decided by buyers and growers in these voluntary markets, not governments or brokers or wholesalers.
6. Kyoto was never meant to apply to Agriculture. The application of rules designed for industrial environments to Agriculture was an afterthought. The issue of food security and national and international security have left the Protocols behind.
9. The burning sense of urgency that is gripping the world community is tearing up the rule book. The market is frustrated by official dithering.
10. As Lal warned his colleagues: the train is leaving the station. (Soil & Tillage Research, 96, 2007) The unregulated voluntary market will become the defacto main market if the bar is set too high for Agriculture's involvement in a cap and trade system.
1. Ultimately only two parties will decide the shape of the voluntary market: buyers (emitters) and growers (sellers). If either party refuses to play, there is no game. The rest of us are spectators.
2. Growers will not get involved if the risks are too great (permanence), the costs too high (measurement), or the rules too strict (additionaiity).
3. Buyers will get involved if The Objective is to stall climate change for a period of 30-50 years while the world shifts from coal to renewables. Lal thinks it can be done.
4. To reach the Objective we need almost universal switching to carbon farming practices immediately.
5. The preferred method of incentive for change among growers is a market-based instrument (soil carbon offsets). There is no faith in government stewardship payments.
6. Issues of additionality, permanence, measurement, etc. are barriers to achieving the objective of universal grower involvement.
7. Issues like additionality, permanence, etc are decided by buyers and growers in these voluntary markets, not governments or brokers or wholesalers.
6. Kyoto was never meant to apply to Agriculture. The application of rules designed for industrial environments to Agriculture was an afterthought. The issue of food security and national and international security have left the Protocols behind.
9. The burning sense of urgency that is gripping the world community is tearing up the rule book. The market is frustrated by official dithering.
10. As Lal warned his colleagues: the train is leaving the station. (Soil & Tillage Research, 96, 2007) The unregulated voluntary market will become the defacto main market if the bar is set too high for Agriculture's involvement in a cap and trade system.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Conspiracy by environmentalists against soil carbon?
Ever wondered why the Green Groups have never endorsed or supported us? Andrea Koch - a Gore presenter based in Sydney - sends us a link to an article about Al Gore’s latest book OUR CHOICE. "It confirms my suspicion about why the Climate Change lobby (i.e. NGO’s like ACF) wont engage on soil carbon sequestration, which is because they know that it will work so well, that it will take the heat off the emissions side of the equation. They want to get the world off of oil before they let farmers get due credit for sucking up CO2."
The line to look for in this extract is: "If you tell people soils can be managed to suck up lots of our carbon emissions, it sounds like a get-out-of-jail-free card, and could decrease what little enthusiasm there is for reducing those emissions."
The Evolution Of An Eco-Prophet
By Sharon Begley | NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Nov 9, 2009
'The potential for soils to absorb more of the CO2 that our utilities, factories, and vehicles spew poses a dilemma for Gore, one of two where his scientific and political instincts collide. With better management, soils could sequester much more carbon than they do now. The question is how much more. Soils scientist Rattan Lal of Ohio State University was surprised to get a call last summer ("Vice President Gore would like to talk to you") that began, "I have 15 or 20 questions about soils and climate for you." Lal calculates that if more farmers adopted mulching, no-till farming, and the use of cover crops and manure, 3,700 million acres worldwide could sequester 1 gigaton per year of CO2, roughly 12 percent of annual global emissions. Other experts are even more sanguine. "If we feed the biology and manage grasslands appropriately, we could sequester as much carbon as we emit," says Timothy LaSalle, CEO of the Rodale Institute, who presented at two summits. The political clash is this: if you tell people soils can be managed to suck up lots of our carbon emissions, it sounds like a get-out-of-jail-free card, and could decrease what little enthusiasm there is for reducing those emissions—as one of Gore's assistants told LaSalle in asking him to dial down his estimate. (He didn't.)
To his credit, Gore sides with the science, letting the political chips fall where they may. He writes that soils could sequester an additional 15 percent of annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. That could cut 50 parts per million of CO2 from the atmosphere over the next 50 years. (We are now at 387, up from 280 before the industrial era, with 450 ppm or even less a dangerous level.) To encourage changes in agriculture that would foster carbon sequestration, Gore advocates moving away from price supports and toward paying farmers for "how much carbon they can put into and keep in their soil," he says.
The line to look for in this extract is: "If you tell people soils can be managed to suck up lots of our carbon emissions, it sounds like a get-out-of-jail-free card, and could decrease what little enthusiasm there is for reducing those emissions."
The Evolution Of An Eco-Prophet
By Sharon Begley | NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Nov 9, 2009
'The potential for soils to absorb more of the CO2 that our utilities, factories, and vehicles spew poses a dilemma for Gore, one of two where his scientific and political instincts collide. With better management, soils could sequester much more carbon than they do now. The question is how much more. Soils scientist Rattan Lal of Ohio State University was surprised to get a call last summer ("Vice President Gore would like to talk to you") that began, "I have 15 or 20 questions about soils and climate for you." Lal calculates that if more farmers adopted mulching, no-till farming, and the use of cover crops and manure, 3,700 million acres worldwide could sequester 1 gigaton per year of CO2, roughly 12 percent of annual global emissions. Other experts are even more sanguine. "If we feed the biology and manage grasslands appropriately, we could sequester as much carbon as we emit," says Timothy LaSalle, CEO of the Rodale Institute, who presented at two summits. The political clash is this: if you tell people soils can be managed to suck up lots of our carbon emissions, it sounds like a get-out-of-jail-free card, and could decrease what little enthusiasm there is for reducing those emissions—as one of Gore's assistants told LaSalle in asking him to dial down his estimate. (He didn't.)
To his credit, Gore sides with the science, letting the political chips fall where they may. He writes that soils could sequester an additional 15 percent of annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. That could cut 50 parts per million of CO2 from the atmosphere over the next 50 years. (We are now at 387, up from 280 before the industrial era, with 450 ppm or even less a dangerous level.) To encourage changes in agriculture that would foster carbon sequestration, Gore advocates moving away from price supports and toward paying farmers for "how much carbon they can put into and keep in their soil," he says.
Two admissions by Penny Wong
Reading the entrails on Penny Wong's statements on 4 Corners last night is instructive:
She said two things about the prospect of soil carbon offsets: "We need more research on that. And we need it to be counted in the international accounting rules so that it counts towards Australia's target."
"We need more research on that" is the classic filibuster strategy. Politicians know it well. If you have a live issue that has supporters and you want to slow it down or kill it, refer it to a subcommittee where it can die from lack of oxygen. Or bury it in 'research' - 3 year trials that take a further 2 years to see the light of day. By which time who will notice?
Penny Wong fails to feel the urgency. Science fails to feel the urgency.
By putting off a decision on Agriculture til 2013, she is prepared to wait 4 years while Climate Change gets worse and soil carbon could be hard at work slowing it down.
Another way to strangle an unwanted initiative is to demand thad it meet impossible standards. It is clear that the international community have condemned the Kyoto Protocols as irrelevant for Agriculture. why continue to refer to them - bring out your dead: additionality, permanence, measurement...
She said two things about the prospect of soil carbon offsets: "We need more research on that. And we need it to be counted in the international accounting rules so that it counts towards Australia's target."
"We need more research on that" is the classic filibuster strategy. Politicians know it well. If you have a live issue that has supporters and you want to slow it down or kill it, refer it to a subcommittee where it can die from lack of oxygen. Or bury it in 'research' - 3 year trials that take a further 2 years to see the light of day. By which time who will notice?
Penny Wong fails to feel the urgency. Science fails to feel the urgency.
By putting off a decision on Agriculture til 2013, she is prepared to wait 4 years while Climate Change gets worse and soil carbon could be hard at work slowing it down.
Another way to strangle an unwanted initiative is to demand thad it meet impossible standards. It is clear that the international community have condemned the Kyoto Protocols as irrelevant for Agriculture. why continue to refer to them - bring out your dead: additionality, permanence, measurement...
IPCC Lead Author plugs soil carbon offsets
DR DAVID KAROLY of Earth Sciences, Melbourne, declared for soil carbon offsets last night on 4 Corners: "Agriculture is also a massive opportunity in terms of not only reducing emissions but storing carbon through changes in agricultural practice because there are opportunities to store carbon in soils, or to store carbon through changes in vegetation." He was speaking on Sarah Ferguson's report "Malcolm and the Malcontents", first broadcast 9 November 2009.
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Peter Andrews is a landscape psychic.
Former Governor General, Major General Michael Jeffrey delivered the first "Farming For The Planet" Oration at the Carbon Conference & Expo Official Dinner.(Extracts will be posted soon.) He also presented Peter Andrews with a plaque commemorating his induction into the Hall of Heroes of the New Agricultural Revolution.
The dedication is as follows:
Peter Andrews is a landscape psychic. He sees things in Nature that the rest of us cannot. He has made a significant contribution to our understanding of the unique landscape that we have in our care, at significant personal cost. He has inspired many to follow the Natural Sequence. But Nature cannot wait for heresy to become canon law. For unwavering pursuit of his vision of the nation’s waterways and soils restored to their natural potential we declare… Peter Andrews A Hero of the New Agricultural Revolution.
Christine Jones is A Hero of the New Agricultural Revolution.
Christine Jones is a hero to many, many people. Even those who disagree with her theories cannot disregard her impact and the impetus she has given to the transition to sustainable agriculture in this country. At the Landcare conference in Yass a fortnight ago we presented Christine with a plaque to signify the important role she plays in the growing community coalescing around the philosophy of Natural Farming.
-1.jpg)
The dedication on the Plaque reads:
Dr Christine Jones risked all to realise her vision of the nation’s grasslands and farmland perpetually green and their soils rich with carbon. Her great compassion for the land and those who work on it led her to develop many successful theories to explain the rapid accumulaton of carbon in soil. Her ability to communicate the drama of the soil carbon story inspired many to dedicate their energy o the soil carbon solution in an era when they are most needed. Now. C
-1.jpg)
The dedication on the Plaque reads:
Dr Christine Jones risked all to realise her vision of the nation’s grasslands and farmland perpetually green and their soils rich with carbon. Her great compassion for the land and those who work on it led her to develop many successful theories to explain the rapid accumulaton of carbon in soil. Her ability to communicate the drama of the soil carbon story inspired many to dedicate their energy o the soil carbon solution in an era when they are most needed. Now. C
"The best conference I have ever been to."
NOTE: SLIDES FROM CONFERENCE WLL BE AVAILABLE SOON - WATCH THIS SPACE
"The best conference I have ever been to." This is the word from John Lawrie, soils expert and CWCMA stalwart, referring to the Carbon Farming Conference & Expo this week at Borenore, near Orange NSW. More than 400 attended the Coference or the half-day "Soil Carbon 101 Workshop" or the dinner or all three. Exhibitors numbers were up 100%. Attendance at the 101 workshop rose from 30 to 100 this year. We had more scientists than ever before. And this was the first of our conferences to attract a former Governor General (Major General Michael Jeffery).
The event had many emotional high-points (for me): the induction of Christine Jones and Peter Andrews into the Hall of Heroes of the New Agricultural Revolution; the emergence of Paul Newell with his gentle approach to healing the land that he calls "Landsmanship"; the decision by CSIRO's top soil carbon scientist Jeff Baldock to attend every session of the conference (unlike the 'seagull'* approach of some last year); the shockwave that went around the room when Ken Bellamy revealed his new interpretation of the chemistry of photosynthesis; the awe-inspiring and equally shocking implications of Prof. John Crawford's insights into the 'thinking soil'; the presence and the presentations delivered by the two men behind the "Soil Carbon Mythbusters" national tour David Waters and Clive Kirkby; the presentation of a dozen eggs - biodynamic, organic, free range - by farm innovator and visionary Tony Coote to the Carbon Coalition's Michael Kiely; the rain dance master-minded by Nick Ritar; the excitement in the voices of the Carbon Cocky winners when talking about how their attitude to farming has changed... The "hits" of the conference (based on the 'Rest Room Index of Speaker Mentions') were Gary Lewis, Paul Newell, Dr Carole Hungerford, Robert Pekin and Algae.... and 'all these young blokes, how can they know so much at their age?'
The gap between the past and the future is only a moment. But such a moment...
Dr Andrew Rawson seeks divine inspiration to give him an answer to the question we put to him at the end of his Chairman's introduction presentation. The title of his presentation was, 'Does Science feel the Urgency?' He started his address with a sense of urgency: saying we did not want to hear the same-old same-old about SOIL CARBON, such as soil health, water holding capacity, etc. No reciting of the old litany of soil carbon's benefits. Unfortunately broke his own rule when he recited the litany of 'difficulties' or blockages to soil carbon offsets trading - measurement, permanence, additionality, etc., which we thought we had left behind. How difficult it is to see in ourselves that which we can see so clearly in others. His response, when asked - how far have we moved in Soil Carbon Science in 12 months? - he said 'We are another year ahead.' We'll catch up with ourselves soon. There was a genuine clash of ideas between scientists and farmers this year, proof that the experiment in creating a safe debating environment based on respect, integrity and collaboration is working.
* (ie. fly in, mess all over everything and everyone then fly out)
Saturday, October 24, 2009
How much influence has Barnaby Joyce got in the ETS negotiations?
None at the moment. The Nationals are as relevant to the process as some of Barnaby's humourous one liners. You can wrap manure in cellophane, but it is still manure. What is his party's policy on soil carbon credits? Essentially it is: we don't want a bar of anything to do with carbon emissions or credits, etc. because we'll only get screwed by Government taxes on emissions and screwed by merchant bankers on carbon credits. In a debate with John Hewson in June 09 on ABC Radio, Barnaby claimed to be 'on the front foot' with this issue. But his contribution to the debate revealed a startling ignorance of fundamentals. Barnaby confuses soil carbon sequestration with bochar then, realising he is out of rope, changes the subject and then confuses biosecurity with biodiversity, switches to methane and cattle and rambles through a global conspiracy scenario and winds up with a oneliner. He's a monty - he's Jo Bejlke Petersen returned from the grave.
But what has this got to do with the reason the Nationals are boycotting the ETS negotiations? If Barnaby is the Leader in the Senate and he hasn't done his homework on a key issue, who has? Barnaby confirms below that he's as dumb as on this topic. He hasn't made the effort. SO it's either boycott the negotiations or be found out...
(Someone told me that they went to school with Barnaby and would I like an introduction? I said "Yes, of course. I like a good laugh.")
TRANSCRIPT:
Barnaby Joyce: Well it's so marvellous, why hadn't we thought of that? Well the reason is, we have, and everybody's aware of the terra preta soils of Amazonia and it's a fact that greater carbon sequestration for soil improves productivity. There is a whole range of areas in Australia where it would be impossible to provide that, because just the structure of the soil wouldn't allow the sequestration of the carbon. You'd more likely have charcoal sitting on the top, which would be interesting in a bushfire.
Geraldine Doogue: How do you mean?
Barnaby Joyce: Ah well, you've got to obviously sequestrate the carbon inside the soil. If you can't get inside the soil, and there's a lot of places where that's just not possible, Geraldine, then your carbon, which would probably be in the form of charcoal, would be sequestrated on top of the soil, and unless you want to do it via – you see some of the issues in this argument by John – for instance, it is a fact that there is more carbon sequestrated in summer grasses in summer-growing pastures than there is in a dry sclerophyll forest. So if we were to follow this path, you would have to come forward with a policy. If you were going to be fair dinkum and upfront about it, that would pull over dry sclerophyll forest and plant Buffalo grass, Mitchell grass, summer pastures, possibly lucerne, and this doesn't work into the other side of the agenda of this debate, which is also – once you say that, they say 'There's also the biosecurity argument'. No-one ever talks about that, however, but we seem to ignore that fact.
What I don't believe, however, is that people are prepared, or the economics behind this, is about farmers getting an income stream. I think the economics behind this is that ultimately this program is going to make money, it is a tax, and Dr Hewson more than anybody else would understand what happens to people who introduce new taxes. And the idea that the farmers are going to somehow in Australia rise up, change the whole concept of the Kyoto Protocol which disaffirms soil carbon sequestration, is peculiar. But what I do see is an article such as Ben Macintyre yesterday in The Australian, where they talk about the evils of cattle, and how cattle now are next thing on the agenda that have to be removed. And what I can see our nation moving towards is a program of economic oblivion. I think we're being romantic in the extreme if we believe that at the end of this debate Australia is the one making money. No, at the end of this debate, Australia will be the one losing money, and when poverty walks in the door, your affection for a carbon trading system will fly out the window.
TRANSCRIPT ENDS
(Sound of laughter stage left.)
But what has this got to do with the reason the Nationals are boycotting the ETS negotiations? If Barnaby is the Leader in the Senate and he hasn't done his homework on a key issue, who has? Barnaby confirms below that he's as dumb as on this topic. He hasn't made the effort. SO it's either boycott the negotiations or be found out...
(Someone told me that they went to school with Barnaby and would I like an introduction? I said "Yes, of course. I like a good laugh.")
TRANSCRIPT:
Barnaby Joyce: Well it's so marvellous, why hadn't we thought of that? Well the reason is, we have, and everybody's aware of the terra preta soils of Amazonia and it's a fact that greater carbon sequestration for soil improves productivity. There is a whole range of areas in Australia where it would be impossible to provide that, because just the structure of the soil wouldn't allow the sequestration of the carbon. You'd more likely have charcoal sitting on the top, which would be interesting in a bushfire.
Geraldine Doogue: How do you mean?
Barnaby Joyce: Ah well, you've got to obviously sequestrate the carbon inside the soil. If you can't get inside the soil, and there's a lot of places where that's just not possible, Geraldine, then your carbon, which would probably be in the form of charcoal, would be sequestrated on top of the soil, and unless you want to do it via – you see some of the issues in this argument by John – for instance, it is a fact that there is more carbon sequestrated in summer grasses in summer-growing pastures than there is in a dry sclerophyll forest. So if we were to follow this path, you would have to come forward with a policy. If you were going to be fair dinkum and upfront about it, that would pull over dry sclerophyll forest and plant Buffalo grass, Mitchell grass, summer pastures, possibly lucerne, and this doesn't work into the other side of the agenda of this debate, which is also – once you say that, they say 'There's also the biosecurity argument'. No-one ever talks about that, however, but we seem to ignore that fact.
What I don't believe, however, is that people are prepared, or the economics behind this, is about farmers getting an income stream. I think the economics behind this is that ultimately this program is going to make money, it is a tax, and Dr Hewson more than anybody else would understand what happens to people who introduce new taxes. And the idea that the farmers are going to somehow in Australia rise up, change the whole concept of the Kyoto Protocol which disaffirms soil carbon sequestration, is peculiar. But what I do see is an article such as Ben Macintyre yesterday in The Australian, where they talk about the evils of cattle, and how cattle now are next thing on the agenda that have to be removed. And what I can see our nation moving towards is a program of economic oblivion. I think we're being romantic in the extreme if we believe that at the end of this debate Australia is the one making money. No, at the end of this debate, Australia will be the one losing money, and when poverty walks in the door, your affection for a carbon trading system will fly out the window.
TRANSCRIPT ENDS
(Sound of laughter stage left.)
Science seduced to speak more than it knows
Other 'poison pills' masquerading as "Sound Science" are scientific opinions on soils' 'potential' to sequester carbon (supposedly based on peer-reviewed science but actually based on nothing at all except predisposition to believe or 'faith') , the insistence that the "fractions" must be measured because some of them are less stable than others (entirely irrelevant to trade because buyers are not interested in which carbon molecules are sequestered, only the gross amount), and the insistence that Bulk Density be measured to accurately determine the tonnages sequestered - an expensive process (and one that is entirely unnecessary in a trading environment where the sellers can agree to set Bulk Density at 1.0, sacrificing a percentage return to favour the buyer, to reduce uncertainty and avoid a costly process at the same time.) These and the thousands of other uncertainties attached to soil carbon can be equalised via the market mechanism of price. The misplaced belief in Sound Science's ability to provide a risk free market system for soil carbon is not an evil plot but a simple mistake: Politicians don't have enough headspace to devote to learning the soil carbon story, preferring to 'outsource' the judgement necessary to science (mistaking the task as being technical instead of commercial). Some scientists, in turn, are quite willing to give opinions on matters outside their competence (such as the operation of markets - ie. it will cost too much to measure, it will not be worth the expense because our soils cannot sequester significant amounts, etc.) - and they accepted the brief without questioning whether their actions were legitimate or relevant when the name of the game was "Trade". Yet decisions were taken in the name of "Sound Science" which have delayed "Trade" by diverting research funds into areas which may appear relevant to a scientist, but we believe are 'nice to know', not 'need-to-know'. A senior scientist involved in this process said, "I have know idea what the market will look like." But someone in the Minister's office assumed that the scientist did because they allowed them to make decisions which required knowledge of how a market works. Neither politicians nor scientists have 'knowledge of marketplace dynamics' on their Job Specification. Occasionally a Malcolm Turnbull appears. And he has never had a problem with soil carbon as a tradable commodity.
Sounds good, but lookout for "sound science" poison pill
Penny Wong is a clever woman. She had a glint in her eye when she referred to Agriculture in the press conference after the first day of negotiations with the Opposition on the Emissions Trading Scheme. She had convinced Ian Macfarlane that the Opposition will get what it wants on Agriculture. We know this by the gushing tone of "we'll stand up for Agriculture" and "we won't weaken" that Mr Macfarlane adopted in Lucy Knight's piece in The Land. It sounds like the Opposition will accept increased costs of energy and fuel in return for 'offsets'. Macfarlane sounds upbeat about the possibility of 'offsets': "Offsets are an area where there could be huge money in it for farmers... An ETS is going to cost rural industries money... but to counter-balance that, if you can give them an offset then they could come out net better off." But does Ian know the way Penny can give with one hand and take away with the other? It's a trick called "Sound Science" or "Robust Science" and it can be set to go off in any one of a number of areas. It works by demanding that Soil Carbon pass a test that is impossible for it to pass. For instance, measurement. "Science has not yet found a reliable way to measure soil carbon for the purposes of trade." The test: Find a method of recording exactly how much carbon is in a given piece of land. Reason task is impossible: carbon cycles (fluxes) in and out of soil so measurements vary by location and time of day. Official Position: Wait for Science to find a method. (Task impossible.) Evidence of Poison Pill: Science accepts Remote sensing (satellite imaging) ground-truthed by core sampling as sufficiently accurate for the exacting levels of robustness required for scientific research. Why does it have to be even more exact for purposes of trade? Every other category of carbon emission or sequestration under Kyoto is managed by estimation. Why not soils? (No one from the Government has answered this question, ever.) So Ian Macfarlane should be wary of looking like Neville Chamberlain returning from Berlin with Hitler's signature on a letter saying he would never attack Britain less than 12 months before he attacked Britain.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
DR CHRISTINE JONES, HERO OF THE NEW AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION
We were privileged to have an opportunity to recognise the contribution of the founder and intellectual leader of the soil carbon movement, Dr Christine Jones. The dedication on the plaque says:
"Dr Christine Jones risked all to realise her vision of the nation’s grasslands and farmland perpetually green and their soils rich with carbon. Her great compassion for the land and those who work on it compelled her to develop many successful theories to explain the rapid accumulation of carbon in soil. Her ability to communicate the drama of the soil carbon story has inspired many to dedicate their energy to the soil carbon solution in an era when they are most needed. Now.
CHRISTINE JONES
HERO OF THE NEW AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION
Gratefully Acknowledged By Members of the Carbon Coalition"
The presentation took place at the Yass Area Network of Landcare Groups' "Your Land, Your Soil, Your Future"
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Corey's head was spinning
After a grilling on Country Hour by the enraged agriculturalists who are attracted to call radio stations and vent, the Climate Institute's Corey Watts (ex-ACF, now the Regional Projects Manager at the Institute), told me his 'head was spinning'. Corey is an important player in this field because he is the best chance environmentalists have got to get a seat at the table we call Agriculture. Instead of coming from an ideologically-fixed position, Corey is trying to understand. So we'll give him the benefit of the doubt for the 'classic bloopers' in his soils section of his recent report "Towards Climate-Friendly Farming: Policies, Issues and Strategies for Low-Emissions Agriculture & Rural Land Use". There is significant evidence of over-exposure to conventional science and its prejudices: "There is a great deal of enthusiasm amongst landholders for soil carbon as a new commodity." Enthusiasm is code for 'irrational exuberance based on superstition and blind faith'. It is the classic put-down language. He goes on: "Indeed, [soil carbon] sometimes seems touted as something of a panacea." This is code for 'silver bullet' and leads directly to 'snake oil salesman'. Rather than listen to enthusiasts, we should observe what "best available science" says - and it "suggests clear thinking is needed before the real potential can be tapped." That is opposed to the woolly thinking of the enthusiasts. We've heard it all before. Australia is different: "Globally, the theoretical potential of soils to sequester carbon is significant. Moreover, the productivity benefits of soil carbon can make a powerful case for encouraging practices that improve soil health, though this is not always straightforward. In practical terms, however, the soil’s capacity to permanently store carbon is limited by a host of factors, most especially rainfall. Given Australia’s erratic conditions together with declining rainfall in southern regions, substantial long-term soil carbon management is generally less reliable here than in North America or Europe." Such generalisations are not useful unless you are seeking to discourage 'enthusiasts'. But those looking at the glass half-full see great reason to be enthusiastic about Australia's capacity to sequester carbon. The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists said yesterday, "As a consequence of the loss of soil carbon in agricultural systems, many Australian soils now have a significant capacity to store additional carbon." The Climate Institute's report covers all the bases we have come to expect from defenders of the old regime:
"Accurately measuring soil carbon can be very expensive and very tricky, and there are significant risks of inadvertent release." And a final genuflection to 'sound science,' and thumbs up to biochar with no evidence of its viability. Now, if enthusiasm is cause for doubting one's credibility, biochar is full of it.
"Accurately measuring soil carbon can be very expensive and very tricky, and there are significant risks of inadvertent release." And a final genuflection to 'sound science,' and thumbs up to biochar with no evidence of its viability. Now, if enthusiasm is cause for doubting one's credibility, biochar is full of it.
Halfway to Paradigm Heaven
“The science now tells us that it will be next to impossible for nations to achieve the scale of reductions required in sufficient time to avoid dangerous climate change unless we also remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it in vegetation and soils…The power of terrestrial carbon to contribute to the climate change solution is profound.”
“Optimising Carbon in the Australian Landscape” - Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, October 2009
They say that nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of a hanging. The WGCS have noticed the 900 gorilla in the room... 'the Legacy Load' - the fact that extraction on a massive scale is urgently needed to stall runaway Climate Change long enough for clean energy to gain critical mass. The Group also notes that the massive potential of 'terrestrial carbon' make it capable of offsetting 25% of our emissions, a huge economic win. It argues for the inclusion of agriculture in the CPRS as an offset provider, but only after the international community agree new rules on definitions and measurement.
But can the world afford the time it will take to draw up new convention, and come to a position on measurement, permanence and additionality that will not offend the purists. The Group says the voluntary market should also be built on 'robust design principles' that guarantee 'permanence' and address 'additionality issues'. Here we see the optimism of those who have only recently entered the swamp of sol carbon sequestration. These are Kyoto terms. Kyoto was designed to keep soil out. We will need more than a new city name to change the paradigm that governs IPCC mindsets. We need new definitions of these terms that make it easy for soil to get in. The definitions currently in vogue were developed to meet the needs of industrial polluters, not those business engaged with biological cycles.
Even people working in the biophysical area were seduced by the idea that soil would never fit in, because of the dominance of the Kyoto mindset (which had Mick Keogh bluffed over at the Farm Institute) but this was because they had little knowledge of soil biology, which is the powerhouse of soil carbon activity. And they hadn't seen the gorilla... the four aces in their hand.
Agriculture doesn't need to ask permission any more. The genie is out of the bottle. If the silently depressed masses - suffering from the sense of despair that they can't share with each other - hear about this 'cure' for Climate Change, they will
demand it, ripping up the rule books and sacking the offices of the rule makers.
So the Wentworth Group have made the leap across the chasm separating the to paradigms of soil carbon, and made it halfway. Let's see them complete the job - sit down with like-minded folk and use their considerable talents to help fashion the solutions needed. Or simply endorse some of the many solutions that are bubbling up from below, where the microbes grow.
“Optimising Carbon in the Australian Landscape” - Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, October 2009
They say that nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of a hanging. The WGCS have noticed the 900 gorilla in the room... 'the Legacy Load' - the fact that extraction on a massive scale is urgently needed to stall runaway Climate Change long enough for clean energy to gain critical mass. The Group also notes that the massive potential of 'terrestrial carbon' make it capable of offsetting 25% of our emissions, a huge economic win. It argues for the inclusion of agriculture in the CPRS as an offset provider, but only after the international community agree new rules on definitions and measurement.
But can the world afford the time it will take to draw up new convention, and come to a position on measurement, permanence and additionality that will not offend the purists. The Group says the voluntary market should also be built on 'robust design principles' that guarantee 'permanence' and address 'additionality issues'. Here we see the optimism of those who have only recently entered the swamp of sol carbon sequestration. These are Kyoto terms. Kyoto was designed to keep soil out. We will need more than a new city name to change the paradigm that governs IPCC mindsets. We need new definitions of these terms that make it easy for soil to get in. The definitions currently in vogue were developed to meet the needs of industrial polluters, not those business engaged with biological cycles.
Even people working in the biophysical area were seduced by the idea that soil would never fit in, because of the dominance of the Kyoto mindset (which had Mick Keogh bluffed over at the Farm Institute) but this was because they had little knowledge of soil biology, which is the powerhouse of soil carbon activity. And they hadn't seen the gorilla... the four aces in their hand.
Agriculture doesn't need to ask permission any more. The genie is out of the bottle. If the silently depressed masses - suffering from the sense of despair that they can't share with each other - hear about this 'cure' for Climate Change, they will
demand it, ripping up the rule books and sacking the offices of the rule makers.
So the Wentworth Group have made the leap across the chasm separating the to paradigms of soil carbon, and made it halfway. Let's see them complete the job - sit down with like-minded folk and use their considerable talents to help fashion the solutions needed. Or simply endorse some of the many solutions that are bubbling up from below, where the microbes grow.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Christine Jones: Carbon Farming Conference "an excellent program, with a top line-up of speakers"
Dr Christine Jones is unable to be with us at this years Carbon Farming Conference (November 4-5, 2009), but says, "I must say that it is an excellent program, with a top line-up of speakers, for which you are to be sincerely congratulated." There are so many speakers we would like to bring you in the Carbon Farming Conference that we would need 10 days to cover them all.
The themes for this year are Urgency and Practical Carbon Farming.
Topics and speakers in order are:
A Year On: Does Science Feel The Urgency? (Dr Andrew Rawson, DCCEW)
Soil Carbon Credits Without the Debits? Carbon Farming After Copenhagen - Will Australia Follow The USA? (Bryan Clark, Grain Growers Association)
Water: Foundation of Soil Carbon (Peter Andrews, Natural Sequence Farming – Farmer)
Engine Exhaust Fumes As Fertiliser (Gary Lewis, Bio-Agtive Emissions Technology, Canada)
Is Science Taking Us Closer To Trade? (Dr Jeff Baldock, CSIRO)
The Matrix Method of Estimating Soil Carbon Potential (Dr Brian Murphy DECCEW)
Can Soil Choose To Sequester Carbon? (Prof. John Crawford, University of Sydney)
Manage Your Microbes to Make Carbon. (Dr Maarten Stapper, Consultant Soil Biologist)
Compost 101: Practical Steps For Beginners (Rhonda Daly, YLAD Living Soils - Farmer)
Bioferts: Carbon, Productivity and Profit (Bart Davidson, BioNutrient Solutions – ex-Farmer)
“Landsmanship”: NSF without bulldozers - Paul Newell, Landsmanship - Farmer)
Practical Permaculture For Carbon Farmers (Nick Ritar, Milkwood Permaculture - Fparmer)
Algae For Fuel and Fertiliser (Michael Longhurst, Central West CMA)
Biochar? Promises Promises? (David Waters, NSW Department of Industry & Investment)
Gala Dinner – Chairman: Hon. Tony Windsor, MP., Farmer and long-time supporter of the Soil Carbon Movemet
The First Annual “Farming For Planet Earth” Oration - Speaker: Former Governor General Major-General Michael Jeffery AC CVO MC
Hall Of Heroes Inductees awarded
Healthy Soil, Healthy Food, Healthy People, Healthy World (Dr Carole Hungerford, GP)
Local Food Lowers Emissions - Linking Carbon Farmers and Consumers (Robert Pekin, Food Connect- Ex-Farmer)
Launching Ecological Agriculture Australia: Food. Farming. Knowledge. Ecology. Ethics. (Kerry Cochrane, CSU)
A New Theory of Photosynthesis: Making Water Out Of Air (Ken Bellamy, Institute of Bioengineering)
New Technology Solutions for Soil Carbon Trading (Ichsani Wheeler, University of Sydney)
"Storing Carbon At Three Levels By Integrating No Kill Cropping" (Bruce Maynard, Narromine) Farmer
A Carbon Cocky One Year On (Graham Ross, Bathurst) Farmer
The Power of A Goal (Tony Coote, Braidwood) Farmer
The Drought Proof Property (Tim & Karen Wright, Uralla) Farmer
A Revolutionary Theory of Humus (Clive Kirkby, CSIRO)
Soil Carbon Market-Based Instrument Trial (Kate Lorimer-Ward, NSW DII)
Start Banking Your Soil Carbon Now (Louisa Kiely, Carbon Farmers of Australia, Farmer)
Call 02 6374 0329 or email louisa@carboncoalition.com.au
The Soil Carbon Bank Is Open For Business!
“Start Banking Your Soil Carbon Now (Even if you’re not interested in selling right away)”
The Soil Carbon Bank allows farmers to take a wait and see approach with soil carbon trading without losing any of the value they are storing in their soil. It is part of a Program being launched at the upcoming Carbon Farming Conference & Expo at the National Field Day Site at Borenore, near Orange NSW, 4-5th November, 2009. To open a ‘Savings Account,’’’ a grower must have a baseline measurement so that they have a starting point For information about the Conference or to apply for Baselining, call (02) 6374 0329
GROWER PROTECTION PLAN
To reduce risks and guard against losses:
• 5 year contracts
• “Bulk Density” set at 1.0, which reduces the cost of measurement.
• Each grower can sell only half the soil carbon they grow
• balance is held in case of losses
• each grower will be protected by being part of a pool of millions of units that can make good losses
• 75% of earnings are held in trust until the end of the contract
• half interest returned to grower; balance used to cover costs of organising hundreds of small parcels, especially when order size are in millions of units, auditing and managing the pool, marketing them, and tracking them through a register, dealing with regulators.
• all administrative costs have been capped at 10%, which is 20% lower than the American system was charging until
recently when charges fell from 30% to 15%.
CARBON FARMERS OF AUSTRALIA
• Not-for-profit.
• ‘Membership’ organisation
• Growers’ representatives and agents.
• Not brokers or promoters
• Advise growers on risks and rights.
• Representation in disputes/negotiations
• Maximise farmers financial returns.
• Assist farmers make decisions and between competing soil carbon offset scheme promoters.
Services include
• soil carbon ‘baselining’ (core sampling to set the ‘floor’ or starting point);
• advice on contracts;
• advice on growing soil carbon quickly;
•general soil carbon education and training.
Grew out of the Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming which has been
camApaigning for 4 years in pursuit of its “Mission: To see soil carbon traded and farmers paid fairly
for what they grow.”
02 6374 0 329
The Soil Carbon Bank allows farmers to take a wait and see approach with soil carbon trading without losing any of the value they are storing in their soil. It is part of a Program being launched at the upcoming Carbon Farming Conference & Expo at the National Field Day Site at Borenore, near Orange NSW, 4-5th November, 2009. To open a ‘Savings Account,’’’ a grower must have a baseline measurement so that they have a starting point For information about the Conference or to apply for Baselining, call (02) 6374 0329
GROWER PROTECTION PLAN
To reduce risks and guard against losses:
• 5 year contracts
• “Bulk Density” set at 1.0, which reduces the cost of measurement.
• Each grower can sell only half the soil carbon they grow
• balance is held in case of losses
• each grower will be protected by being part of a pool of millions of units that can make good losses
• 75% of earnings are held in trust until the end of the contract
• half interest returned to grower; balance used to cover costs of organising hundreds of small parcels, especially when order size are in millions of units, auditing and managing the pool, marketing them, and tracking them through a register, dealing with regulators.
• all administrative costs have been capped at 10%, which is 20% lower than the American system was charging until
recently when charges fell from 30% to 15%.
CARBON FARMERS OF AUSTRALIA
• Not-for-profit.
• ‘Membership’ organisation
• Growers’ representatives and agents.
• Not brokers or promoters
• Advise growers on risks and rights.
• Representation in disputes/negotiations
• Maximise farmers financial returns.
• Assist farmers make decisions and between competing soil carbon offset scheme promoters.
Services include
• soil carbon ‘baselining’ (core sampling to set the ‘floor’ or starting point);
• advice on contracts;
• advice on growing soil carbon quickly;
•general soil carbon education and training.
Grew out of the Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming which has been
camApaigning for 4 years in pursuit of its “Mission: To see soil carbon traded and farmers paid fairly
for what they grow.”
02 6374 0 329
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Hooray for the NSW Farmers' Association
Hooray for the NSW Farmers' Association. It has a soil carbon policy:
"NSW Farmers’ Association is calling on the Government to exclude Agriculture from emissions liability under the CPRS and to investigate policy that would enable farmers to sell carbon credits created in soil, crops and pasture." (The NFF is not so definitive in its support.)
The NSW Farmers' Association's former president Jock Laurie was the first industry figure to endorse the Carbon Coalition's stand on soil carbon credits. Despite this, the Association was unable to get a motion up at Conference, due to the grumpy old denialists clogging the Association's debates. We presented new President Charles Armstrong with a copy of the Carbon Farming Handbook at Gulgong during his recent western whistle-stop tour.
The Association has a membership drive on - as sign of the times. Support the Association that supports soil carbon credits.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
The ex-Governor General's Task Force looks to Soil Carbon Credits
Major General Michael Jeffrey, the former Governor General who has made it a personal mission to address what he calls a "national emergency" over Australia's natural water supplies, has soil carbon sequestration and trading in offsets as a key part of his strategy.
The NSF Task Force is not unlike the Carbon Coalition, with one difference: in our movement no one solution predominates. In the world of NSF, one solution has precedence. The "Dialogue at Kioloa" near Bateman's Bay last weekend, which resulted in the article you circulated to your members, was attended by around 100 people of diverse backgrounds and interests. They were united by one thing: an invitation from Major General Michael Jeffrey, the former Governor General, who has a personal mission of seeing Peter Andrews principles put into practice because he believes the nation is facing a water crisis. A presentation to senior federal pubic servants at Peter's former home Tarwyn Park in the Hunter Valley was made by rangelands soils specialists, biofertiliser experts, and soil ameliorant producers. These were presented as part of an holistic solution to water issues, with Peter's techniques the centrepiece of the portfolio. It was agreed that water is the gatekeeper for everything else, but that it is not a solution on its own. The outcome of the day was a decision to assemble a Task Force to implement this vision. The Major General declared that the secret to success was in understanding how all the parts fitted together and the Carbon Coalition provided a solution in the form of the attached. (Farmland Ecosystem Restoration Planner, aka SCOT: The Soil Carbon Optimisation Tool.) Another issue the Coalition sees arising from the weekend, is 'adoption' of the practices by farmers. Here soil carbon credits are seen by the Task Force as the catalyst. The Carbon Coalition - which has always been a supporter of Peter Andrews and Natural Sequence Farming as a carbon-stimulating technique - is behind the Task Force 100%. To further complicate the matter, a new association has been formed in this space - Ecological Agriculture Australia - which acts as a resource for those interested one, any or all of the 5 Pillars of the Association: Food, Farming, Ecology, Ethics, and Education. The contact there is Kerry Cockrane at CSU Orange. The Carbon Coalition is active in the working party establishing this organisation. This is because the Coalition's laser-like focus on soil carbon credits is a narrow field of endeavour which aims to have a universal impact across the broad area of focus of the Task Force (Restoring Farm Landscapes) and the multi-faceted ambitions of EcoAg Australia (bringing farmers into closer relationships with environment and community). The Carbon Coalition is integral to both of the organisations because we are symbiotic.
Scenes from the Dialogue at Kioloa
Where two worlds meet: Rhonda Daly from YLAD Living Soils - a major sponsor and promoter of thought leaders and progressive ideas in Natural Farming - worked alongside the CSIRO's Dr Brian Keating, Chief of Sustainable Ecosystems. Brian's organisation was a major sponsor of the Dialogue.
Tony Coote is an accomplished carbon farmer who would be a black belt 5th Dan were it Karate. He has established an Institute to foster the next generation of "Regenerative Farming Advocates" (my words, not his). He has a prodigious command of the written word.
Peter Andrews must have felt like a boy on his birthday - everyone was there for him. Peter is very aware of the delicate balance the Task Force is trying to achieve. He keeps repeating, like a Mantra, that the challenge is for all to work together with 'integrity and cooperation'.
Adrian Laurie of LaurieCo worked in a discussion group with Caroline Curry of Public Private Sector Partnerships... Adrian is contributing his knowledge of biological farming and Caroline her abilities as a corporate lawyer.
Like a real life Mt Rushmore, this unusual angle of the group foto being taken... prominent among the heads are Tom Nicholas (Carbon Communicator), Sam Archer (National Stewardship Initiative), David Mason-Jones (author), Brian Keating (CSIRO Chief), Graham Hand (STIPA Native Grasses), a couple of Professors, and Ed Turner (from Frog Rock Wines and Mudgee Composting.)
The NSF Task Force is not unlike the Carbon Coalition, with one difference: in our movement no one solution predominates. In the world of NSF, one solution has precedence. The "Dialogue at Kioloa" near Bateman's Bay last weekend, which resulted in the article you circulated to your members, was attended by around 100 people of diverse backgrounds and interests. They were united by one thing: an invitation from Major General Michael Jeffrey, the former Governor General, who has a personal mission of seeing Peter Andrews principles put into practice because he believes the nation is facing a water crisis. A presentation to senior federal pubic servants at Peter's former home Tarwyn Park in the Hunter Valley was made by rangelands soils specialists, biofertiliser experts, and soil ameliorant producers. These were presented as part of an holistic solution to water issues, with Peter's techniques the centrepiece of the portfolio. It was agreed that water is the gatekeeper for everything else, but that it is not a solution on its own. The outcome of the day was a decision to assemble a Task Force to implement this vision. The Major General declared that the secret to success was in understanding how all the parts fitted together and the Carbon Coalition provided a solution in the form of the attached. (Farmland Ecosystem Restoration Planner, aka SCOT: The Soil Carbon Optimisation Tool.) Another issue the Coalition sees arising from the weekend, is 'adoption' of the practices by farmers. Here soil carbon credits are seen by the Task Force as the catalyst. The Carbon Coalition - which has always been a supporter of Peter Andrews and Natural Sequence Farming as a carbon-stimulating technique - is behind the Task Force 100%. To further complicate the matter, a new association has been formed in this space - Ecological Agriculture Australia - which acts as a resource for those interested one, any or all of the 5 Pillars of the Association: Food, Farming, Ecology, Ethics, and Education. The contact there is Kerry Cockrane at CSU Orange. The Carbon Coalition is active in the working party establishing this organisation. This is because the Coalition's laser-like focus on soil carbon credits is a narrow field of endeavour which aims to have a universal impact across the broad area of focus of the Task Force (Restoring Farm Landscapes) and the multi-faceted ambitions of EcoAg Australia (bringing farmers into closer relationships with environment and community). The Carbon Coalition is integral to both of the organisations because we are symbiotic.
Scenes from the Dialogue at Kioloa
Where two worlds meet: Rhonda Daly from YLAD Living Soils - a major sponsor and promoter of thought leaders and progressive ideas in Natural Farming - worked alongside the CSIRO's Dr Brian Keating, Chief of Sustainable Ecosystems. Brian's organisation was a major sponsor of the Dialogue.
Tony Coote is an accomplished carbon farmer who would be a black belt 5th Dan were it Karate. He has established an Institute to foster the next generation of "Regenerative Farming Advocates" (my words, not his). He has a prodigious command of the written word.
Peter Andrews must have felt like a boy on his birthday - everyone was there for him. Peter is very aware of the delicate balance the Task Force is trying to achieve. He keeps repeating, like a Mantra, that the challenge is for all to work together with 'integrity and cooperation'.
Adrian Laurie of LaurieCo worked in a discussion group with Caroline Curry of Public Private Sector Partnerships... Adrian is contributing his knowledge of biological farming and Caroline her abilities as a corporate lawyer.
Like a real life Mt Rushmore, this unusual angle of the group foto being taken... prominent among the heads are Tom Nicholas (Carbon Communicator), Sam Archer (National Stewardship Initiative), David Mason-Jones (author), Brian Keating (CSIRO Chief), Graham Hand (STIPA Native Grasses), a couple of Professors, and Ed Turner (from Frog Rock Wines and Mudgee Composting.)
Friday, September 18, 2009
GOOD NEWS - SOIL CARBON IS "GO!"
GOOD NEWS - SOIL CARBON IS "GO!": A new tradable product called
an "Australian Removal Unit" is being offered through the Prime
Carbon "Soil Enhancement and Carbon Sequestration (SECS)
Program. SECS is a process of supported land management change
resulting in carbon storage in soil." The Carbon Coalition is
helping with this pioneering opportunity because its success
will achieve the Coalition's Goals: "To see soil carbon traded
as a legitimate offset and farmers paid fairly for what they
grow." Louisa Kiely will explain at the Carbon Farming
Conference at the National Field Day Site, Orange NSW, 4th-5th
November, 2009
FARMERS: START BANKING YOUR SOIL CARBON TONNES NOW!
Whether you want to trade asap or sit on the fence and watch,
don't let valuable soil carbon become untradable because it
isn't registered. You can apply for a Soil Carbon Sequestration
Baseline Survey now. Call 02 6374 0329.
Or mail louisa@carboncoalition.com.au.
an "Australian Removal Unit" is being offered through the Prime
Carbon "Soil Enhancement and Carbon Sequestration (SECS)
Program. SECS is a process of supported land management change
resulting in carbon storage in soil." The Carbon Coalition is
helping with this pioneering opportunity because its success
will achieve the Coalition's Goals: "To see soil carbon traded
as a legitimate offset and farmers paid fairly for what they
grow." Louisa Kiely will explain at the Carbon Farming
Conference at the National Field Day Site, Orange NSW, 4th-5th
November, 2009
FARMERS: START BANKING YOUR SOIL CARBON TONNES NOW!
Whether you want to trade asap or sit on the fence and watch,
don't let valuable soil carbon become untradable because it
isn't registered. You can apply for a Soil Carbon Sequestration
Baseline Survey now. Call 02 6374 0329.
Or mail louisa@carboncoalition.com.au.
RALLY TO THE CAUSE - IT'S CRUNCH TIME!
RALLY TO THE CAUSE - IT'S CRUNCH TIME: The only governments contemplating forcing Agriculture into a punitive cap & trade system to reduce methane and N2O are Australia and NZ. Meanwhile the December Copenhagen Round of Talks could change the game. The USA has negotiated with the UN FAO, the World Bank, the EU, etc. to have Agriculture removed from the Kyoto Protocols and treated separately. The reason: Food Security. These world powers fear major wars will break out over access to land and water within 50 years... We must buy some time... Professor Rattan Lal says we can remove the equivalent of 50 parts per million CO2. WE MUST PUT MAXIMUM PRESSURE ON OUR GOVERNMENT TO JOIN OBAMA'S PUSH TO PRESS THE BUTTON ON SOIL CARBON CREDITS.
YOU CAN DO THAT BY SUPPORTING THE CARBON FARMING CONFERENCE: The 2009 Carbon Farming Conference & Expo is on at the National Field Day Site at Borenore near Orange on the 4th-5th November, 2009. Highlights will be *Peter Andrews*
(Natural Sequence Farming) and *Maarten Stapper* (ex-CSIRO) - both seen on AUSTRALIAN STORY on ABTV - both heretics of
conventional agricultural science. Peter talks about how water can be managed in the landscape to grow soil carbon and Maarten will describe how soil biology is the primary source of carbon in soils. Also inventor *Gary Lewis* from Canada is bringing his "BioAgtive" device which converts tractor exhaust to a carbon-rich fertiliser and buries it with the seed as it is sown. There will also be the launch of an association called *Ecological Agriculture Australia* and the "Soil-Food-Human
Health" link will be exposed by author *Dr Carole Hungerford*. The gap between city and country is closing via the "Farmer-To-City-Cousins" fresh food program called FoodConnect, brainchild of *Robert Pekin*. With our success in getting $26m in research funds for soil carbon, the CSIRO's *Dr Jeff Baldock* will explain how research will make trading in soil carbon offsets more likely. *Dr Brian Murphy* will reveal his "Matrix" measurement solution and Professor *Alex McBratney's* "on-the-fly" Near-Infrared Spectroscopy will be demonstrated. Newly-appointed Sydney U.*Professor John Crawford* reveals his theory that soil is 'sentient' and acts somewhat like an organism.
(And the Carbon Cocky Competition needs entrants.)
FOR A BROCHURE CALL 02 6374 0329 (www.carbonfarming.net.au)
EXPO: There is lots of exhibition space. We chose the site for that reason. Now we need exhibitors.
FOR A BROCHURE CALL 02 6374 0329 (www.carbonfarming.net.au)
SPONSORSHIP: There are special sponsorship opportunities...
FOR A BROCHURE CALL02 6374 0329 (www.carbonfarming.net.au)
ANDREWS WITHOUT A BULLDOZER: IT'S CALLED "LANDSMANSHIP": a new term to describe an almost 'hands off'
approach to farm landscape and soil health. Paul Newell, a long-time colleague of Peter Andrews, has developed his ideas over
40 years. They are outrageous, but they work. He breaks down and destroys ecological units in order to see what will remedy the situation. Paul Newell will speak at the Soil Carbon Farming Conference.
CAN YOU MAKE WATER FROM AIR? Just tooling about with the formulae for the process of photosynthesis, as you do, Ken Bellamy noticed that there was a Hydrogen atom left over after the two distinct stages of capturing the CO2 and converting it. This led to a curious discovery which has the scientists racing to confirm it scientifically.. Ken Bellamy will speak at this year's Soil Carbon Farming Conference.
THANK YOU for your support - it has been inspirational. Rural Press's Science & Environment Editor Matt Cawood said he believes it is now inevitable that we will win. We wish we felt so confident. The closer we get to the line the more desperate the attempts to derail the solution have become.
WE NEED YOUR HELP - we're not asking for charity. You can show your support by coming to the Conference ($225 for 2 days),
enrol in the half day seminar ($145), become a sponsor (which starts at $1000), take an exhibition stand (start at $550), advertise in the Carbon Farming Handbook (starts at $650) or purchase of the Conference Edition of the Handbook ($55).
You'll get an unforgettable experience. You can get out of bed each morning knowing you are saving the planet - what an awesome feeling. Call us on 02 6374 0329 or email louisa@carboncoalition.com.au
Onwards!
Michael
PS. Please pass this on. NOVEMBER IS CRUNCH TIME - we must send our Government to Copenhagen
willing to join the rest of the world in a soil carbon solution.
PPS.Do you know a company, wealthy individual or philanthropic trust that would value the work that we do and entertain an
approach for support? Please let us know.
PPS. To you, for your help, you are the apple of God's/Gaia's eye.
YOU CAN DO THAT BY SUPPORTING THE CARBON FARMING CONFERENCE: The 2009 Carbon Farming Conference & Expo is on at the National Field Day Site at Borenore near Orange on the 4th-5th November, 2009. Highlights will be *Peter Andrews*
(Natural Sequence Farming) and *Maarten Stapper* (ex-CSIRO) - both seen on AUSTRALIAN STORY on ABTV - both heretics of
conventional agricultural science. Peter talks about how water can be managed in the landscape to grow soil carbon and Maarten will describe how soil biology is the primary source of carbon in soils. Also inventor *Gary Lewis* from Canada is bringing his "BioAgtive" device which converts tractor exhaust to a carbon-rich fertiliser and buries it with the seed as it is sown. There will also be the launch of an association called *Ecological Agriculture Australia* and the "Soil-Food-Human
Health" link will be exposed by author *Dr Carole Hungerford*. The gap between city and country is closing via the "Farmer-To-City-Cousins" fresh food program called FoodConnect, brainchild of *Robert Pekin*. With our success in getting $26m in research funds for soil carbon, the CSIRO's *Dr Jeff Baldock* will explain how research will make trading in soil carbon offsets more likely. *Dr Brian Murphy* will reveal his "Matrix" measurement solution and Professor *Alex McBratney's* "on-the-fly" Near-Infrared Spectroscopy will be demonstrated. Newly-appointed Sydney U.*Professor John Crawford* reveals his theory that soil is 'sentient' and acts somewhat like an organism.
(And the Carbon Cocky Competition needs entrants.)
FOR A BROCHURE CALL 02 6374 0329 (www.carbonfarming.net.au)
EXPO: There is lots of exhibition space. We chose the site for that reason. Now we need exhibitors.
FOR A BROCHURE CALL 02 6374 0329 (www.carbonfarming.net.au)
SPONSORSHIP: There are special sponsorship opportunities...
FOR A BROCHURE CALL02 6374 0329 (www.carbonfarming.net.au)
ANDREWS WITHOUT A BULLDOZER: IT'S CALLED "LANDSMANSHIP": a new term to describe an almost 'hands off'
approach to farm landscape and soil health. Paul Newell, a long-time colleague of Peter Andrews, has developed his ideas over
40 years. They are outrageous, but they work. He breaks down and destroys ecological units in order to see what will remedy the situation. Paul Newell will speak at the Soil Carbon Farming Conference.
CAN YOU MAKE WATER FROM AIR? Just tooling about with the formulae for the process of photosynthesis, as you do, Ken Bellamy noticed that there was a Hydrogen atom left over after the two distinct stages of capturing the CO2 and converting it. This led to a curious discovery which has the scientists racing to confirm it scientifically.. Ken Bellamy will speak at this year's Soil Carbon Farming Conference.
THANK YOU for your support - it has been inspirational. Rural Press's Science & Environment Editor Matt Cawood said he believes it is now inevitable that we will win. We wish we felt so confident. The closer we get to the line the more desperate the attempts to derail the solution have become.
WE NEED YOUR HELP - we're not asking for charity. You can show your support by coming to the Conference ($225 for 2 days),
enrol in the half day seminar ($145), become a sponsor (which starts at $1000), take an exhibition stand (start at $550), advertise in the Carbon Farming Handbook (starts at $650) or purchase of the Conference Edition of the Handbook ($55).
You'll get an unforgettable experience. You can get out of bed each morning knowing you are saving the planet - what an awesome feeling. Call us on 02 6374 0329 or email louisa@carboncoalition.com.au
Onwards!
Michael
PS. Please pass this on. NOVEMBER IS CRUNCH TIME - we must send our Government to Copenhagen
willing to join the rest of the world in a soil carbon solution.
PPS.Do you know a company, wealthy individual or philanthropic trust that would value the work that we do and entertain an
approach for support? Please let us know.
PPS. To you, for your help, you are the apple of God's/Gaia's eye.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Meet SCOT: the Soil Carbon Optimisation Tool
SCOT - the Soil Carbon Optimisation Tool - is a simple planning system that can help land managers make decisions about Carbon Farming. It is easy to be confused by the array of options for growing carbon levels in soil. SCOT can be used to sort through these options and choose which steps to take towards meeting goals.
SCOT divides Carbon Farming into subject areas. On each of its concentric rings can be found one of the Five Foundation Stones of Carbon Farming:
1. Water 2. Vegetation 3. Soil 4. Land 5. Microbes (or Biology)
These Foundation Stones are equal in importance. To overlook one is to invite failure.
Each Foundation Stone is an area of focus and an area of activity. There is a time to think of them on their own, and a time to think about the way they relate to each other.
The Carbon Farmer can decide to use it any way they like.
SCOT can be a CHECK LIST. Each level is a Heading and a list of options. (Not all options are listed on the rings. A list can be supplied.) The Carbon Farmer can use it to find options that they haven't heard or thought of before.
SCOT can be a TEMPLATE for a SOIL CARBON FARM PLAN. If you start at the centre and move outwards, you are following a path that deals with major decisions which form a platform for all other activities before leading on to less fundamental options. By moving through the rings, YOU ask the Planning Questions: Is this option relevant to this property and this landscape? What Return On Investment can we expect? (Is it low hanging fruit - fast, cheap, and easy to install? Or will it cost more than it is worth?) Does it get a tick in every box - if working on a triple bottom line: financial, environmental, and social impact. Do we face a trade off between one goal and another if we introduce this option?
SCOT can be a PORTFOLIO PLANNING TOOL. Carbon is based on 'change in land management'. Usually a single change is introduced. This can take 20-30 years to reach 'equilibrium' or saturation. But in in view of the crisis in climate patterns, the world would welcome a major contribution to the global effort -the faster we can extract the 'Legacy Load" of CO2e, the better. So combinations will bring the greatest returns.
SCOT can be an IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING GUIDE. The order of installation of options might be important. For instance, a laser graded water solution might deplete soil carbon stocks stored in the soil disturbed by machinery. Whereas a decision to use a biofert can be taken at any time without major implications for other decisions.
SCOT can be a RISK MANAGEMENT GUIDE. If the Farmer wants to put a toe in the water, start on the outer rings and move in towards the centre. If you want to jump in boots and all, start at the centre and move outwards. You are now following a path that deals with major decisions which could be hard to reverse, before leading on to less risky options. Used in this way, SCOT represents a "Hierarchy of Permanence"* - running from more to less permanent as you move from the centre ring outwards.
SCOT can be an EDUCATIONAL AID. By working through the rings and the planning process, a Trainer can lead a class to discover the individual parts of a system and the way they can be incorporated into a Farm Plan. How they can be deployed in 'teams' to maximise their impact. And how they can be changed over time.
SCOT TRAINING is the centrepiece of the training programs offered by Carbon Farming Services (CFS). This is the trading arm of the Carbon Coalition. It helps to fund the Coalition's activities.) CFS offers Carbon Farming and Soil Carbon training in programs ranging from 1 hour to two-day workshops. CFS's "Carbon Farming 101" program is a half-day introduction to Carbon Farming.
"Carbon Farming 101" is being offered as a half day "Come Up To Speed Before The Carbon Farming Conference & Expo" on November 3rd, 2009 at the Orange Ex-Services Club.
Many Farmers and Graziers use a management system to help them make decisions. SCOT does not seek to replace them. Instead it can be incorporated into the process. SCOT is a flexible system.
*Thanks to Ausmin's David Hardwick for this term.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Way To Go, CSIRO!
Our national science icon – the CSIRO – has confirmed that soil carbon sequestration is not only possible in Australia, but an inevitable part of Australia’s response to Climate Change. In a comprehensive report titled “An Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Carbon Sequestration Opportunities from Rural Land Use”, more than 100 scientists and policy specialists recited the science of sequestration and mitigation, with some surprisingly positive statements tempering the usual “it doesn’t exist until it’s peer-reviewed” mantra.
Highlights of the report include the following:
1. Significant opportunity: “This report demonstrates that Australia has the opportunity to offset a significant proportion of our GHG emissions, by storing carbon in the landscape and changing the emissions profile from rural land use.” This type of comment was previously discouraged for fear of giving farmers false hope.
2. Our bridge to the future: “[It] indicates that terrestrial GHG management could play a key role in emissions abatement over the next 40-50 years…”. Professor Rattan Lal’s “Bridge To The Future” concept has finally found a home at the CSIRO. Lal and we believe that the world’s agricultural soils have the capacity to stall Global Warming long enough for non-fossil fuel energy sources to reach critical mass and massive capacity required to power our energy-hungry civilisation.
3. Kyoto perverse: “Options, where carbon is stored in the soil or in regenerated native vegetation, are not readily accommodated in the current [Kyoto] frameworks in a manner that best suits the Australian environment.” The Belief, now widespread in Climate Change circles, that the Kyoto Protocols have had perverse consequences that the world cannot afford, seems to be acknowledged in this paper.
4. Transforming rural landscapes: “Much of the terrestrial sequestration potential involves spatially extensive activities, where small contributions per unit land area collectively contribute significantly through application over large areas. This extent means that their widespread adoption, as might occur by their inclusion in the proposed CPRS and a high carbon price, could see them transform rural landscapes. This provides the opportunity for carbon sequestration to drive many desirable and needed outcomes; for example, for biodiversity and ecosystem restoration, for salinity abatement or to improve stream water quality. Additionally, some of the options provide the means to generate income streams for land-owners that may increase and diversify farm incomes.” This is the stuff myths are made from. CSIRO makes the case most elegantly.
5. Potential agreement: “The project worked by establishing a consensus amongst a cross-section of scientists and land management experts. The focus was on the GHG sequestration/mitigation potential likely to be achieved through land use change in Queensland (and in a broader Australian context).” It is imporrtant to note that 100 scientists agreed on this positive report card. While we might disagree with their concept of ‘potential’, we don’t disagree with their positive attitude.
6. A broarder view: “The authors were also asked to explore other benefits and consequences (intended or unintended) e.g. impact on biodiversity, gains in ecosystem services, potential economic benefits, business and market opportunities for rural communities and social impacts on rural communities..” The decision to widen the viewfinder and assess the desirability of sequestration across a range of interconnected outcomes is a sign of a shift in the normally reductionist mindset of science.
7. Starting with an Optimistic Voice: “The project aimed to refine the analysis presented in Garnaut Chapter 22, through an expert assessment of existing research.” Ross Garnaut was so convinced of the power of soils he advised the Government not to wait until all the issues addressed by this paper have been resolved. Start immediately, he advised.
8. Heavy hitters strike the right note: Ram Dalal, Jeff Baldock, Mike Bell and Peter Grace confirm our position on the fractions of soil carbon by elucidating the fundamental principle of carbon’s need to cycle upon which we base the Molecular Value Theory of Soil Carboin Sequestration: “Sequestration of atmospheric carbon (C) in soil requires that the total amount of organic C stored in a soil is increased above its current level and that the increase is maintained into the future. … Although the processes of C capture and transfer to the soil occur continuously, losses through decomposition and mineralisation of soil carbon back to CO2 also occur continually. For C to be sequestered in soil, the rate of carbon addition must be greater than the rate of carbon loss.” Sequestration is a process that works with Carbon’s urge to cycle. We are not setting out to trap and hold particular molecules of Carbon. We have sequestered so long as where there was one molecule in the holding bay yesterday, there are two today and there will be three tomorrow,.They can all be different. Which is why we are not afraid of the instability of the labile fraction. Believers in the Particular Molecule Theory of Soil Carbon Sequestration cannot hope to succeed, given the nature of Carbon’s behaviour. Denial of Carbon's character leads people to believe in things like geologic sequestration.
There are many other positives in this Report which, while it suffers from the same lack of data all soil carbon issues endure, has not been used as an excuse by some of the writers to refuse to use their imaginations, especially when speculating about future trading schemes.
………………….
Highlights of the report include the following:
1. Significant opportunity: “This report demonstrates that Australia has the opportunity to offset a significant proportion of our GHG emissions, by storing carbon in the landscape and changing the emissions profile from rural land use.” This type of comment was previously discouraged for fear of giving farmers false hope.
2. Our bridge to the future: “[It] indicates that terrestrial GHG management could play a key role in emissions abatement over the next 40-50 years…”. Professor Rattan Lal’s “Bridge To The Future” concept has finally found a home at the CSIRO. Lal and we believe that the world’s agricultural soils have the capacity to stall Global Warming long enough for non-fossil fuel energy sources to reach critical mass and massive capacity required to power our energy-hungry civilisation.
3. Kyoto perverse: “Options, where carbon is stored in the soil or in regenerated native vegetation, are not readily accommodated in the current [Kyoto] frameworks in a manner that best suits the Australian environment.” The Belief, now widespread in Climate Change circles, that the Kyoto Protocols have had perverse consequences that the world cannot afford, seems to be acknowledged in this paper.
4. Transforming rural landscapes: “Much of the terrestrial sequestration potential involves spatially extensive activities, where small contributions per unit land area collectively contribute significantly through application over large areas. This extent means that their widespread adoption, as might occur by their inclusion in the proposed CPRS and a high carbon price, could see them transform rural landscapes. This provides the opportunity for carbon sequestration to drive many desirable and needed outcomes; for example, for biodiversity and ecosystem restoration, for salinity abatement or to improve stream water quality. Additionally, some of the options provide the means to generate income streams for land-owners that may increase and diversify farm incomes.” This is the stuff myths are made from. CSIRO makes the case most elegantly.
5. Potential agreement: “The project worked by establishing a consensus amongst a cross-section of scientists and land management experts. The focus was on the GHG sequestration/mitigation potential likely to be achieved through land use change in Queensland (and in a broader Australian context).” It is imporrtant to note that 100 scientists agreed on this positive report card. While we might disagree with their concept of ‘potential’, we don’t disagree with their positive attitude.
6. A broarder view: “The authors were also asked to explore other benefits and consequences (intended or unintended) e.g. impact on biodiversity, gains in ecosystem services, potential economic benefits, business and market opportunities for rural communities and social impacts on rural communities..” The decision to widen the viewfinder and assess the desirability of sequestration across a range of interconnected outcomes is a sign of a shift in the normally reductionist mindset of science.
7. Starting with an Optimistic Voice: “The project aimed to refine the analysis presented in Garnaut Chapter 22, through an expert assessment of existing research.” Ross Garnaut was so convinced of the power of soils he advised the Government not to wait until all the issues addressed by this paper have been resolved. Start immediately, he advised.
8. Heavy hitters strike the right note: Ram Dalal, Jeff Baldock, Mike Bell and Peter Grace confirm our position on the fractions of soil carbon by elucidating the fundamental principle of carbon’s need to cycle upon which we base the Molecular Value Theory of Soil Carboin Sequestration: “Sequestration of atmospheric carbon (C) in soil requires that the total amount of organic C stored in a soil is increased above its current level and that the increase is maintained into the future. … Although the processes of C capture and transfer to the soil occur continuously, losses through decomposition and mineralisation of soil carbon back to CO2 also occur continually. For C to be sequestered in soil, the rate of carbon addition must be greater than the rate of carbon loss.” Sequestration is a process that works with Carbon’s urge to cycle. We are not setting out to trap and hold particular molecules of Carbon. We have sequestered so long as where there was one molecule in the holding bay yesterday, there are two today and there will be three tomorrow,.They can all be different. Which is why we are not afraid of the instability of the labile fraction. Believers in the Particular Molecule Theory of Soil Carbon Sequestration cannot hope to succeed, given the nature of Carbon’s behaviour. Denial of Carbon's character leads people to believe in things like geologic sequestration.
There are many other positives in this Report which, while it suffers from the same lack of data all soil carbon issues endure, has not been used as an excuse by some of the writers to refuse to use their imaginations, especially when speculating about future trading schemes.
………………….
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Soil Carbon's Notorious Variability To Be Tested Actuarialty
Data is needed which demonstrates the well-known 'spacial and temporal variability' of soil carbon readings. We have been inspired recently to meet the former Chief Actuary of IAG, Tony Coleman, who first noticed climate change in the company's claims records and went on to found the Business Roundtable on Climate Change, Australia's first serious corporate move in this area. We have asked Tony to look into the data that reflects the flux or variability of soil carbon which is at the heart of the major barrier to trade. Actuaries can detect information hidden in raw data. Soil scientists also use data analysis techniques to great effect. We believe that a collaborative effort between scientists and actuaries could bring benefits to the nation. We are appealing to those who have data or know of such data to contact us at (02) 6374 0329
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Market expert claims Australian farmers have golden future, maybe
Australian farmers could make sales of soil carbon offsets equivalent to the income Australia makes from selling coal, according to carbon-market expert Dr Ken Newcombe, who set up the World Bank's first trading model. 'Australia could develop a trade in agricultural carbon offsets to the United States worth more than the nation’s current global coal exports,' The Land reports him as saying.
"Australia's vast landmass, the enormous opportunity to revegetate and to increase soil organic carbon in so many ways—improved land management, improved grazing, the exciting things that Australian companies are doing with micronutrient treatments and management of soils that moves away from the gross chemicalisation of agriculture—all these practices can provide a tremendous increase in root biomass and soil carbon. Australia is very well placed to produce soil carbon for the US trade. We have the opportunity, as Australians, to generate a trade in agricultural carbon offsets into the US which is the equivalent of our export of coal into the rest of the world. But it's not going to happen unless this idea of regulating agriculture is given up immediately and soil carbon offsets are seen as a potential export commodity, as well as a basis for helping regulated entities in Australia meet their obligations. As soon as that happens, you’ll see tremendous entrepreneurial vigour around creating soil carbon offsets, because the value to farmers of this trade will be very significant."
But Australia's Government has been bamboozled by 'experts' who have held back the market here. Dr Newcombe says Australia is years behind the rest of the world. The Government is mired in the quicksand of measurement, spending millions trying to trace each farmers' emissions to hit them with a bill. Led there by 'experts'."It doesn't make any sense to try and define the emissions of a huge diversity of agricultural activities and then try and regulate them," said Dr Newcombe. "At a certain point it becomes simply absurd to cover all of agriculture. In the best case, you could only cover the large agribusinesses, and not the myriad of small producers who would be shut out of carbon trading." The Government should have stuck with the principle that only businesses emitting 25,000 tonne CO2e/year would fall under the cap and trade system. He said: "Faced with that situation, in the US it was very obvious how to treat agriculture: that is to make it an offset generator and stimulate private sector investment in lowering emissions, with the beneficial result of substantial inward investment in agriculture."
Dr Newcombe pioneered the global carbon market with the World Bank-supported Prototype Carbon Fund. He has been vice chairman of Climate Change Capital in London, the largest private sector carbon fund in the world; led Goldman Sachs carbon trading division in New York, and last year founded C-Quest Capital, a company dedicated to "originating and developing high-quality emission reduction projects around the world", reports Matt Cawood in The Land.
C-Quest invested in RM Williams Agricultural Holdings on the expectation that there will be trading potential in soil carbon offsets in the voluntary carbon markets.
"Australia's vast landmass, the enormous opportunity to revegetate and to increase soil organic carbon in so many ways—improved land management, improved grazing, the exciting things that Australian companies are doing with micronutrient treatments and management of soils that moves away from the gross chemicalisation of agriculture—all these practices can provide a tremendous increase in root biomass and soil carbon. Australia is very well placed to produce soil carbon for the US trade. We have the opportunity, as Australians, to generate a trade in agricultural carbon offsets into the US which is the equivalent of our export of coal into the rest of the world. But it's not going to happen unless this idea of regulating agriculture is given up immediately and soil carbon offsets are seen as a potential export commodity, as well as a basis for helping regulated entities in Australia meet their obligations. As soon as that happens, you’ll see tremendous entrepreneurial vigour around creating soil carbon offsets, because the value to farmers of this trade will be very significant."
But Australia's Government has been bamboozled by 'experts' who have held back the market here. Dr Newcombe says Australia is years behind the rest of the world. The Government is mired in the quicksand of measurement, spending millions trying to trace each farmers' emissions to hit them with a bill. Led there by 'experts'."It doesn't make any sense to try and define the emissions of a huge diversity of agricultural activities and then try and regulate them," said Dr Newcombe. "At a certain point it becomes simply absurd to cover all of agriculture. In the best case, you could only cover the large agribusinesses, and not the myriad of small producers who would be shut out of carbon trading." The Government should have stuck with the principle that only businesses emitting 25,000 tonne CO2e/year would fall under the cap and trade system. He said: "Faced with that situation, in the US it was very obvious how to treat agriculture: that is to make it an offset generator and stimulate private sector investment in lowering emissions, with the beneficial result of substantial inward investment in agriculture."
Dr Newcombe pioneered the global carbon market with the World Bank-supported Prototype Carbon Fund. He has been vice chairman of Climate Change Capital in London, the largest private sector carbon fund in the world; led Goldman Sachs carbon trading division in New York, and last year founded C-Quest Capital, a company dedicated to "originating and developing high-quality emission reduction projects around the world", reports Matt Cawood in The Land.
C-Quest invested in RM Williams Agricultural Holdings on the expectation that there will be trading potential in soil carbon offsets in the voluntary carbon markets.
Minister Burke Joins the Anti-Soil Carbon Society?
Tony Burke bamboozled by the “Anti-Soil Carbon Society”
The Minister for Agriculture and Soil Carbon,Tony burke, appears to have fallen under the spell of the “Anti-Soil Carbon Society”. He’s joined the “It’s Too Hard” Brigade. Every discredited, worn-out argument used by the soil carbon denialists have turned up in Tony’s speech to Parliament during the CPRS debate in August. He made the following school debating points: (1) “You can’t trade what you can’t measure.” This assumes we can’t measure soil carbon, which is untrue. Scientists measure it every day. If it’s good enough for science, it should be good enough for trading. (2) “There are real challenges in the science at the moment”. There will always be real challenges with science. No one is naïve enough to believe scientists will ever be satisfied with the degree of accuracy of measurement of soil carbon. Finer and finer degrees of measuring fractions are irrelevant for trade. Buyers are only interested in Total Organic Carbon. Scientists won’t tell you that. (3) “Australia has different soils to those in the United States.” We have degraded soils. The US has degraded soils. We have deep, rich soils, and so do they. Nothing about our soils stops them from adding carbon. But wait – here’s a new entrant in the “To Hard” arsenal: (4) Our soils are ‘more complex’ given ‘the amount of desert that we have’. Que? Does this mean we have more variety of soil types in the arid zone and that this would make soil mapping difficult? Very poor reasoning. (5) Current Kyoto rules would force Australia to account for bushfires and drought if we included soils in our accounts. This is the most absurd of all Kyoto absurdities and the first one most likely to be removed at Copenhagen. (6) The voluntary market in the USA has CO2 at 40¢/tonne on the current science and on the limitations on intrnational trading. What happens to prices when a major new market initiative is about to unfold (the Obama Initiative for Copenhagen)? What has happened to prices on the main mandatory market before such moves? Precisely what is happening now. Tony points to the millions he is spending to get the measurment right. But has he invested in the right sciencec to do that? Will the outcome in 3 years’ time be a trading-based measurement model tt satisfies all parties? Can it possibly be?
The Minister for Agriculture and Soil Carbon,Tony burke, appears to have fallen under the spell of the “Anti-Soil Carbon Society”. He’s joined the “It’s Too Hard” Brigade. Every discredited, worn-out argument used by the soil carbon denialists have turned up in Tony’s speech to Parliament during the CPRS debate in August. He made the following school debating points: (1) “You can’t trade what you can’t measure.” This assumes we can’t measure soil carbon, which is untrue. Scientists measure it every day. If it’s good enough for science, it should be good enough for trading. (2) “There are real challenges in the science at the moment”. There will always be real challenges with science. No one is naïve enough to believe scientists will ever be satisfied with the degree of accuracy of measurement of soil carbon. Finer and finer degrees of measuring fractions are irrelevant for trade. Buyers are only interested in Total Organic Carbon. Scientists won’t tell you that. (3) “Australia has different soils to those in the United States.” We have degraded soils. The US has degraded soils. We have deep, rich soils, and so do they. Nothing about our soils stops them from adding carbon. But wait – here’s a new entrant in the “To Hard” arsenal: (4) Our soils are ‘more complex’ given ‘the amount of desert that we have’. Que? Does this mean we have more variety of soil types in the arid zone and that this would make soil mapping difficult? Very poor reasoning. (5) Current Kyoto rules would force Australia to account for bushfires and drought if we included soils in our accounts. This is the most absurd of all Kyoto absurdities and the first one most likely to be removed at Copenhagen. (6) The voluntary market in the USA has CO2 at 40¢/tonne on the current science and on the limitations on intrnational trading. What happens to prices when a major new market initiative is about to unfold (the Obama Initiative for Copenhagen)? What has happened to prices on the main mandatory market before such moves? Precisely what is happening now. Tony points to the millions he is spending to get the measurment right. But has he invested in the right sciencec to do that? Will the outcome in 3 years’ time be a trading-based measurement model tt satisfies all parties? Can it possibly be?
Friday, August 14, 2009
The Anti-Soil Carbon Society
Members of the 'Anti-Soil Carbon Society' have confused and misled the Government into taking decisions that have disadvantaged Australian farmers and caused depression and worse and the loss of possibly billions of dollars in farm incomes, according to Carbon Coalition Convenor Michael Kiely.
"We have been gathering a file of evidence that will reveal the identities of those who acted to derail the soil carbon issue, including misleading Parliament and scientific sleight of hand," says Convenor Michael Kiely. "We have been too tolerant of these people. They are standing in the way of the extraction of between 3 and 6 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, depending on whether you listen to Professor Rattan Lal or the FAO. That's more than half the additional tonnages emitted by the world each year."
The delay in mobilising Agricultural soils as a massive sponge to soak up aerial CO2 has also had a major impact on morale among primary producers, according to the Carbon Coalition. "Think about how depressed and despairing an Australian farmer might get, faced as we are with the prospect of a massive bill for methane emissions and no soil carbon credits to pay the bill. Compare us with the American farmer, who will get paid to reduce methane emissions and paid to store carbon in soils," says Michael Kiely. "The Americans proved it can be done. They don't have the Anti-Soil Carbon Society over there, spreading fear and confusion. They have people like CCX's Dr Mike Walsh and C-Quest's Dr Ken Newcombe - both of whom have experts in market making. We have too many experts in market-blocking." Dr Newcombe - who set up the World Bank's first trading model - believes Australian farmers could earn more selling soil carbon offsets to Americans than we do selling coal to China.
These issues will be canvassed at the 3rd Annual CARBON FARMING CONFERENCE & EXPO to be held 4th-5th November, 2009 at the National Field Day Site near Orange NSW.
"We have been gathering a file of evidence that will reveal the identities of those who acted to derail the soil carbon issue, including misleading Parliament and scientific sleight of hand," says Convenor Michael Kiely. "We have been too tolerant of these people. They are standing in the way of the extraction of between 3 and 6 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, depending on whether you listen to Professor Rattan Lal or the FAO. That's more than half the additional tonnages emitted by the world each year."
The delay in mobilising Agricultural soils as a massive sponge to soak up aerial CO2 has also had a major impact on morale among primary producers, according to the Carbon Coalition. "Think about how depressed and despairing an Australian farmer might get, faced as we are with the prospect of a massive bill for methane emissions and no soil carbon credits to pay the bill. Compare us with the American farmer, who will get paid to reduce methane emissions and paid to store carbon in soils," says Michael Kiely. "The Americans proved it can be done. They don't have the Anti-Soil Carbon Society over there, spreading fear and confusion. They have people like CCX's Dr Mike Walsh and C-Quest's Dr Ken Newcombe - both of whom have experts in market making. We have too many experts in market-blocking." Dr Newcombe - who set up the World Bank's first trading model - believes Australian farmers could earn more selling soil carbon offsets to Americans than we do selling coal to China.
These issues will be canvassed at the 3rd Annual CARBON FARMING CONFERENCE & EXPO to be held 4th-5th November, 2009 at the National Field Day Site near Orange NSW.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Farm Institute flogging a dead argument?
Recent comments by the Australian Farm Institute and the Bureau of Rural Sciences prove that there is a vast chasm in the knowledge of soil carbon issues among those who should know more. The AFI made the startling announcement recently that there are some blockages to trading in soil carbon. The first mentioned was that Kyoto rules stand in the way of Australia’s farmers. But anyone observing the events leading up to the Copenhagen Round of Talks know that the ‘rules’ were only good for the period they covered. It is all negotiable. That’s how the system works. And the USA is dealing itself into the game with the demand that Agriculture be given a better deal than it has had to date. The World Bank, the FAO, and the EU all agree. And as the USA is bringing China to the table, it is likely to have some sway. All the parties to this coordinated assault on the distortions in the Kyoto Protocols are determined that it be a global solution. It is hard to see Australia staying out.
The second blockage mentioned by the Farm Institute is our Government’s decision not to include soil carbon offsets in the CPRS. This means we have only the Voluntary Market to trade in, ‘at an enormous discount in price’. Firstly, there is a mechanism whereby these offsets can be sold into the mandatory market. (Commercial in confidence for the moment.) And secondly, how can anyone pretend to know what the price relativities will be between the two markets. Anyone who has observed the market since day 1 knows that nothing can be certain in the pricing area. The demand for offsets is huge and growing.
Another blockage mentioned is the possibility that a farmer might change their land management to an anti-soil carbon regime and face paying back the money they received when they first sold their offsets. In fact they would be faced with paying even more because the market will have moved by then. (Again, the AFI claims psychic powers to be able to see the future.) There are two reasons why this is a scare tactic. Reason 1: A farmer would be a fool to throw away the co-benefits of high soil carbon levels. In fact, the anti-soil carbon trading faction maintain that farmers should increase their soil C for these co-benefits alone. What are they? High levels of soil C are associated with reduced erosion, reduced salinity, improved soil structure, better water holding capacity, reduced need for artificial fertilisers, and all the benefits that come with healthier soil microbial communities. Reason 2: The Voluntary Markets are currently looking at 5-year contracts to maintain flexibility. This is the CCX model which forms the basis on the emerging US model being promoted as a global solution.
The Farm Institute makes another questionable claim when it says that farmers will need all their offsets to meet their own emission costs if they are included in the CPRS. But this is overkill. Surely we were left out of the CPRS and that was the basis for the first blockage? Again, the movement around Coenhagen is for a global solution that acknowledges Agriculture’s inevitable dependence on biological cycles and the unwillingness of the global community to punish farmers for growing food when the word faces a food security problem. The Australian Government would decimate our beef industry if it (as is currently the case) chose to be the only nation (plus NZ) to subject its farmers to punitive methane taxes when the Americans were rewarding their beef growers with incentive payments to reduce methane and the right to sell their soil carbon. The price competitiveness of Australasian beef would evaporate, as would the market and the industry here. Politicians aren’t that stupid.
Commentators such as the Farm Institute and the Bureau of Rural Science are curiously out of touch with the activity surroudning soil carbon. The Bureau released a report in March which claims to be a guide to the “potential” for soil carbon. It repeats all the old, discredited claims made by scientists who profess to know how soil carbon wll react under techniques which are still evolving and have not been subject to research trials yet. One wonders why the report was ever commissioned as nothing new appears in it. And its major finding – surprise – is that there needs to be more research before a market is possible. But markets are not made by scientists. They are made by buyers. And the needs of buyers are very different to those postulated by researchers.
In fact, the Farm Institute is stretching the point a little to say the BRS report was recent. It appeared in March. SO why even devote a blog post to it? It is not news.
Could it be that the AFI is intent on creating the impression that soil carbon trading is a non-starter? Search the reports and articles published by the Institute. Can you find one positive word for the soil carbon market? Can you find one presentation at an Institute conference tat supports soil carbon trading? It looks suspiciously like the Institute is part of the ‘push back’ against the notion of trade, a Canute-like resistance that has featured some of the nations top research establishments.
Those who parade the same old tired and discredited blockages to the soil carbon market cannot get their heads out of the past when all the action is taking place in the future. Appealing to ‘rules’ and scientific uncertainty does not impress buyers. Rules are for changing and uncertainty simply becomes a pricing factor, as all risks do. If all the hours that scientists and researchers have devoted to finding reasons why soil carbon won’t be traded had been invested in looking for ways that would make it possible, we would be trading today. The fact that so much taxpayers money has been spent on scare campaigns among farmers is scandalous.
The most highly respected soil carbon scientist in the world, Professor Rattan Lal of Ohio State U., warned the scientfic community to stop stalling: “Coming events are casting their shadow in this important and emerging field of immense significant to soil science, and the researchers must put their act together before the train departs the station.”
The second blockage mentioned by the Farm Institute is our Government’s decision not to include soil carbon offsets in the CPRS. This means we have only the Voluntary Market to trade in, ‘at an enormous discount in price’. Firstly, there is a mechanism whereby these offsets can be sold into the mandatory market. (Commercial in confidence for the moment.) And secondly, how can anyone pretend to know what the price relativities will be between the two markets. Anyone who has observed the market since day 1 knows that nothing can be certain in the pricing area. The demand for offsets is huge and growing.
Another blockage mentioned is the possibility that a farmer might change their land management to an anti-soil carbon regime and face paying back the money they received when they first sold their offsets. In fact they would be faced with paying even more because the market will have moved by then. (Again, the AFI claims psychic powers to be able to see the future.) There are two reasons why this is a scare tactic. Reason 1: A farmer would be a fool to throw away the co-benefits of high soil carbon levels. In fact, the anti-soil carbon trading faction maintain that farmers should increase their soil C for these co-benefits alone. What are they? High levels of soil C are associated with reduced erosion, reduced salinity, improved soil structure, better water holding capacity, reduced need for artificial fertilisers, and all the benefits that come with healthier soil microbial communities. Reason 2: The Voluntary Markets are currently looking at 5-year contracts to maintain flexibility. This is the CCX model which forms the basis on the emerging US model being promoted as a global solution.
The Farm Institute makes another questionable claim when it says that farmers will need all their offsets to meet their own emission costs if they are included in the CPRS. But this is overkill. Surely we were left out of the CPRS and that was the basis for the first blockage? Again, the movement around Coenhagen is for a global solution that acknowledges Agriculture’s inevitable dependence on biological cycles and the unwillingness of the global community to punish farmers for growing food when the word faces a food security problem. The Australian Government would decimate our beef industry if it (as is currently the case) chose to be the only nation (plus NZ) to subject its farmers to punitive methane taxes when the Americans were rewarding their beef growers with incentive payments to reduce methane and the right to sell their soil carbon. The price competitiveness of Australasian beef would evaporate, as would the market and the industry here. Politicians aren’t that stupid.
Commentators such as the Farm Institute and the Bureau of Rural Science are curiously out of touch with the activity surroudning soil carbon. The Bureau released a report in March which claims to be a guide to the “potential” for soil carbon. It repeats all the old, discredited claims made by scientists who profess to know how soil carbon wll react under techniques which are still evolving and have not been subject to research trials yet. One wonders why the report was ever commissioned as nothing new appears in it. And its major finding – surprise – is that there needs to be more research before a market is possible. But markets are not made by scientists. They are made by buyers. And the needs of buyers are very different to those postulated by researchers.
In fact, the Farm Institute is stretching the point a little to say the BRS report was recent. It appeared in March. SO why even devote a blog post to it? It is not news.
Could it be that the AFI is intent on creating the impression that soil carbon trading is a non-starter? Search the reports and articles published by the Institute. Can you find one positive word for the soil carbon market? Can you find one presentation at an Institute conference tat supports soil carbon trading? It looks suspiciously like the Institute is part of the ‘push back’ against the notion of trade, a Canute-like resistance that has featured some of the nations top research establishments.
Those who parade the same old tired and discredited blockages to the soil carbon market cannot get their heads out of the past when all the action is taking place in the future. Appealing to ‘rules’ and scientific uncertainty does not impress buyers. Rules are for changing and uncertainty simply becomes a pricing factor, as all risks do. If all the hours that scientists and researchers have devoted to finding reasons why soil carbon won’t be traded had been invested in looking for ways that would make it possible, we would be trading today. The fact that so much taxpayers money has been spent on scare campaigns among farmers is scandalous.
The most highly respected soil carbon scientist in the world, Professor Rattan Lal of Ohio State U., warned the scientfic community to stop stalling: “Coming events are casting their shadow in this important and emerging field of immense significant to soil science, and the researchers must put their act together before the train departs the station.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
