Soil sequestration hero wins highest award

A world leader in the race to find the methodology for accurately measuring soil carbon for sequestration has been awarded the highest honour a soil scientist can achieve. Ohio State University soil scientist Rattan Lal was given the prestigious Liebig Applied Soil Science Award at the World Congress of Soil Science conference. Professor Lal is director of Ohio State's Carbon Management and Sequestration Center and a professor with the School of Environment and Natural Resources.
Prof. Lal has spent 18 years studying carbon sequestration -- the technique of storing carbon in the soil -- and its influence on soils throughout the world. Other areas of research include soil processes and atmospheric greenhouse effects, sustainable management of soil and water resources, restoration and rehabilitation of degraded soils, agro-forestry, tropical agriculture and agricultural development in the Third World.
The 18th World Congress of Soil Science, held in Philadelphia, Pa. July 9-15, 2006, was organized by the International Union of Soil Science and the Soil Science Society of America. More than 2,500 soil scientists from 70 countries attended. Prof. Lal delivered a paper at the conference: "Are Recalcitrant Biomacromolecules Potential Sinks in the Global Carbon Cycle?" Sounds cool. For the soil scientists who understand this stuff, here's some of the abstract of the paper he co-authored with Dr Klaus Lorenz:

"The major reservoirs of carbon on Earth are the oceans (38,400 Gt), the lithosphere (75,000,000 Gt) and the terrestrial biosphere (2,500 Gt). The atmospheric CO2 exchanges rapidly with the C pool in the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere. Fossil fuel burning, however, unlocks C from the lithospheric pool (i.e., kerogen, coal, petroleum) while land-use changes may release C from the soil organic C (SOC) pool. The resulting increase in atmospheric CO2 by human activities contributes to the climate change. Until CO2-neutral technologies for energy production are available, managing the SOC pool is an opportunity to slow the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2. The proportion of the stable SOC increases with increase in soil depth due to physical stabilization and changes in microbial processes but also due to increase in inputs of recalcitrant plant-derived biomacromolecules and their selective preservation. By comparing the occurrence of biomacromolecules preserved in fossil fuels and fossil plant remains for thousands to millions of years (i.e., terrestrial biomarkers) with those stored for thousands of years in sediments and in soil profiles in the stable SOC pool, plant biopolymers with a high residence time can be identified. The n-alkyl compounds are found in recent and ancient sediments, vascular plant leaf extracts, fossil plant tissues and petroleum. However, only the very high range of the n-alkane odd-over-even predominance in the number of C atoms is a potential chemotaxonomic tool for inputs from higher plants. A variety of pentacyclic triterpenoids are used as general tracers of higher plant input (e.g., in crude oils, marine sediments). Steroids are common in higher plants and attributed to higher plant inputs in petroleums and ancient sediments, but not in marine sediments. Cutin-derived compounds are used as chemotaxonomic tracers for higher plant inputs to younger marine sediments. Lignin commonly occurs in woody tissues and cell walls of vascular plants, but lignin-derived records for marine and lacrustine sediments can be biased by selective preservation. Furthermore, lignin is not as stable in soil as previously thought. Resin-derived compounds (i.e., sesquiterpenoids and diterpenoids) are commonly found in petroleum, and inputs by gymnosperms and conifers can be distinguished. Suberins/suberans and tannins may also contribute to the stable SOC pool. By selecting plant/cultivars with higher concentrations of biomacromolecules showing a high preservation potential, the residence time of C in the soil can thus be directly managed. The scientific knowledge, however, about biomacromolecules contributing to the stable C pool in biosphere and lithosphere is scanty. With the development and application of new techniques for the elucidation of structural features of organic compounds in the earth's crust, the potential of biomacromolecules as C sinks in the global C cycle and their role in mitigating climate change can be evaluated."

Inspiration when it's needed.

How can we hope to win if the most popular Prime Minister in history declared carbon credits are a dead letter?
What can we do against the might of the most powerful nation on the planet who's President is a fossil fuel fanatic?

'NEVER DOUBT THAT A SMALL GROUP OF THOUGHTFUL, COMMITTED CITIZENS CAN CHANGE THE WORLD; INDEED, IT'S THE ONLY THING THAT EVER HAS.' Margaret Mead

Prime Minister "discourages" farmers on carbon

Australia could become an 'energy superpower', selling coal and oil to an energy hungry world. Renewable energy is too expensive, so nuclear is likely to become mainstream in Australia. And carbon credits are not on the horizon for anyone in Australia. This is the conclusion from Mr Howard's speech to the Council for the Economic Development of Australia on 17 July, 2006.*
"Clean coal" and nuclear are the future, he says, both playing to Australia's strengths. And Kyoto is not for signing, he says, because companies would leave Australia if it signed.
"This is a very discouraging message from our national leader," says Michael Kiely, Convenor of the Carbon Coalition.
"Surely Mr Howard has been badly advised by public servants. ABC 4Corners revealed how the coal industry had been given unusual free access to influence energy policy, even to the extent of writing the Department's Cabinet submissions," he says.
The Prime Minister's speech writers have made some glaring errors, says Mr Kiely. "Fancy having the Prime Minister make a statement such as that companies would leave Australia if we signed Kyoto. Where could they go? The rest of the world has signed, except the USA, and most observers believe it will sign when the new Administration is sworn in. Big companies here like Westpac, IAG and Origin Energy are asking for Kyoto."
The Carbon Coalition will be lobbying the Prime Minister to ask him to consider the opportunity for Australian farmers and the natural resource base if soil carbon credits can be traded. It will also be lobbying the Kyoto signatories to ask them to allow Australian farmers to trade on the European Climate Exchange.

*Posted at http://howardoncredits.blogspot.com

Government policy against soil C credits

A research paper called "National and International Policies Affecting the Demand for Soil Carbon Sequestration" reveals how US Government Policy stands in the way of Soil C Credits. The paper by Linda Young, Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State University, gives an overview of the various climate change policies currently in place or being discussed around the world. It discusses how these various policies affect the market for carbon trading and the demand for soil carbon sequestration.

She concludes: "U.S. markets for agricultural carbon sequestration services will likely be small unless there is a change in U.S. federal climate-change policy. The Bush administration's climate-change policy establishes emissions reductions at roughly the same pace that they have occurred over the past twenty years due to technological advances. Current U.S. policy is likely to keep demand for carbon credits weak in the United States and given that the United States cannot export carbon credits to entities in countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, international demand for U.S. carbon credits will remain weak as well. As a result, there is little impetus to overcome the verification and measurement challenges the market would require for agricultural sequestration services. State programs are strengthening demand for carbon credits, but at the cost of complying with a myriad of requirements for business that vary by state.

"The development of the carbon market would be facilitated by the emergence of a seamless market with one set of rules for those demanding and supplying carbon credits. Market demand for agricultural sequestration services is likely to remain weak."

Australia's federal government policy follows US policy in lockstep.

See the full paper, with references, at: http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/ctec/CASMGSnewsletter/Dec03-2.htm

British companies demand tougher emission targets

Fourteen British companies are demanding that the UK Government push for tougher emissions limits in the second round of the Kyoto process, the second phase of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
The group, known as the Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change, includes oil company Shell, consumer goods company Unilever and teleco Vodafone.
They believe that tougher targets will drive investment, putting the UK ahead in low-carbon technologies such as hydrogen storage, wave and tidal power, and carbon finance. "We need EU governments to set clear targets for the ETS out to 2025 so that our businesses and others can have the confidence to make long-term investments in reducing emissions," said Shell's chairman James Smith. Green groups welcomed the call. "This is exactly what is needed if we are to tackle climate change and ensure that the British economy reaps the rewards of going green," said Friends of the Earth director Tony Juniper.

Are the Kyoto carbon trade walls coming down?

The first carbon credits trade deal to link North American and European greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions trading systems ttook place in May. Baxter Healthcare Corporation transferred allowances to emit 100 tonnes of carbon dioxide within the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) from one of its Irish operations into the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). The company was a founding member of the CCX, a voluntary US market which requires its members to cut GHG emissions on an annual basis.
While EU allowances can be transferred to the CCX, the flow is not permitted in the other direction, as the US is not a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

Carbon market booming (too bad we're not in it)

The global carbon market could be worth US$25 to US$30 billion in 2006, based on the first four months of trading, according to the World Bank. CLose to $7.5 billion in carbon contracts were exchanged in 4 months, compared with close to $11 billion in 12 months of 2005. The volumes of carbon dioxide (CO2) allowances traded in 2005 grew 4000% compared to 2004. The number of contracts grew by 300% in the same period. "We have a working market that has grown faster than expected," said Andrei Marcu, president of the International Emissions Trading Association.

Carbon hits A$29!

Carbon is back in the stratosphere as prices approach the $30 mark again after months of volatility which saw prices fall below $10. Analysts point to the fact that the market is still only a year old and prices depend on Kyoto signatories reporting their mandatory limits. Inexperience has led to several over-estimations and changes in allocations, which causes wild market swings. At present, Australian carbon contracts cannot be negotiated with companies in Kyoto countries because we are non-signatories to the agreement. American carbon contracts are also restricted.
However the next round of negotiations is starting, with Australia co-chairing the sessions. With a change of leadership expected in both countries within the time frame in the lead up to 2012, the start of the new agreement, the trade in soil carbon credits comes closer. So start sequestering (locking up) carbon now. You'll be so pleased you did.

"May I ask who is blocking you/us and why?"

"May I ask who is blocking you/us and why?"

This question came through after the latest Coalition Update email included the following reference:

"The sooner we become a mass movement, the sooner those people blocking us will feel the call of destiny and either join us or at least wave us through."

NB. The Carbon Coalition has supporters of all sides of politics as members. The Coalition is not aligned with any political party or pressure group.
______________________________________________
Q. "May I ask who is blocking you/us and why?"
______________________________________________

A. Where do I start? At the top: It is my personal view that the President of the United States George W. Bush is discouraging us by refusing to sign the Kyoto protocols that the US negotiated up until the last minute, then bailed out, even though it was given massive concessions to join the 160+ other countries that signed. No Kyoto, no mandatory ‘cap and trade’ system, no market for carbon credits in the US.

Next comes the Commonwealth Government of Australia which followed America’s lead (the only other nation to refuse to ratify). The attitude of the Commonwealth Government is not encouraging. Ministers don't return the Coalition's calls; even a high profile parliamentary secretary that I worked with before he was drafted into parliament does not respond, despite him requesting a briefing when I ran into him months ago; Federal Government agencies are reluctant to help us. All the evidence points to the Carbon Coalition being shut out by the Commonwealth Government.

Third comes the Government’s Greenhouse agency, which officially dismisses soils as a potential sink. (There are many areas of agreement between the Coalition and the Greenhouse Office, which we will outline in a later post.)

Fourth the scientific establishment. Defending the old paradigm that Australian soils can’t sequester much carbon, a belief based on research studies which typically focus on land managed according to traditional farming methods, rather than carbon farming. Or when they do include rotational grazing, they use too few paddocks and too short a time

Finally money is blocking us by not being available in sufficient quantities to allow us to make faster ground.

Who is standing beside us?

The vast majority of the nations of the world – 160 of them.

Many corporations in Australia and America, including power companies, want stricter regulation. The world’s airlines recently went public, pleading with Mr Bush to introduce a mandatory cap and trade system. Westpac is leading a corporate ginger group lobbying the Federal Government for mandaotry reductions. British companies are lobbying their government for even tighter controls than Kyoto imposes. Intelligent companies understand that it’s bad for business to have extreme weather events.

US Congress - A bill to establish mandatory limits on emissions came before Congress narrowly missed being passed by a handful of votes – with prominent Republicans in favour. 70 Senators wrote an official letter to the President last month demanding that he show leadership in this area. (Most oil and coal companies lobby the President against these moves.)

The US Department of Agriculture and Department of Energy are vigorously searching for many solutions, including soil carbon sequestration. The measurement methodology is the focus of two scientific teams who are in the proof of concept and validation phases on research and expect to report in 2009.

The Chicago Climate Exchange – the world’s first carbon market, has offered Australian farmers the use of an international trading instrument for selling our carbon credits on the voluntary US market. (Last week the first cross-Kyoto border deal was done, which indicates the wall is coming down.)

US State Governments – 13 have introduced their own mandatory cap and trade systems.

Australian State Governments – all 7 states and territories have formed a greenhouse initiative and lobby Canberra for stricter controls.

Enlightened soil scientists – who ‘get’ carbon farming and can see the methodological problems with the 'legacy' research.

Farm lobby groups – we are getting great response from farmers’ associations.

Farmers and graziers – wherever we speak we enlist the vast majority of landholders.

Time – is on our side. President Bush’s Administration comes to a close within 18 months. Peter Costello is reported to have made positive remarks about carbon credits in a speech in San Francisco. John Howard hasn’t said ‘never, ever’. I personally believe that he hasn’t been fully briefed on the matter and that if he knew the facts he’d change his mind.

Remember, the pioneers are the ones with the arrows in their backs.

Farmers' Association NSW give us a hearing

NSW Farmers are right behind us - Jock Laurie gave us his support for the motion going before their conference this month. He is very enlightened about natural resource management. If it gets up we'll go to the NFF, MLA, AWI, etc and see if we can't line up solid support from industry bodies for something that is in their members' best interests. If they get behind it, we'll have the best agripoliticians on our side. CC Member and CMA Farming Systems classmate Mark Pickford pushed the motion through Wellington Branch and arranged a presentation to about 25 members last week, facilitated by Hamish Munro of Cumnock.








Deborah Willis, a dynamic personality (and don't we need more of them in agriculture?) got us in to see Jock within a week! She's one of the progressive people we met at the Gloucester Manning Landcare Pater Andrews seminar.

It is people like Mark, Hamish, Deborah and Jock who will make this vision become reality.

Christine Jones 'Managing the Carbon Cycle' Forum @ HORSHAM 26-27th July 2006

'Managing the Carbon Cycle'
HORSHAM 26-27th July 2006
http://www.amazingcarbon.com/


PAPER SUMMARIES


Ray O'Grady   Importance of Soil Carbon
This paper reviews the historic loss of 50-60% of soil carbon, and its effects on crop yields, the physical, chemical and biological aspects of soil health and the health and wellbeing of the farming family. Farming practices that influence these soil carbon losses and the methods and principles of increasing the carbon sink in the soil are discussed.
……………………………………………………………………………
Ray O'Grady and Rod Rush  The Terra Preta phenomenon
The greatest legacy the Amazonians left to the World was not the famed 'City of Gold' but the Terra Preta. These man-made 'Indian black earths' cover an area the size of France. They hold a secret to carbon sequestration that could reduce carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. We require only 10% of our productive, degraded lands to absorb the estimated 6.1 gigatons of carbon dioxide of emissions to make a carbon negative world possible in our life time. The question must be then asked 'Do we need nuclear power to reduce Global Warming?
……………………………………………………………………………….
Andre Leu  Organics and Soil Carbon:
Increasing soil carbon, crop productivity and farm profitability
This paper explains how atmospheric carbon is introduced into the soil and how it stored in stable forms. It identifies the farming techniques that are responsible for the decline in soil carbon and gives alternative practices that do not damage carbon. Increasing soil carbon can reduce the 25% of Australia's greenhouse gases created by agriculture and assist in ameliorating climate change. Increasing soil carbon will ensure good production outcomes and farm profitability. Soil carbon, particularly the stable forms such as humus and glomalin, increases farm profitability by increasing yields, soil fertility, soil moisture retention, aeration, nitrogen fixation, mineral availability, disease suppression, soil tilth and general structure. It is the basis of healthy soil.
……………………………………………………………………………….
Rod Rush Understanding mycorrhizal fungi
Mycorrhizal fungi form symbiotic associations with the  roots of many plant species. Mycorrhizae supply their hosts with mineral nutrients (notably phosphorus) in exchange for energy compounds. However, there are many land management practices that can severely deplete and sometimes extinguish mycorrhizal populations. This paper focuses on a discussion of these management practices and their consequences for ecosystem health and farm productivity.
……………………………………………………………………………….
Tony Scherer Back to Basics
Returning to a biologically based farming system
How we moved away from the importance of soil structure, humus and water holding capacity to an NPK mentality Should we treat agriculture as a biological or industrial system? Do consumers know what they are eating? Effect of government policy on alternative agriculture. Effect of agricultural research on alternative agriculture. How do we retrieve a sane and sensible farming system?
……………………………………………………………………………….
Andrew Helps  Climate change and dryland farming
Soil carbon levels - overview of the National and Regional inventories such that they are. Does the farming sector have any understanding of albedo-related feedback mechanisms and the impact of these mechanisms on farm scale - and on regional and national productivity? Is big still beautiful? Was it ever really beautiful? Is there a role for a small intensive dryland model?
……………………………………………………………………………
Michael and Louisa Kiely  Carbon Credits from Soil
The Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming was launched to promote carbon in agricultural soils as a natural carbon sink for the purpose of trading on the global emission credits market.  Global Warming presents farmers and graziers with an opportunity to sell carbon credits worth thousands of dollars per hectare. Soil carbon levels can be increased by replacing soil management practices such as stubble burning, ploughing and inappropriate grazing with minimum tillage, regenerative grazing and revegetation with perennial grasses. Baselining is essential for registration in possible future trading programs. Landholders need to take action now to be ready for the anticipated first day of trading.
……………………………………………………………………………
Bob Mackley  Sacred cows with zebra stripes
Agricultural practice and the shape of farming communities have changed enormously over the last four decades. There have been obvious benefits in gross production but whether we are accounting for the full cost is in considerable doubt. Whenever the environmental cost of farming is brought up in discussion there is usually a heavy silence and people trying to find the door marked EXIT. The enthusiastic adoption of herbicide, pesticide and fungicide products may be masking a greater danger to sustainable agriculture than the current generation of 'pests'. Resistance (selection pressure) has become the new fear phrase in farming circles with the common response being to apply more, stronger, earlier or differing mode of action chemical. This more-on farming method has caused many farmers to look elsewhere for answers and the soil may hold many of them.
……………………………………………………………………………
John and Val Hanley Organic grain and fodder production
We farm 2000 acres in Central Victoria. We grow BFA certified grains for milling and fodder (oats, oaten hay and pasture hay), as well as silage for organic dairy farmers. This presentation will cover our experiences within the organics industry; human health issues; weed control in broadacre farming, especially grass 'problems'; green manures; the use of aerators and rollers; crop rotations; livestock management; weevil control in silos. No matter what you are growing, you are a microbe farmer. Microbes are what make your living for you. For everything you do, always ask 'is this going to be beneficial for microbial life on my farm?'
……………………………………………………………………………
David Marsh A different decision-making process can produce profits, increase carbon sequestration in soils and regenerate landscapes
With different grazing management, there is huge potential for carbon sequestration in soil. The effect of higher soil carbon levels on landscape function and possible solutions to other land degradation issues are discussed. Drought performance of a farm where decisions are made using the Holistic Management model are examined.
…………………………………………………………………………
Colin Seis Carbon farming through Pasture Cropping
Concerns about declining profitability, poor soil structure, dryland salinity, soil acidification and increasing numbers of herbicide resistant weeds have prompted over 1000 farmers throughout eastern, southern and Western Australia to trial Pasture Cropping.  The year-round groundcover results in reduced wind and water erosion, improved tilth, reduced weed numbers, increased nutrient availability and increased levels of soil organic carbon. The soil health benefits from plant root exudates derived from a mix of shallow rooted crops and deep-rooted perennial pasture are numerous. In an era when dryland salinity, soil acidification and loss of soil carbon are having increasing impacts on the productivity and profitability of farming enterprises, Pasture Cropping may provide one option for addressing these issues.
……………………………………………………………………………
Liz Clay Positioning soil in the carbon market - a Victorian perspective
There is now a scientific and political consensus on the reality of climate change. It is happening and it has serious implications - for our ecosystems, our health, our economy and our future. This paper reviews the risks and opportunities associated with positioning soil carbon in the emissions trading market.
……………………………………………………………………………
Andrew Helps  Carbon, energy and water
Making the case for high carbon fertiliser
Can Australian farmers remain profitable under their current dry land model? Will selling grain for export continue to be the best use of farm production? Manufactured fertiliser is hooked to the price of oil and gas. It takes .65 of a tonne of natural gas to make a tonne of urea, a tonne of natural gas to make a tonne of ammonia and the equivalent of a tonne of gas and up to 20,000 litres of water to make a tonne of phosphorus. It is reasonable to expect that farm gate prices for diesel could well rise to the $1.50-$1.60 region after excise claw back in the next 18 months. At this level most farmers will want to explore alternative fuel options - what are these options?


REGISTRATION: Places for this information packed two day forum are limited. Registration deadline 14 July 2006. Visit http://www.amazingcarbon.com/
or contact UNE Conference Company (02) 6773 2154

An Open Letter To Soil Scientists About Carbon

Dear Soil Scientist,

Scientists have rarely had the opportunity to change the course of history that you have today. Global warming is now widely considered inevitable. The race is on to find ways to avert the worst case scenario.

While millions of trees are being planted and various solutions are being investigated, including pumping C02 into oceans, empty coal seams and oil wells, none has the capacity to sequester sufficient CO2 in the next 50 years. Only soils can do it. "Results from integrated assessment analyses indicate that soil carbon sequestration may have an important strategic role – due to potential for early deployment and low costs – within a technology portfolio to mitigate climate change," says US climate change economist Professor Bruce A. McCarl of Texas A&M University. "Unlike many other technologies to offset fossil fuel emissions (e.g. geologic carbon sequestration, carbon capture), land management for soil C sequestration can be implemented immediately, provided there are economic and other incentives to do so."

Soils can sequester large amounts of carbon*. "Soil organic carbon is the largest reservoir in interaction with the atmosphere," reports the United Nations Food & Agriculture Organisation. (Vegetation 650 gigatons, Atmosphere 750 gigatons, Soil 1500 gigatons). Poor management of the world's soils in the past 200 years has seen soil carbon levels severely depleted in many regions. Grazing land alone comprises more than half the total land surface of the world. Any incremental change in carbon levels through improved soil management on such a scale could have a massive impact on atmospheric CO2 stocks.

Soils used for C sequestration would reach their carbon saturation point within that 50-year window of opportunity. But they will have done the job until alternatives come on stream.

There are two more links in the chain between you and saving the world from the worst of Global Warming. Link #1 is the motivation to get conservative farmers to make radical changes to their farm practices. The income derived from selling carbon credits would be sufficient incentive to change for most farmers if prices were in the range currently being achieved under the Kyoto Agreement.

Link #2 is the mechanism which can make such trade possible - the measurement, monitoring and verification of amounts of carbon sequestered in soils. Here the spotlight falls upon you. The world needs a reliable, bankable methodology that will be acceptable to markets. Currently the ruling paradigm states that it can't be done: soil carbon levels are in such flux that they can swing wildly from one side of a field to another, from furrow to furrow, from day to day.

Consider this: Before Columbus, educated Europeans thought the earth was flat. Before Copernicus, educated Europeans thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. These old paradigms were fiercely defended by the establishment. There will come a day when soil carbon measurement will be a problem solved and the world will reap the benefits.

These benefits are not just greenhouse-related. The soil management techniques required for carbon sequestration - constant groundcover, deep-rooted perennials, minimum- or no-tillage cropping, and the like - will have the positive effect of restoring soil structure, rebuilding biomass and microfauna communities, increasing the soil's water-holding capacity, reducing the incidence of salination, and improving soil fertility and productivity. Add to these the protection of topsoil from wind and water erosion and you can see how powerful is your opportunity.
The carrot of carbon credits will motivate an entire generation of farmers to learn the benefits of husbanding the soil.

There are profound social benefits, as well. Increased farm incomes would help farm families stay together on the land. Increased farm values would give farm families financial flexibility and confidence in the future. Soil carbon credits would also foster new growth in farm communities, providing employment opportunities and protecting social infrastructure that is crumbling as you read this.

Given the benefits for the environment and society, the search for a methodology should be pursued with the same passion as the search for a cure for cancer. The scientist who discovers the solution will not only enter the history books. You will have made a real contribution to the lives of everyone on the planet, an opportunity few people are given.

Yours in hope for the future,

The Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming**


PS. Shakespeare said it all:

"There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries."

PPS. *Soil carbon sinks can play a key role in the global strategy to mitigate against greenhouse emissions, says Prof. Bruce A. McCarl. "With focused effort, the amount of carbon sequestered in soil by land management could be significantly increased. Various studies estimate that the soil C sequestration rate may be increased to 0.44-0.88 Pg C y-1 and sustained over a 50-year time frame."

**The Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming is a farmers' and citizens' movement which seeks to have agricultural soils recognised as an effective carbon sink for the purposes of trading on the global greenhouse emissions offset market. Visit www.carboncoalition.com.au for more details and to join.

Persistence

Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan "press on" has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
[info][add][mail]
Calvin Coolidge (1872 - 1933)

There is a tide in the affairs of men...

There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

AP6 locks world in to four degrees global warming

AP6 locks world in to four degrees global warming

12 Jan 2006

WWF, the global conservation organisation, has grave concerns following today's announcements at the AP6 meeting in Sydney that the Howard Government is willing to accept runaway climate change.

The Prime Minister's office today stated that the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate would lead to 20% less greenhouse gas emissions than would otherwise be the case by 2050, based on analysis by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE).

What is not being said is that the ABARE report (PDF 1.2 MB) shows global emissions will in fact increase by 100 per cent by 2050 under the Partnership plan, when climate scientists are calling for emissions to halve.

A 100 per cent increase in global greenhouse gas emissions, as allowed under the new Partnership plan, would lock the world into a four-degree rise in average global surface temperatures.

A four-degree rise in temperatures would wreak havoc on infrastructure and the natural environment.

In Australia this would result in the destruction of our natural icons, including World Heritage sites such as Kakadu, the Great Barrier Reef and the Daintree rainforest. Global warming of this magnitude would also place untenable pressure on the country's healthcare and emergency response systems as more people are affected by heat-related diseases, cyclones, bushfires and other freak weather patterns.

The Australian Medical Association yesterday said that by the year 2100 up to 15,000 Australians could die every year from heat related illnesses and the dengue transmission zone could reach as far south as Brisbane and Sydney if emissions continue to increase.

"In my whole business career, I have never seen a more misleading public statement as that made by Prime Minister John Howard today," said WWF-Australia CEO Greg Bourne.

"If the statements made today become a reality, this will lock us in to a four-degree rise in global average temperatures, when two-degrees is considered extremely dangerous," he said.

"There couldn't be anything more irresponsible than to knowingly embark on a path towards massive increases in emissions and runaway global warming."

The only way to avoid dangerous climate change is for the world to agree on a plan to reduce emissions. The Kyoto Protocol is the only global treaty to do this.

WWF urges the United States and Australia to join the 148 countries that are working on effective emissions reductions under the Kyoto Protocol.
For more information

Charlie Stevens, Press Officer, WWF-Australia
Phone: 02 8202 1274
Mobile: 0424 649 689
Email: cstevens@wwf.org.au
Notes

* Last month, a WWF report entitled Are we putting our fish in hot water? (PDF 1.03 MB) reveals that fish are increasingly threatened by the effects of climate change as temperatures rise in rivers, lakes and oceans. For a copy of the report and for the full scientific reports on climate change and freshwater and marine fish, see Hot, hungry and gasping for air - climate change puts fish at risk, warns WWF.
* Studies by WWF show at least 90 Australian species are at risk from climate change - including koalas, wombats, birds, reptiles, frogs and fish. According to the Australian Government's Department of Environment and Heritage most highland faunal species will disappear if average temperatures increase by 1-5°C.
* Science journal Nature has revealed that between 15 and 37 per cent of terrestrial species worldwide could become extinct by 2050 if estimated levels of climate change are not reduced.
* In the Arctic, an expected temperature increase of 2°C could result in the extinction of such iconic species as polar bears, seals and walruses.

For more information

Contact the WWF-Australia Press Office by email or phone on 1800 032 551, or 0410 220 608 after hours.
Our Work

* Climate Change
* Oceans
* Water
* Weeds & Pests
* Land & Forests
* Species
* Industry
* Business

Act

* Donate
* Animal adoptions
* Take action
* Volunteer
* What's on
* Travel Tours
* Shop

About us

* Contact us
* How we work
* Jobs
* FAQs

© WWF-Australia | Home | Site map | Privacy policy | Copyright |

Senate pleads with Bush: "Be a leader. Cap and Trade!"

CAPTION: The US Senate says President George W. Bush is not a visionary when it comes to his country's future in a carbon-conscious world.

.................

On 29 June, 40 US senators, including prominent Republican leaders, sent an urgent letter to President Bush. "Provide leadership on climate change," they said or the US could lose its competitive edge in a "carbon conscious" world. They want a mandatory cap and trade system whereby companies will have to buy carbon credits to offset the CO2 and other gases they are emitting into the atmosphere.

A year ago, the Senate passed a resolution calling for a mandatory federal programme to reverse global warming.
In other words, they wanted a cap and trade system. Nothing happened, so they are pleading with him again. Bush is a global warming skeptic. He has only recently agreed it is real. He doesn't accept its man made. (He career in the oil industry, one of the biggest polluters that would be forced to buy offsetting credits, has been offered as an explanation for his reluctance.) The Bush Administration's own scientists have proven climate change is linked to human influences.

The 40 Senators make an appeal on economic grounds: "It is important to keep US businesses competitive in a carbon-conscious global marketplace. Since we have not given them a clear signal to reduce global warming pollution, American businesses continue to make long-term capital investments that commit us to ever-increasing global warming emissions. Our inaction has discouraged the deployment of existing technologies and development of new technologies."
America will be a backwater, they warn, as "foreign companies are advancing innovative designs and patents in photovoltaics, auto technology, wind and efficient buildings".

"We urge you to provide leadership on this critical issue..."

Several bills are before Congress, including the Strong Economy & Climate Protection Act, which would cap emissions from large polluters. Republican Sen. John McCain says he will re-introduce the Climate Stewardship Act, which would cap greenhouse gas emissions.

Australian farmers are blocked from receiving full value for the carbon they sequester by the refusal of President Bush to mandate cap and trade and the way the Commonwealth Government in Australia takes its cues from the US.

CRC for Greenhouse Accounting closed

The Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Accounting, opened in 1999, has been closed. The Centre has not been re-funded. The Centre's website will be maintained. The CRC announced the closure with this statement: "Tasked with a vision to develop world-class capability in greenhouse accounting that would support Australia in meeting the greenhouse challenge on the land, the CRC has achieved that and much more Through the seven-year life of the CRC its members have produced about 400 first class journal papers. Of 15 Centre papers examined, six are in the top 1 per cent in their field for citations, and all are in the top 10 per cent. The citations will only get better in coming years. The Centre's website currently serves about 46,000 sessions a month and eCarbon News reaches nearly 2000 people. More than 30 PhD students have been an integral part of the CRC, and four CRC Members became Professors during the life of the CRC. The Centre has held more than 30 CRC workshops and briefings that have delivered our messages to at least a couple of thousand of people from all sectors of the community. Members attended and contributed to conferences, seminars and briefings all over the world - in this financial year alone members made an average of about four presentations a week. CRC for Greenhouse Accounting research has contributed to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines and greenhouse gas inventory methods, to the development and implementation the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, the National Carbon Accounting System, the proposed (Australian) National Emissions Trading Scheme, to international and national standards, to individual firms through consultancies, and to the development of local, state, federal and industry policy. The CRC is proud of its contribution to greenhouse science, and its members look forward to continuing their contributions through other avenues."

Get set for a "Carbon Windfall"

The farm sector is poised for a "carbon windfall", according to ma report in Stock & Land, June 22, 2006

"A NATIONAL emissions trading scheme has the potential to pour more than $600 million into Australian farm coffers over five years," says Farm Online. "A new report on the implications of a trading scheme for the farm sector found that even at conservative prices of $6-$10 per tonne of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e), the ability to trade emissions offsets created from improved farm practices could deliver between $360 and $600m in revenue over five years."

At prices around the level of the spot market operating under the NSW Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, the potential revenue windfall would be double that.

Carbon credits for cow s---!

US dairy farmers are now being paid carbon credits. Darryl Vander Haak, a dairy farmer in Lynden, Washington State, and Dennis Haubenschild, from Princeton, Minnesota, were the first to be paid for capturing methane, a greenhouse gas, from manure on their farms using anaerobic digesters. “It’s one more revenue stream that helps us keep producing milk for our customers,” said Mr Vander Haak. The two dairy farmers were credited with preventing the release of over 720 tons of methane - equivalent to more than 13,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide. At current prices of $2/ton, the “carbon credits” produced by these two projects are worth more than $26,000. They will generate additional credits each year.
"American farmers deserve to be recognized for the actions they take to reduce global warming. Cash for carbon credits is a great place to start,” says Jim Jensen, of Environmental Credit Corp. (ECC), a leading supplier of environmental credits to global financial markets. ECC, a part of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), worked with the farmers to certify their methane emission reductions. The CCX is the world’s first (and North America’s only) voluntary, legally binding rules-based greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading system. Manure accounts for 6.6% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Anaerobic digester technology is used to control odors, produce renewable power and organic soil treatments.
Pictured:Dairy farmer Darryl Vander Haak receives his first cheque for carbon credits from Jim Jensen of Environmental Credit Corp. (Photo: ECC)

Congress rebuffs Bush 3 times on Climate

America's alternative to the Kyoto Protocol, the Asia Pacific Climate Partnership (AP6), recently took a hit when the Bush Administration's request for funding to kick it off was rejected by the House of Representatives. Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress support more substantial measures to reduce greenhouse emissions along the lines of the Kyoto Protocol.
AP6 rejects mandatory cap and trade regimes, believing there is time to develop technology solutions to the climate crisis. President Bush promised $250m to fund AP6. But Congress holds the purse strings, and the House Appropriations Committee rejected it. This defeat marks the third time the Bush administration attempted and failed to obtain funding for its climate plan.
The Partnership - whose members include non-Kyoto countries America and Australia, plus signatories China, India, Japan and South Korea - rejects emission reduction targets. The US and Australia are the only members to commit funds so far.

"I'm no longer sceptical" - David Attenborough

"I was sceptical about climate change. I was cautious about crying wolf. . . . But I'm no longer sceptical," said David Attenborough in an article in British newspaper The Independent. "Now I do not have any doubt at all. I think climate change is the major challenge facing the world. I have waited until the proof was conclusive that it was humanity changing the climate. The thing that really convinced me was the graphs connecting the increase of carbon dioxide in the environment and the rise in temperature, with the growth of human population and industrialisation. The coincidence of the curves made it perfectly clear we have left the period of natural climatic oscillation behind and have begun on a steep curve, in terms of temperature rise, beyond anything in terms of increases that we have seen over many thousands of years."

Makin' Carbon

This is what 2000 sheep can do to 10 acres in 24 hours. This is called animal impact. We let this lot dry off – the first shot taken in December.










Then we let them in mid March to eat what they can find and stomp the rest in to the ground, along with their poop and piddle. It is a natural tilling and fertilising effect.









Long periods of rest followed by high intensity grazing and disturbance is the white man’s way of encourag-ing the perennial pastures.








The perennials are deep-rooted and they aerate and fertilise soil and make it porous and spongey and more likely to hold water longer. The biomass beneath the soil is the secret carbon storage facility that out-performs forests.















And this is what it looks like 6 weeks later in late April (a non-growing season). Fresh grass growing green with no rain.

Meet Coalition Members Online

Great News!

Now you can 'meet' members of the Carbon Coalition online and share ideas and opinions when you sign up as a member of the Coalition discussion group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carboncoalition.

You can use it to read and reply to group messages.
You can start a new discussion.
We can use it to share photos with group members.
We can use it to coordinate events via a shared calendar.
We can conduct polls to ask members how they feel about any topic.

I will be checking it regularly as a guide to what you would like to see posted on the web and blog sites.

You are our greatest resource in our quest for carbon credit justice. The combined brainpower of the group is our edge.

Please go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carboncoalition and sign up. I'll see you there.

Peter Andrews endorses Carbon Coalition

Peter Andrews, whose Natural Sequence Farming approach to water management was made famous on ABC TV's "Australian Story" endorsed the objectives of the Carbon Coalition and urged cooperation between the Coalition and his organisation.
"We have to cooperate if we are to succeed," he said.



Peter and Coalition Convenor Michael Kiely addressed 250 farmers from the Manning District in Gloucester, NSW at a LandCare Innovative Farmers’ Forum on Saturday. "The processes for achieving high carbon levels will in many cases be the same as those needed for restoring balance in landscape hydrology," he said. His beliefs are based on the bedrock principle that we should be managing the landscape to mimic Mother Nature. “This country ran itself and ran its water and it costed nothing. So if we start to plan these things and it costs a lot of money, then we’ve probably got it wrong,” he told the gathering.
Michael's presentation - “Uamby: A Carbon Farm” – was based on soil management trials run by his wife Louisa at their Mudgee district property Uamby over five years and naturally led into a presentation about the Carbon Coalition. The Uamby case study was chosen for the event because so many different techniques for building soil carbon had been tried, according to organiser Col Freeman of Manning Landcare.
Many present expressed interest in the Coalition and a special Q&A session was held at the close of the seminar focussing on the Coalition and how people can get involved.

Carbon rises to US$23.50/t

The price quoted on European carbon trading markets for a ton of carbon rose to US$23.50 yesterday. (Prices shown in Euros on chart.)

Carbon price bounces back

The price quoted on European carbon trading markets for a ton of carbon bouncedd back to US$20.50 yesterday. (Prices shown in Euros on chart.)

More Republicans break ranks with Bush on Carbon

The US House Appropriations Committee this week amended the 2007 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill to call on Congress to enact a mandatory greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system. The amendment was sponsored by Representative Norm Dicks (D-WA), was passed by voice vote on May 10, 2006. Committee Chair Jerry Lewis (R-CA) voiced support for the amendment and refused a request from some Republicans to hold a roll-call vote. Dicks called the amendment's passage a "first step." House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) told E&E Daily,"Global warming is now accepted by almost all."
The appropriations bill is now headed to the House floor, where the amendment could be removed before the bill is passed.
The language of the amendment is as follows:

"The Congress finds that (1) greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere are causing average temperatures to rise at a rate outside the range of natural variability and are posing a substantial risk of rising sea-levels, altered patterns of atmospheric and oceanic circulation, and increased frequency and severity of floods and droughts; (2) there is a growing scientific consensus that human activity is a substantial cause of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere; and (3) mandatory steps will be required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

"It is the sense of the Congress that there should be enacted a comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, and reverse the growth of such emissions at a rate and in a manner that (1) will not significantly harm the United States economy ; and (2) will encourage comparable action by other nations that are major trading partners and key contributors to global emissions." (5/11/06)

On March 29, 2006 Representatives Tom Udall (D-NM) and Tom Petri (R-WI) introduced the "Keep America Competitive Global Warming Policy Act of 2006”. "The continuing absence of a meaningful, mandatory policy in the United States is a significant impediment to a global consensus to slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions," they stated in a press release. "By introducing this bill, we are working to fill that void and encourage lawmakers to take the first step toward responding to the increasingly urgent signs of global warming."

The bill creates a mandatory cap for greenhouse gas emissions, set prospectively at emissions levels three years after the enactment of the legislation, rather than at today's levels. It also includes a "safety valve" that initally limits the price of an emission allowance to $25 per ton of carbon (equivalent to roughly $7 per ton of carbon dioxide) in order to prevent a price run-up. The price of the safety valve can increase beyond inflation only after the President and Secretary of State determine that developing countries are taking comparable actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, the bill is revenue neutral to the Treasury and includes free allocation of allowances to promote the development and implementation of carbon-reducing technologies.

(Report from the AMerican Geological Institute)

Carbon market volumes booming

The global carbon market could be worth US$30 billion in 2006, according to the World Bank. Carbon contracts worth US$7.5 billion changed hands to the end of April, compared with a total of almost $11 billion in 2005.
This follows a 40-times increase in volumes of carbon dioxide (CO2) allowances traded in 2005 compared to 2004.
"We have a working market that has grown faster than expected," said Andrei Marcu, president of the International Emissions Trading Association.

Don't plant that tree! Grow grass instead

Trees are not always good carbon sinks! Nature magazine let the cat out of the bag in 2002: planting trees is not the best way to fight global warming. Growing grass is.
Nature reported Duke University scientists saying that trees and shrubs growing in areas of good rainfall are less effective storehouses for carbon than native grasslands. Studies that found for trees ignored what was going on below ground, said Robert Jackson, associate professor of biology at Duke University. Under wet conditions, trees and shrubs can cause soil to lose carbon, effectively negating any sequesteringof carbon in the trees themselves.
``The study suggests that we need to look very closely at what's below ground before we add up just what's stored above ground in tree trunks,'' he said.

Six pairs of adjacent western grasslands were studied in the US. In one of each pair, trees and shrubs had invaded sometime in the last 100 years. In the drier locations, the "regrowth" led to an increase in the amount of carbon locked up in the soil. In wetter areas, however, the opposite happened.
Professor Jackson believes, "Grasses are deceptively productive. You don't see where all the carbon goes so there is a misconception that woody species store more carbon. That's just not always the case.''
The study helps dispel the notion that humans can plant their way out of global warming, said Daniel Becker, director of the Sierra Club global warming and energy program. ``We are going to need to tackle the industrial sources of emissions head-on rather than just plant a bunch of trees,'' Becker said.

"Fantastic news," says Tim Flannery

Tim Flannery greeted new of the Carbon Coalition as 'fantastic'.

"Thank you for this fantastic news. I really think that once farmers realize the enormous financial potential of biofuels and sedquestration we will see a swift government turn around on this issue. The job at the moment is a political one - getting polluters to pay for their right to pollute. With that great opportunities will arise.

Best wishes,

Tim"

Mr Flannery's books The Future Eaters and The Weather Makers have raised the soil depletion and Global Warming issues to prominence on the national agenda.

While there is a considerable body of evidence put forward by sceptics seeking to debunk Global Warming as a myth perpetrated by environmentalists in order to win political control of natural resource management, the weight of scientific opinion in the world is so uniformly behind the predictions of warming that the community now seems to accept it as a fact. The Carbon Coalition does not agree with everything put forward by green activists, but accepts that Global Warming is a real issue, that emission caps should be imposed on greenhouse gas emitters, and that an offset market for trading carbon credits should be instigated in Australia. Moreover, barriers to Australian farmers trading their carbon credits on the European market should be removed by Australia ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.

Sackett attacks Carbon Farming

It had to happen. The vested interests of traditional agriculture are fighting back. In a letter to the editor of The AUSTRALIAN FARM JOURNAL, a leading rural business consultant David Sackett attacked Carbon Coalition Councillor David Marsh for being a "carbon farmer", accusing him of running a 'subsistence farming' operation because he wasn't driving the soil to maximise short term profitability. He complained that the article in the Journal which featured David's extraordinary performance over the three years of drought did not provide enough financial data. He claimed David was understocked when David was stocking to the capacity of the landscape. In other words, Sackett complained that David did not destroy and deplete the soil by running his property hard, spreading artificial fertilisers which increase the acidity of the soil, lead to algal blooms in waterways, and kill the natural microbial life in the soil that builds carbon.

As David is too much a gentleman to engage in a spat, and as it is an attack on carbon farming concept, the Coalition wrote a letter in reply:


Dear Sir,

David Sackett’s contribution to Australian agriculture is well known, but his dismissal of David Marsh’s approach to farming is unworthy of him.
David made a profit in the three worst drought years in living memory. (How many farmers can say that?) He did not have to handfeed at all. He did not lose groundcover in that period. He therefore did not have to resow pastures after the drought, a considerable saving in capital expenditure.
He did it by “matching livestock carrying numbers to the carrying capacity of the landscape” and by keeping input costs down. Gross turnover is irrelevant. Profit is what counts.
Input costs have rocketed ahead of prices that farmers can get for their produce. At the same time the natural resource base on which they depend for future profits is rapidly declining.
Environmental entrepreneurs like David are interested in tomorrow’s profits as well as today’s. If businesses benchmarking in the top 5% of production economic performance were forced to account for the real cost of their operations (deferred cost of depeleted resource base), their balance sheets would look very different.
This is not an ideological divide. It is a paradigm shift. There can be little understanding between people operating under different paradigms because the past cannot understand the future and the future cannot talk to the past in terms it will understand. Farmers like David are simply getting on with learning how to increase profits while improving their resource base. They are not insisting that others be like them.
David is a member of the Council of the Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming, a new farmers’ movement which aims to enable farmers to sell carbon credits on the global greenhouse emissions market, based on the carbon sequestered in agricultural soils. This development will significantly alter the economics of farming as well as attitudes to the natural resource base.

Michael Kiely
Convenor
Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming
“Uamby”
Goolma NSW

What is it about Conservatives and Climate Change?

163 countries have signed the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions and two governments have refused: conservative governments in America and Australia. Now the new Canadian Conservative government wants to join them.
It has slashed spending on the country's climate change program. Canada's Liberal government had committed C$10 billion up to 2012 for climate change, but that has been cut to C$2 billion.
Although Canada has ratified the Kyoto Protocol and has a target to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012, it would like to skip out and join the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6). This arrangement was set up by the US to counter the damage done to its environmental credentials, both at home and abroad, when it refused to ratify Kyoto Protocol which it had helped to develop. Joining it in the "Coalition of the Unwilling" - countries unwilling to force companies emitting greenhouse gases to buy carbon credits - was one country: Australia. China, India, Japan, and South Korea are members but also signatories to the Kyoto Protocol. AP6 is a voluntary agreement that focuses on developing clean technologies but, unlike the Kyoto Protocol, does not impose binding targets for reducing emissions. AP6 represents more than 50% of world carbon emissions while Kyoto covers only 35%.
Canada's desire for joining AP6 was criticised by Prof. Gordon McBean of the Institute of Catastrophic Loss Reduction at the University of Western Ontario. Voluntary programmes mostly measure actions that companies would have taken anyway, he says. While Canada emits only 2% of world emissions, it is very vulnerable to climate change.
PM Stephen Harper said Conservative "ideologues" in his government were urging withdrawal from Kyoto, even though the majority of Canadians support the Protocol. Slashing the budget was the next best thing.

Carbon market hits record low!

These prices - from Point Carbon - are in Euros:

Just weeks after hitting a record high of US$37/ton, the price of Carbon crashed to around US$10/ton on the European market. The reason?
Emission reports from the Netherlands, Czech Republic, France and Walloon region of Belgium came in at lower than expected rates for 2005. The demand for carbon credits depends on the actual levels of GHG emissions of various countries compared to their targets. If the countries achieve higher level of emission reductions than their targets, then the companies in those countries need not buy additional carbon credits. If they emit higher levels they have to buy additional carbon credits in their own country and in developing countries to meet their reduction targets.
Greater awareness of emission targets and the heavy cost for non-compliance may dampen demand for carbon credits.
Still, at US10/ton, farmers stand to make a hefty margin on carbon farming and sequestration.

We welcome Woody Deryckx, soil health pioneer

Prominent US organic farmer and alternative agriculture advocate Woody Deryckx has joined the Carbon Coalition! Woody been devoted to advocating and developing organic agriculture since Earth Day 1971. Farmer, educator, consultant and advocate, he co-founded the Tilth Movement in 1974, planning and hosting the Northwest Conference on Alternative Agriculture in Ellensburg that year. He has been president of the Organic Farming Research Foundation . In the 1970s, he developed the curricula and taught Ecological Agriculture at Evergreen State College for many years. He has been active in playing a catalytic role in the organic food industry in the US, serving on the boards of many organizations to promote organic practices.

He is a soil man. As head of the Field Department of Willow Wind Organic Farms, he wrote this in response to an enquirer's question about composting: "Organic farming is a management intensive, complex biological undertaking. We need high levels of soil fertility to produce processing vegetables and all the nutrient that supports our crops comes to the plants by complex biological pathways in the incredibly complex community of soil organisms in the organic matter of the soil. Since every pound of nitrogen that goes to support our abundant and healthy crops passes through perhaps thousands of microbial hands in the soil food web, the soil is maintained as a vibrantly healthy and robust ecosystem. This is one of the benefits of organic farming - we feed the soil first - then the soil feeds the crop which in turn feeds us.__As I hope you can see, our organic farmers don't treat the soil like dirt."

Upon registering with the Carbon Coalition, Woody had this to say: "Certainly soil carbon is a huge component in the system and soil carbon has declined from intensive cultivation and soluble salt fertilizer use. Organic farming - grass farming - agroforestry - no till and limited till farming - and other bioinnovation alternatives can help restore balance in the carbon cycle and offer hope for sustainability."

We welcome Woody from Washington State.

Carbon market hits record high!

Prices for carbon dioxide (CO2) allowances in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) have jumped to record levels.

On 12 April, Germany became the first major EU member state to publish hard numbers for its Phase II national allocation plan. The news helped push EU Allowance prices above €30 ($37)/tonne of CO2.

The calculations below of the value of sequestered carbon in agricultural soils were made on the basis of $15/tonne CO2. Dr Christine Jones announced in an earlier paper, based on this figure, that 100 hectares could sequester $400,000 worth of carbon for credits. At this new market level, the potential return to a 'carbon farmer' reaches the unimaginable $1m mark.

"If organic carbon concentrations were increased by 2% to a depth of 30 cm in the same example [given in Table 1 below], this would represent $3,960/ha, that is, almost $400,000 in ‘carbon credits’ per 100 ha of regenerated land. These levels of increase in soil carbon are achievable, and have already been achieved, by landholders practicing regenerative cropping and grazing practices."

For readers whom missed the earlier post on calcuating the volume and value of carbon in soils, this is an excerpt from a paper by Dr Christine Jones*, produced for the Living Soils seminars held in NSW recently.

..............
Calculating volume and value of soil carbon

Soil carbon content is usually expressed as either a concentration (%) or a stock (t/ha). Unless the depth of measurement and soil bulk density parameters are known, it is not possible to accurately convert from one unit of measurement to the other.

For the sake of illustration however, some simple assumptions can be made. Changes in the stock of soil carbon (t/ha) for each 1% change in measured organic carbon (OC) status for a range of soil bulk densities and measurement depths are shown in Table 1. Numbers in brackets represent tCO2 equivalent. An explanation of these terms follows.

Soil bulk density (g/cm3) is the dry weight (g) of one cubic centimetre (cm3) of soil. The higher the bulk density the more compact the soil. Generally, soils of low bulk density are well structured and have ‘more space than stuff’. The lower the bulk density the more room for air and water and the better the conditions for soil life and nutrient cycling. Bulk density usually increases with soil depth. To simplify the table it was assumed that soil bulk density did not change with depth

CO2 equivalent. Every tonne of carbon lost from soil adds 3.67 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) gas to the atmosphere. Conversely, every 1 t/ha increase in soil organic carbon represents 3.67 tonnes of CO2 sequestered from the atmosphere and removed from the greenhouse gas equation.

For example, from TABLE 1 we can see that a 1% increase in organic carbon in the top 20 cm of soil with a bulk density of 1.2 g/cm3 represents a 24 t/ha increase in soil OC which equates to 88 t/ha of CO2 sequestered.

..............................
TABLE 1. Changes in the stock of soil carbon (tC/ha) for each 1% change in measured organic carbon (OC) status for a range of soil bulk densities and measurement depths. Numbers in brackets represent tCO2 equivalent.


.....................Value of soil carbon.................

Sequestered carbon is a tradeable commodity. It has different values in different markets and the price is subject to market fluctuation. If the CO2 equivalent in the above example was worth $15/t, the value of sequestered soil carbon in ‘carbon credits’ would be $1,056/ha. If the soil carbon concentration was increased by 1% to a depth of 30cm rather than to 20 cm, this would represent 132 t/ha sequestered CO2 at a value of $1,980/ha.

If organic carbon concentrations were increased by 2% to a depth of 30 cm in the same example, this would represent $3,960/ha, that is, almost $400,000 in ‘carbon credits’ per 100 ha of regenerated land. These levels of increase in soil carbon are achievable, and have already been achieved, by landholders practicing regenerative cropping and grazing practices.

Even if organic carbon levels were only increased by 0.5% in the top 10 cm of soil this would represent 22 t/ha sequestered CO2 valued at $33,000 per 100 ha regenerated land (assuming a soil bulk density of 1.2 g/cm3 and a price of $15/t CO2 equivalent).

Carbon credits for sequestered carbon are not an annual payment. In order to receive further credits, the level of soil carbon would need to be further increased. It is also important that the OC level for which payment was received is maintained.

This is not difficult with regenerative regimes in which new topsoil is being formed. Biological activity is concentrated in the top 10cm of most agricultural soils, but regenerative practices rapidly expand this activity zone to 30 cm and deeper. Many benefits in addition to potential carbon credits accrue to increased root biomass and increased levels of biological activity in soil.

The majority of Australian soils have lost enormous quantities of organic carbon and this process needs to be reversed. What has gone up must come down. Soils, plants, animals and people will benefit when we take ‘recycle and re-use’ to the next logical step and recycle the excess carbon currently in the atmosphere.

Carbon and nitrogen

Nitrogen moves between the atmosphere and the topsoil in similar ways to carbon. The main difference is that the ‘way in’ for atmospheric carbon is via green plants whereas the ‘way in’ for atmospheric nitrogen is soil microbes. Soils acting as net sinks for carbon are usually also acting as net sinks for nitrogen. The flip side is that soils losing carbon are usually losing nitrogen too. In poorly aerated soils, some of this loss is in the form of nitrous oxide (N2O), a greenhouse gas up to 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide, while other losses include easily leached nitrate (NO3-) which often takes calcium, magnesium and potassium with it, leaving the soil more acidic (lower pH).

Rewarding landholders for farming in ways that build new topsoil and raise levels of soil carbon and nitrogen would have a significant impact on the vitality and productivity of Australia’s rural industries, reduce the incidence of dryland salinity and soil acidity – and reduce levels of greenhouse gases.

As a bonus, regenerative farming practices result in the production of food much higher in vitamin and mineral content and lower in herbicide and pesticide residues than conventionally produced foods.

A new era

If landholders were rewarded for regenerative practices that aggregate rather than aggravate soil structure, it would move us a long way towards solving the greenhouse gas ‘problem’, without the need to measure soil carbon levels at all. Any farming practice that improves soil structure is building soil carbon. When soils become light, soft and springy, easier to dig or till and less prone to erosion, waterlogging or dryland salinity - then organic carbon levels are increasing. If soils are becoming more compact, eroded or saline – organic carbon levels are falling.

Water, energy, life, nutrients and profit will increase on-farm as soil organic carbon levels rise. The alternative is evaporation of water, energy, life, nutrients and profit if carbon is mismanaged and goes into the air.

It’s about turning carbon loss into carbon gain.

............

*Christine Jones is a grassland ecologist with more than 30 years experience studying plant species. She has a PhD in agronomy and botany.

‘Managing the Carbon Cycle’ Forums will be held in Horsham, VIC, 26-27 July 2006; Katanning, WA, 2-3 August 2006 and Kingaroy, QLD, 25-26 October 2006. See www.amazingcarbon.com or contact Christine@amazingcarbon.com

Business leaders predict catastrophe if trading doesn't start soon

There is an urgent need for fast carbon sequestering, such as soils are perfectly constructed to do, and the world's isnurance companies are worried the help won't come fast enough. The number and frequency of catastrophic weather events is rapidly impacting on their liabilities. CEO of Australian insurance giant IAG, Mr Michael Hawker, said recently,"We have done a huge amount of modelling on catastrophic damage, and a slight rise in temperatures would cause longer droughts, would increase one-in-100-year storms to one in 50 years or one in 25 years." Such events would make insurance impossible to get.Michael Hawker, IAG CEO.
Mr Hawker is a member of the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change - launched 2 weeks ago - wants Australia to have its own carbon pricing regime by this time next year. The members of the Roundtable are Gerry Hueston (president of BP Australia), Michael Hawker (CEO of Insurance Australia Group), Grant King (managing director of Origin Energy), Keith Scott ( chief of Swiss Re), Harry Debney (CEO of Visy Industries) and David Morgan (CEO of Westpac). The Australian Conservation Foundation's executive director, Don Henry, is a cheerleader.
Modelling by the Allen Consulting Group revealed the cost of doing nothing (compared with taking early action) would be a cost impact on business after year 2020, slowing GDP to 1.9% through to 2050. But if early action is taken, growth of 2.1% could be sustained through 2050, electricity would be cheaper and jobs created.
Australia has more to lose from the early stages of global warming than other nations. The CSIRO predicts that a 2°C rise in average temperatures could destroy 100% of the Great Barrier Reef, 80% of Kakadu's wetlands, reduce Melbourne's water supplies by 33%, send fruit flies south of Queensland and cause longer, more severe droughts.
That would all but destroy a number of industries, including tourism ($32 billion) and livestock exports ($17 billion).

US Department of Energy gearing up for credits

The last two lines of a recent US Department of Energy press release about carbon measurement make interesting reading in light of official government policy on carbon trading:

"Pursuant to the Kyoto Treaty on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, "carbon credits" will be available to farmers whose soil contains large amounts of sequestered carbon.Polluting industries are allowed fixed amounts of carbon dioxide emissions, after which they will have to buy carbon credits, now being actively traded on stock exchanges from Europe to Chicago."

Does the DOE know something we don't know? They know about soil carbon:

"Photosynthesis sequesters carbon in the root systems of plants and finally in the soil. Switching from till to no-till agriculture increases carbon sequestration and farmers will want to be able to verify the amount of carbon stored.
Since carbon sequestration removes carbon from the atmosphere, thus mitigating the global warming, this will allow the farmers to receive carbon credits."

New on-site carbon measurement device

The US Department of Energy recently announced that its scientists have developed "a device that can measure carbon and other elements in soils non-destructively and in situ." The device is mounted on a cart and is "field-deployable".
This instrument uses neutron activation to determine how much carbon is sequestered in soils. It has been undergoing modifications and field tests for a year.
In the past, soil carbon measurement was done by taking samples from small cores or large excavations to a laboratory.
With this device, operators can sample a large volume at the site so that normal lateral fluctuations are smoothed out.
Unlike other soil carbon measurement technologies, which are destructive, this device allows for multi-elemental soil analysis. It can also be used in a scanning mode, allowing scientists to obtain average values of a large area.
"The device may be of particular interest to farmers worldwide, who have been switching in increasing numbers from conventional agriculture methods that turn the soil to what is called "no-till" farming. Since carbon generally improves soil fertility, it will allow farmers to determine when soil conditions are ideal.
There is another reason the farmers may want to keep track of how much carbon is present in their soils, says the DOE press release. "Photosynthesis sequesters carbon in the root systems of plants and finally in the soil. Switching from till to no-till agriculture increases carbon sequestration and farmers will want to be able to verify the amount of carbon stored.
Since carbon sequestration removes carbon from the atmosphere, thus mitigating the global warming, this will allow the farmers to receive carbon credits."

STOP PRESS: "Green Farmers" to be paid for being Green

They're talking billions of dollars to be placed in the hands of Green Farmers to help protect and recover degraded landscapes in the 60% of Australia's land mass managed by farmers. If only they understood the soil carbon sequestration story, the government would know they can get industrial polluters to pay for conserving natural resources in the bush.

The Australian reports this week that even more money is needed to deal with intractable land degradation than the $4.4billion already spent by the Howard Government, according to a report into the Natural Heritage Trust and the National Action Plan on Salinity. The report found the programs fell short in dealing with farm areas needing structural adjustment.
The sustainable use of natural resources by agriculture is a key objective of both programs.
The report said areas with intractable problems, such as severe degradation from past land management policies, would need ``significant investment in innovative approaches and cost-sharing arrangements beyond current levels of investment''.

At the same time this week the Financal Review reports that the federal government is launching a scheme to provide taxpayer assistance to farmers who make environmental improvements to their land. "The incentives - which may be in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars - are an attempt to allay growing anger in the bush about the burden of environmental regulations," said the report. Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran said they would result in an increase in long-term productivity. "The environmental aim might be to revegetate a waterway, repair some gully erosion, protect a wetland, or maintain some remnant native vegetation. It could be a lot of things, but the aim would certainly be to use our money in a way that helped farmers maintain or improve productivity for the long term, in return for long-term environmental protection."
To start the ball rolling, $2 million was announced for a number of pilot projects. "I want to see a broader use of incentives come into play in the next phase of the government's natural resource management programs, from 2008 at the latest", Mr McGauran said.

(SEE THE DIARY OF A CARBON FARMER for the Green Farmers Manifesto - http://envirofarming.blogspot.com)

Australian business leaders call for credits trading

The CEOs of 6 leading corporations are defying the Federal Government and calling for a carbon credits trading scheme for Australia. They have formed the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change, described by the Sydney Morning Herald as "a powerful new voice which wants business and government to respond more rapidly to inexorably rising world temperatures."
Founding members of the Roundtable are Westpac, Swiss Re, Insurance Australia Group (which includes NRMA Insurance),BP Australasia, Origin Energy, and Visy Industries. The Australian Conservation Foundation is also a member.

The position taken by the US and Australian Governments in refusing to ratify the international Kyoto Agreement - which forced heavy emitters of greenhouse gases to buy carbon credits - is rapidly becoming uncomfortable for the two leaders who took the decision to stay out. In the US, business and political circles are merely biding the time for George Bush's term to end. The Congress is known to have legislation drafted and ready. Major corporations such as General Electric are counting on the change.



Westpac CEO David Morgan said GE's CEO Jeff Immelt told him "he was virtually certain that the first action of the next President of the United States, be it Republican or Democrat, would be to initiate urgent action on climate change." Mr Morgan said GE "is allocating billions of dollars worth of investment in the confidence of that development."

First Coalition scan underway!

It's started! We have fired the first shot in our campaign to have soil carbon sequestration recognised as tradable carbon credits. We won't know for 3 years what degree of carbon sampling will be acceptable to the market, we are taking a conservative approach and measuring deep and measuring often. One metre deep and a core sample per acre.
To map the carbon in the topsoil at Uamby, we have commissioned The Center for Precision Agriculture, an august body of soil scientists from Sydney University, to do a pretty standard mapping exercise, using both an EM31 and an EM38 device and a Gamma machine which measures the various radioactive signatures to a depth.

The EM is a standard soil mapping instrument that can give us a guide as to where we should drill for core samples. The Gamma is still experimental but we are told that it has achieved good results in estimating carbon. (I will blog these devices later once I've done my homework.)

Why sample 100cm deep when 30cm is advised?
The 1m of core sample that we have proposed is insurance. 1cm to 30cm was to be sampled in 10 increments to get the data that DR Christine Jones said would be useful i.e the three horizons to see the relative activities of each level. The 30 to 100 cm horizon was taken purely to complete the data set.

Our largest problem at the moment is finding someone to test the soil. It seems the cheapest we can find is $36 per sample, making it unrealistic for the 3 horizons to be tested. We are not giving up on this though as it is very worth while having the top 30 cm separately tested.

From our research, the approach to carbon "Measurement, Monitoring and Verification" adopted across the world varies from a mere estimation based on computer modelling aall the way to our over-cautious approach. We are adopting our approach because we have got to convince the marketplace of our bona fides.
We'll keep you informed.
Driving the scanning rig is Michael Short from The Center for Precision Agriculture. Michael stayed with us for several days and had several adventures along the way. For instance, he drove across a rabbit warren which collapsed under him!

More papers posted in our "Library"

Two more papers are available in our "Library":

"Carbon Stops Salt" by Dr Christine Jones

"ORGANIC MATTER, HUMUS, HUMATE, HUMIC ACID, FULVIC ACID, AND HUMIN" by Dr. Robert E. Pettit, Emeritus Associate Professor, Texas A&M University

Here is Dr Jones's introduction:

"Since the time of European settlement there have been significant losses of humic materials and other forms of organic carbon from Australian soils. This has had a dramatic impact on landscape health in many ways, not the least of which is an increased incidence of dryland salinity.
"Humic substances play three vital roles in reversing dryland salinity:
i) increased soil water storage potential
ii) stimulation of biological activity
iii) chelation and inactivation of salts
"The influence of soil humus on the storage and subsequent movement of water in the landscape is the most important of these roles."

Here is Dr Pettit's introduction:

"Humic substances, such as those listed in the above title, play a vital role in soil fertility and plant nutrition. Plants grown on soils which contain adequate humin, humic acids (Has), and fulvic acids (Fas) are less subject to stress, are healthier, produce higher yields; and the nutritional quality of harvested foods and feeds are superior. The value of humic substances in soil fertility and plant nutrition relates to the many functions these complex organic compounds perform as a part of the life cycle on earth. The life-death cycle involves a recycling of the carbon containing structural components of plants and animals - through the soil and air - and back into the living plant
"Man became distracted from the importance of organic compound cycling when it was discovered that soluble acidic based N-P-K “fertilizers” could stimulate plant growth. Large industrial concerns took advantage of the N-P-K discovery to market industrially processed “fertilizers” from mineral deposit. Continued use of these acidic fertilizers in the absence of adequate humic substance (in the soil) has caused many serious sociological and ecological problems. Man needs to reconsider his approach to fertilization techniques by giving higher priority to soil humus.
"The urgency to emphasize the importance of humic substances and their value as fertilizer ingredients has never been more important than it is today. All those concerned about the ability of soils to support plant growth need to assist in educating the public. Humic substances are recognized by most soil scientists and agronomists as the most important component of a healthy fertile soil. To illustrate how humic substances function, the following summary, based on published scientific data, has been prepared as a guide for an educational program. In addition, by understanding how these carbon containing substances function, professionals will have a solid foundation on which to design environmentally acceptable sustainable agriculture programs."

Biodiesel: Enviro-Enemy Number One?

The only place you'll see orantugangs like this is in a zoo because environmentalists are causing his forest home to be devastated.



Environmentalists and governments are "creating a market for the most destructive crop on earth", according to green activist George Monbiot in an article in the Guardian (6/12/05).
Palm oil is the cheapest source of biodiesel and the rush to meet demand from the EU has resulted in the clearing of millions of hectares of rainforest in Malaysia, Indonesia and Borneo. Biodiesel plants are popping up all over South East Asia to consume the crop that is replacing native forestlands.
Recently Friends of the Earth reported that between 1985 and 2000, the development of oil-palm plantations was responsible for an estimated 87% of deforestation in Malaysia. In Sumatra and Borneo, some 4 million hectares of forest have been converted to palm farms. Now a further 6 million hectares are scheduled for clearance in Malaysia, and 16.5 million in Indonesia.
"Almost all the remaining forest is at risk. Even the famous Tanjung Puting national park in Kalimantan is being ripped apart by oil planters," says Mr Monbiot. "The orangutan is likely to become extinct in the wild. Sumatran rhinos, tigers, gibbons, tapirs, proboscis monkeys and thousands of other species could go the same way. Thousands of indigenous people have been evicted from their lands, and some 500 Indonesians have been tortured when they tried to resist. The forest fires which every so often smother the region in smog are mostly started by the palm growers. The entire region is being turned into a gigantic vegetable oil field." Emotive language. Oh, the irony of it all!

Agricultural soil carbon sinks cheapest and fastest, says Professor

Soil carbon sinks can play a key role in the global strategy to mitigate against greenhouse emissions, says US climate change economist Professor Bruce A. McCarl of Texas A&M University. In a paper called "Enhancement of Carbon Sequestration in U.S. Soils" he wrote: "With focused effort, the amount of carbon sequestered in soil by land management could be significantly increased. Various studies estimate that the soil C sequestration rate may be increased to 0.44-0.88 Pg C y-1 and sustained over a 50-year time frame," says Prof. McCarl. "Results from integrated assessment analyses indicate that soil carbon sequestration may have an important strategic role – due to potential for early deployment and low costs – within a technology portfolio to mitigate climate change.
"The important aspect of land management for soil C sequestration is that, unlike many other technologies to offset fossil fuel emissions (e.g. geologic carbon sequestration, carbon capture), it can be implemented immediately, provided there are economic and other incentives to do so.
"Due to the cumulative effect of CO2 on climate, an immediate offset of CO2 emissions provides a significant delay in the rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration. In addition, by the time that land management C sequestration begins to saturate the soil’s capacity to store additional C, other methods of reducing emissions or sequestering carbon may be available or already in use."

Prof. Bruce A. McCarl is Regents Professor of Agricultural Economics at Texas A&M University. He specialises in policy analysis (mainly in climate change, climate change mitigation, among other things).