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.)
Saturday, October 24, 2009
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.”
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Vote for Soil Carbon before 23rd July
We need your vote for the Soil carbon entry in the Manchester report. Vote Here.
Bruce Ward and Tony Lovell are flying the flag for grassland restoration in the Guardian Newspaper's "Manchester Report". Over the weekend of July 4 and 5, twenty finalists (including Tony and Bruce), made 30 minute presentations to a panel of four judges, introducing Soil Carbon to the panel and the audience.
The panel was led by Lord Bingham, the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Bryony Worthington, an advisor and policy expert on climate change to the British Government, Dan Reicher, a Californian director of Google, and Chris Goodall, author of several major books on climate change and a freelance journalist.
You can see a 1-minute grab summarising our presentation by going to
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/13/manchester-report-grasslands
The panel met and boiled the 20 presentations down to a final list of 10. Soil Carbon made the cut.
Now there is a public vote
Bruce explains why they entered:
"Tony and I are seriously concerned that most people throughout the world are totally unaware of the need for farmers to move from being 'part of the problem' to become recognised as a vital 'part of the solution'. Soil Carbon provides that opportunity, so long as policy makers allow it. Time is running short, and Copenhagen is not far away. The die will be cast one way or the other at that time, and we want it to be cast the right way. We may need more science before we get the detail right, but it is clear that the science can now be done. That is a major step forward from only 2 years ago when we were consistently told it could not be done."
Friday, July 03, 2009
Dear Mr Rudd
Dear Mr Rudd,
We note with enthusiasm the treatment of farmers in the US Emissions Trading Scheme legislation which passed in the Congress recently. We commend to you the following provisions in that legislation and seek your support for similar provisions to be inserted in the Carbon Pollution Removal Scheme legislation which will go before the Senate of the Commonwealth in August:
1. The American Farmer is to be rewarded with tradeable carbon offsets for reducing emissions. The Australian Farmer is to be penalised for emissions caused by the natural biological cycles that govern Agriculture.
2. The American Farmer will receive carbon credits for practices they have put in place back to 2001. The Australian Farmer who has been a good steward to the environment will be penalised for their efforts under the Additionality provisions of the standard Kyoto arrangements for offsets, were an offset program introduced.
3. The USDA, not the EPA, will be the lead agency on running the offset program and conducting the rulemaking. In Australia, the Department for Climate Change and Water has proved incapable of meaningful consultation and engagement with the industry at farmer level.We recommend that the responsibility for these matters be passed to the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the Hon. Tony Burke.
4. The world's farmers are to be covered by a global agreement on emissions and sequestration, if the International Federation of Agricultural Producers' campaign is successful. Currently, Australian farmers would be covered by a local cap and trade scheme, along with only one other country: New Zealand.
It is our submission that responsibility for the portfolio be transferred immediately and that new provisions be prepared as amendments to the CPRS legislation prior to the bill reaching the Senate, those provisions to reflect the US legislation.
Yours sincerely,
The Carbon Farmers
We note with enthusiasm the treatment of farmers in the US Emissions Trading Scheme legislation which passed in the Congress recently. We commend to you the following provisions in that legislation and seek your support for similar provisions to be inserted in the Carbon Pollution Removal Scheme legislation which will go before the Senate of the Commonwealth in August:
1. The American Farmer is to be rewarded with tradeable carbon offsets for reducing emissions. The Australian Farmer is to be penalised for emissions caused by the natural biological cycles that govern Agriculture.
2. The American Farmer will receive carbon credits for practices they have put in place back to 2001. The Australian Farmer who has been a good steward to the environment will be penalised for their efforts under the Additionality provisions of the standard Kyoto arrangements for offsets, were an offset program introduced.
3. The USDA, not the EPA, will be the lead agency on running the offset program and conducting the rulemaking. In Australia, the Department for Climate Change and Water has proved incapable of meaningful consultation and engagement with the industry at farmer level.We recommend that the responsibility for these matters be passed to the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the Hon. Tony Burke.
4. The world's farmers are to be covered by a global agreement on emissions and sequestration, if the International Federation of Agricultural Producers' campaign is successful. Currently, Australian farmers would be covered by a local cap and trade scheme, along with only one other country: New Zealand.
It is our submission that responsibility for the portfolio be transferred immediately and that new provisions be prepared as amendments to the CPRS legislation prior to the bill reaching the Senate, those provisions to reflect the US legislation.
Yours sincerely,
The Carbon Farmers
The future ain't what it used to be
Minister Wong must be feeling shock as Agriculture slips out of her grasp under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. But she and her advisers failed to imagine the future. Six factors were overlooked in the Minister’s analysis of the future:
Factor 1: American Pride.
To anyone who has been looking, it was obvious that the Americans would not simply rubber stamp Kyoto, a Euro-centric arrangement rejected by the USA in the first round. American pride demanded that they submit to the demands of the global community on their own terms.
Factor 2: American domestic politics.
This means American domestic politics would drive the agenda. The farm lobby in the USA is the strongest in the world. It may be hard for Australians to understand the respect shown to Agriculture and its representatives there, given the disregard encountered here. The American farmer would not be hung out to dry – paying for methane and nitrous oxide while being denied soil carbon credits, like the Australian farmer. The US legislation passed last week effectively decouples agricultural emissions from sequestration. Farmers will not be held responsible for emissions generated from the processes of growing food. And the Americans are calling on the world to have a global arrangement for Agriculture.
Factor 3: Global Food politics
The third factor stood out like the proverbial on April 4 in Bonn when – while Penny Wong’s chief adviser was in the next room discussing administrative matters – a gathering which included the USA, the EU, the World Bank, the International Federation of Agricultural Producers, and the UN Food & Agriculture Organisation – informed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the Masters of Kyoto) that they intended to push for Agriculture to be given special status. The reason given was the looming food crisis facing the global community. The FAO had been conducting a series of consultations and workshops – the Carbon Coalition was involved in the USA series – around the world to build momentum towards Copenhagen in December 2009. These meetings were public knowledge.
Factor 4: Australia’s isolation
Minister Wong’s plan for including Agriculture in a cap and trade regime – like any other industrial emitter - astounded other nations gathered to submit a proposal to the Copenhagen round of talks last week. According to one report, only Australia and NZ’s governments have done it. It is hard to imagine this injustice being allowed to continue in the light of world opinion. The powerful Iowa and Illinois Corn Growers Association – in their draft Agricultural Soil Credit Standard released in May 2009 – argued that agrculture does not fit into the current model because of the many variables at play in natural systems. The International Federation of Agricultural Producers agreed, saying the ‘specificity’ of agriculture has to be recognised: “Agriculture is different by nature and must be differentiated from other sectors. Most of agriculture’s green house gas (GHG) emissions are directly linked to natural biological cycles. The future accounting framework should allow a distinction to be made between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic emissions. Farmers cannot be held accountable for natural biological processes. The origin, monitoring and reporting of emissions from agricultural land is inherently different from those associated with fossil fuels. Agriculture should not be penalized for natural emissions that are beyond human control, independent from management effects. Natural emissions are due to climate conditions such as variable rainfall, drought and bushfires."
Factor 5: Australian domestic politics
The Farm Institute’s Mick Keogh predicted the almost complete anihilation of Agriculture when the imposts of a climate change ‘tax’ on emissions are added to the reductions in production projected as a result of declining rainfall and increasing temperatures (already experienced). Senator Bill Heffernan says Australian farmers will be killed on world meat markets if they have to pay for animal methane while countries such as America and Brazil (with 3 times the number of cattle) and India (10 times the number of cattle) do not. Australian producers would also face US competitors without the credits for reductions in emissions that US farmers wll enjoy. The decimation of the Agriculture Sector in the name of climate purity would not be acceptable to the electorate. But the Rudd/Wong line on Agriculture has not been open to negotiation. Minister Wong made that clear. The Government left the door open for the Opposition to take up the cause of soil carbon – which it did with the eager assistance of the Carbon Coalition.
Factor 6: The world is waking up to the power of soils.
The FAO says that the mitigation potential of agriculture is estimated to reach 5.5-6 Gt of CO2eq. per year by 2030 . This potential is enormous relative to agriculture’s emissions which represent 13.5% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). 89% of this potential can be accounted for by soil carbon sequestration; 70% of the total mitigation potential can be realized in developing countries. Many studies acknowledge that GHG sequestration by agriculture is a quick and cost-effective means to mitigate emissions, e.g. document FCCC/TP/2008/8 and work by the IPCC . Significant benefits associated with soil organic carbon storage make sustainable land management a solution to the inter-related issues of poverty, resilience and sustainable development.
1.‘Enabling Agriculture to Contribute to Climate Change Mitigation’, FAO submission to the UNFCCC, January 2009, fig. IPCC 2007
2 According to the fourth report of the Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
3 http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2008/tp/08.pdf
4 IPCC 2007 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution…
Having failed to imagine the future, Penny Wong and Assistant Minister for Climate Change, Greg Combet are still in a rush to put the noose around farmers’ necks, by passing legislation that will add to their costs while refusing to allow them to defray these costs by trading in soil carbon. Domestic offsets are not provided for.
Even Mick Keogh of the Farm Institute, whose main contribution to the debate has been as the purveyor of worst case scenarios supplied by ABARE and the CSIRO, concedes that the game has changed. Kyoto is not The 10 Commandments. It was an agreement for a period of time. Now Copenhagen will forge a new Kyoto. Noting the starkly different treatment of farmers in the USA and Australia, the Farm Institute cannot bring itself to ask the obvious question: Why?
Factor 1: American Pride.
To anyone who has been looking, it was obvious that the Americans would not simply rubber stamp Kyoto, a Euro-centric arrangement rejected by the USA in the first round. American pride demanded that they submit to the demands of the global community on their own terms.
Factor 2: American domestic politics.
This means American domestic politics would drive the agenda. The farm lobby in the USA is the strongest in the world. It may be hard for Australians to understand the respect shown to Agriculture and its representatives there, given the disregard encountered here. The American farmer would not be hung out to dry – paying for methane and nitrous oxide while being denied soil carbon credits, like the Australian farmer. The US legislation passed last week effectively decouples agricultural emissions from sequestration. Farmers will not be held responsible for emissions generated from the processes of growing food. And the Americans are calling on the world to have a global arrangement for Agriculture.
Factor 3: Global Food politics
The third factor stood out like the proverbial on April 4 in Bonn when – while Penny Wong’s chief adviser was in the next room discussing administrative matters – a gathering which included the USA, the EU, the World Bank, the International Federation of Agricultural Producers, and the UN Food & Agriculture Organisation – informed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the Masters of Kyoto) that they intended to push for Agriculture to be given special status. The reason given was the looming food crisis facing the global community. The FAO had been conducting a series of consultations and workshops – the Carbon Coalition was involved in the USA series – around the world to build momentum towards Copenhagen in December 2009. These meetings were public knowledge.
Factor 4: Australia’s isolation
Minister Wong’s plan for including Agriculture in a cap and trade regime – like any other industrial emitter - astounded other nations gathered to submit a proposal to the Copenhagen round of talks last week. According to one report, only Australia and NZ’s governments have done it. It is hard to imagine this injustice being allowed to continue in the light of world opinion. The powerful Iowa and Illinois Corn Growers Association – in their draft Agricultural Soil Credit Standard released in May 2009 – argued that agrculture does not fit into the current model because of the many variables at play in natural systems. The International Federation of Agricultural Producers agreed, saying the ‘specificity’ of agriculture has to be recognised: “Agriculture is different by nature and must be differentiated from other sectors. Most of agriculture’s green house gas (GHG) emissions are directly linked to natural biological cycles. The future accounting framework should allow a distinction to be made between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic emissions. Farmers cannot be held accountable for natural biological processes. The origin, monitoring and reporting of emissions from agricultural land is inherently different from those associated with fossil fuels. Agriculture should not be penalized for natural emissions that are beyond human control, independent from management effects. Natural emissions are due to climate conditions such as variable rainfall, drought and bushfires."
Factor 5: Australian domestic politics
The Farm Institute’s Mick Keogh predicted the almost complete anihilation of Agriculture when the imposts of a climate change ‘tax’ on emissions are added to the reductions in production projected as a result of declining rainfall and increasing temperatures (already experienced). Senator Bill Heffernan says Australian farmers will be killed on world meat markets if they have to pay for animal methane while countries such as America and Brazil (with 3 times the number of cattle) and India (10 times the number of cattle) do not. Australian producers would also face US competitors without the credits for reductions in emissions that US farmers wll enjoy. The decimation of the Agriculture Sector in the name of climate purity would not be acceptable to the electorate. But the Rudd/Wong line on Agriculture has not been open to negotiation. Minister Wong made that clear. The Government left the door open for the Opposition to take up the cause of soil carbon – which it did with the eager assistance of the Carbon Coalition.
Factor 6: The world is waking up to the power of soils.
The FAO says that the mitigation potential of agriculture is estimated to reach 5.5-6 Gt of CO2eq. per year by 2030 . This potential is enormous relative to agriculture’s emissions which represent 13.5% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). 89% of this potential can be accounted for by soil carbon sequestration; 70% of the total mitigation potential can be realized in developing countries. Many studies acknowledge that GHG sequestration by agriculture is a quick and cost-effective means to mitigate emissions, e.g. document FCCC/TP/2008/8 and work by the IPCC . Significant benefits associated with soil organic carbon storage make sustainable land management a solution to the inter-related issues of poverty, resilience and sustainable development.
1.‘Enabling Agriculture to Contribute to Climate Change Mitigation’, FAO submission to the UNFCCC, January 2009, fig. IPCC 2007
2 According to the fourth report of the Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
3 http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2008/tp/08.pdf
4 IPCC 2007 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution…
Having failed to imagine the future, Penny Wong and Assistant Minister for Climate Change, Greg Combet are still in a rush to put the noose around farmers’ necks, by passing legislation that will add to their costs while refusing to allow them to defray these costs by trading in soil carbon. Domestic offsets are not provided for.
Even Mick Keogh of the Farm Institute, whose main contribution to the debate has been as the purveyor of worst case scenarios supplied by ABARE and the CSIRO, concedes that the game has changed. Kyoto is not The 10 Commandments. It was an agreement for a period of time. Now Copenhagen will forge a new Kyoto. Noting the starkly different treatment of farmers in the USA and Australia, the Farm Institute cannot bring itself to ask the obvious question: Why?
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Carbon Farming Conference November 4-5, 2009
This year's conference will be held in the run up to Copenhagen and the launch of the Australian Voluntary Soil Carbon Market.
The world's politicians have woken up to the fact that food is a Climate Change hot button. Humanity can adapt to many changes, but it cannot go without food... SO the soil carbon market is coming and we must prepare. All sessions this year will be practical: how to increase soil carbon, how to get involved, etc.
Members are invited to comment and make recommendations.
DRAFT PROGRAM
CONFERENCE THEME: Fix The Soil. Feed The World. Save The Planet.
CONFERENCE CONTENT: Showcasing the latest in science, farmer innovation, trading opportunities and carbon farming methodologies.
CONFERENCE VENUE - Orange Field Day Site.
CONFERENCE FORMAT: Two day seminar, with break out sessions.
PRE-CONFERENCE BEGINNERS’ SEMINAR: CARBON 101 - half day seminar.
POST CONFERENCE BUS TRIP: Optional one day bus tour to surrounding properties.
CONFERENCE AWARDS: Annual Carbon Cocky awards
SPEAKERS: The top experts in their fields are being invited.
TOPICS: Soil Carbon Strategies
Soil Carbon Standards: Who Has One? How Do You Get One?
Soil Carbon Practices: How Do They Fit Together
Soil Carbon Biology: How to Manage Your Microbes
Soil Carbon & Water: How To Read Your Landscape
Soil Carbon & Weeds: What Is Your Vegetation Trying To Tell You?
Soil Carbon & Food: How To Grow Healthy Humans
Soil Carbon & Trees: How To Mix and Match Vegetation
Soil Carbon & Science: How To De-Code Scientific Reports
Soil Carbon Trading: What's The Deal? Who Gets What?
Soil Carbon Research: What Happened To The Money?
Soil Carbon & Manure: Dung Beetles
Soil Carbon & Horticulture: Big Results From Small Areas
Soil Carbon Baselining: How To Get Started
Soil Carbon & BioFerts: How To Choose
Soil Carbon & Soil Type: What's The Limit?
Soil Carbon & Biodiversity: How to Measure Your Progress
Soil Carbon & Production: How To Get A Premium For Your Produce
Soil Carbon & Permaculture: How Does It Help?
Soil Carbon & Fire: When Is It Cool To Burn?
Soil Carbon & Biochar: How Does it Work?
PLUS DEMONSTRATIONS:
Compost tea making.
Vehicle emissions burial as fertiliser.
Soil core sampling.
Soil biology under the microscope.
Notill/nokill sowing.
Emissions Calculators.
BRING YOUR SOIL SAMPLE
Microscope photographs of your soil microbes available.
BRING YOUR INPUT NUMBERS
Use a carbon calculator to estimate your likely position.
CONFERENCE DINNER: Carbon Cocky Awards.
Peter Andrews on Australian Story again... and again
The first of the NEW two part Australian Story on Peter Andrew’s NSF will be shown on ABCTV this coming Monday 6 July followed by the second part on the 13 July 09 at 8pm.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Don't blame Science for lagging 5 years behind
While farmers are now joining "microscope clubs" and becoming conversant with soil biology - using it to get amazing results - science is still just starting on the previous generation of land management practices.
A summary of the NSW DPI's program: "Comparisons include high and low input grazing land management; conventional crop rotations versus response cropping or inclusion of pasture phase; and revegetation of grazing land with native tree and shrub species." No mention of biology. And then there's the "novel soil amendment, biochar" - it's capacity to increase soil carbon is being researched when there is no known economic model that works - whereas biological farming is already widespread.
Take a look at the biology-free "Soil Carbon Research" Program Minister Burke kindly funded: unless I am mistaken, no biology.
And the danger of science getting even these imple things wrong (See "Scientists are not always good farmers" - next post)
But we can't blame the scientists. They don't decide which projects will be funded. Ministers do that.
Soil Carbon Research Program
Soil carbon research program overarching project – CSIRO
This project will undertake the technical oversight and management of the Soil Carbon Research Program. It will develop standardised data collection protocols and undertake carbon content analysis.
South eastern SA cereals, sheep and beef systems and Australia wide perennial sheep pastures – CSIRO
This project will identify sites and undertake sampling within south-eastern South Australia’s cereal, sheep and beef systems. Perennial pasture sites will also be identified and sampling will be undertaken throughout the country — particularly in WA and NSW.
South-west Western Australia: Cereal, sheep and beef systems – University of Western Australia & WA Department of Agriculture & Food
This project will engage with a number of grower groups and collect samples from a number of their sites. It will also undertake sampling at sites where management practices have been in place for a minimum of five years.
Victorian dairy, sheep, cereal and beef systems – Victorian Department of Primary Industries and the Co-operative Research Centre for Future Farming
This project will undertake re-sampling of a number of ongoing crop and pasture sites around Hamilton, Rutherglen and Ararat. It will build upon work which has previously occurred under the EverGraze program as well as DPI long-term experimental sites at Horsham, Rutherglen and Walpeup. Engagement with ongoing farmer trials will be undertaken with Southern Farming Systems, the Birchip Cropping Group and the South West Climate Change Forum.
Northern rangelands beef systems – Queensland Departments of Natural Resources & Water and of Primary Industries
This project will undertake sampling at Kidman Springs (NT) to assess the effects of cell grazing. The sites have documented fire and management histories. It will also resample a Toorak grazing trial in north-western Queensland. This sampling will include a range of soil types and rainfalls.
Queensland cereals and sugar - Queensland Departments of Natural Resources & Water and of Primary Industries
This project will undertake sampling of grain cropping systems at the long-term Hermitage Fallow Management Trial near Warwick in Queensland and sugar cropping systems at Tully and Mackay. No-till grain trials will be sampled near Biloela and Goodger and archived soil will be analysed from a number of historic trials (Biloela, Warra, Nindigully, Mt Murchison and Goodger).
Additional sugarcane sites in the Northern Rivers, Mackay and Ingham regions will be sampled – including tilled and permanent beds and across a number of soil types and rainfall levels.
New South Wales cereals, cotton, sheep and beef systems - University of New England, NSW Departments of Primary Industries and of Environment and Climate Change
This project will undertake sampling at 20 long-term trials with 25 corresponding satellite sites on private land to define amounts and variance of carbon contained in pools of soils from the major land-use/soil type combinations in NSW.
New South Wales cereals and beef - Murray Catchment Management Authority
This project will undertake sampling and analysis of paired sites which have been under no-till/conventional till and set stocking/controlled grazing practices.
Tasmanian vegetables and dairy systems - Tasmanian Institute for Agricultural Research, University of Tasmania and Botanical Resources Australia P/L
This project will undertake sampling at a number of broadacre cropping and vegetable sites across the state – including low input pasture/irrigated cropping and short-term perennial/long term pasture. Sampling will also be undertaken on existing sites which have undertaken a change from pasture to cropping and on paired sites which compare irrigated and non-irrigated dairy and beef systems.
A summary of the NSW DPI's program: "Comparisons include high and low input grazing land management; conventional crop rotations versus response cropping or inclusion of pasture phase; and revegetation of grazing land with native tree and shrub species." No mention of biology. And then there's the "novel soil amendment, biochar" - it's capacity to increase soil carbon is being researched when there is no known economic model that works - whereas biological farming is already widespread.
Take a look at the biology-free "Soil Carbon Research" Program Minister Burke kindly funded: unless I am mistaken, no biology.
And the danger of science getting even these imple things wrong (See "Scientists are not always good farmers" - next post)
But we can't blame the scientists. They don't decide which projects will be funded. Ministers do that.
Soil Carbon Research Program
Soil carbon research program overarching project – CSIRO
This project will undertake the technical oversight and management of the Soil Carbon Research Program. It will develop standardised data collection protocols and undertake carbon content analysis.
South eastern SA cereals, sheep and beef systems and Australia wide perennial sheep pastures – CSIRO
This project will identify sites and undertake sampling within south-eastern South Australia’s cereal, sheep and beef systems. Perennial pasture sites will also be identified and sampling will be undertaken throughout the country — particularly in WA and NSW.
South-west Western Australia: Cereal, sheep and beef systems – University of Western Australia & WA Department of Agriculture & Food
This project will engage with a number of grower groups and collect samples from a number of their sites. It will also undertake sampling at sites where management practices have been in place for a minimum of five years.
Victorian dairy, sheep, cereal and beef systems – Victorian Department of Primary Industries and the Co-operative Research Centre for Future Farming
This project will undertake re-sampling of a number of ongoing crop and pasture sites around Hamilton, Rutherglen and Ararat. It will build upon work which has previously occurred under the EverGraze program as well as DPI long-term experimental sites at Horsham, Rutherglen and Walpeup. Engagement with ongoing farmer trials will be undertaken with Southern Farming Systems, the Birchip Cropping Group and the South West Climate Change Forum.
Northern rangelands beef systems – Queensland Departments of Natural Resources & Water and of Primary Industries
This project will undertake sampling at Kidman Springs (NT) to assess the effects of cell grazing. The sites have documented fire and management histories. It will also resample a Toorak grazing trial in north-western Queensland. This sampling will include a range of soil types and rainfalls.
Queensland cereals and sugar - Queensland Departments of Natural Resources & Water and of Primary Industries
This project will undertake sampling of grain cropping systems at the long-term Hermitage Fallow Management Trial near Warwick in Queensland and sugar cropping systems at Tully and Mackay. No-till grain trials will be sampled near Biloela and Goodger and archived soil will be analysed from a number of historic trials (Biloela, Warra, Nindigully, Mt Murchison and Goodger).
Additional sugarcane sites in the Northern Rivers, Mackay and Ingham regions will be sampled – including tilled and permanent beds and across a number of soil types and rainfall levels.
New South Wales cereals, cotton, sheep and beef systems - University of New England, NSW Departments of Primary Industries and of Environment and Climate Change
This project will undertake sampling at 20 long-term trials with 25 corresponding satellite sites on private land to define amounts and variance of carbon contained in pools of soils from the major land-use/soil type combinations in NSW.
New South Wales cereals and beef - Murray Catchment Management Authority
This project will undertake sampling and analysis of paired sites which have been under no-till/conventional till and set stocking/controlled grazing practices.
Tasmanian vegetables and dairy systems - Tasmanian Institute for Agricultural Research, University of Tasmania and Botanical Resources Australia P/L
This project will undertake sampling at a number of broadacre cropping and vegetable sites across the state – including low input pasture/irrigated cropping and short-term perennial/long term pasture. Sampling will also be undertaken on existing sites which have undertaken a change from pasture to cropping and on paired sites which compare irrigated and non-irrigated dairy and beef systems.
Monday, June 22, 2009
NSW DPI - mythbusters and all - welcome!
The following is from a NSW DPI "Science & Research - Climate Change: Key Issues" fact sheet ingeniously dated 2005 as proof that the agency has not been in deep denial about soil carbon trading until now.
"Mitigation options include ... management of crop, pasture and forest systems to enhance carbon stocks in vegetation and soil..."
" Of particular relevance to NSW DPI is emissions trading, which provides incentives for mitigation measures..."
"Sequestration through soil carbon management in agricultural systems and management of existing forests are flagged for future inclusion..."
Pro-soil carbon DPI scientists such as YN Chan and Annette Cowie have shone like beacons in the gloom surrounding the issue in the DPI which - as recently as a few months ago staged the amusing "Soil Carbon MythBusters" tour by BioChar devotee David Waters - short on soil C myths, long on Biochar promotion. And they said the tour was to clear up the 'misinformation' surrounding the issue.
Dr Cowie is behind the project in which a group of NSW soil scientists is overcoming barriers to inclusion of soil carbon in emissions trading. "Impacts of management practices on carbon sequestration in soil are unclear, with some proponents claiming large potential and others dismissing the possibility," says a DPI report.
Dr Cowie says: "Detractors additionally say soil carbon is too costly to measure, and changes in soil carbon too difficult to audit... In preparation for potential inclusion in the national Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in future, and for inclusion in the voluntary carbon trading market, it is important to investigate these objections." In the same way that carbon trading based on forestry offsets uses models to predict sequestration, soil carbon models can estimate sequestration through agricultural practices, she said. "To increase confidence about the potential for altered management practices to sequester soil carbon, researchers are undertaking paired-site studies, comparing the soil carbon stock between adjacent areas under different management," Dr Cowie said. Comparisons include high and low input grazing land management; conventional crop rotations versus response cropping or inclusion of pasture phase; and revegetation of grazing land with native tree and shrub species.
"Mitigation options include ... management of crop, pasture and forest systems to enhance carbon stocks in vegetation and soil..."
" Of particular relevance to NSW DPI is emissions trading, which provides incentives for mitigation measures..."
"Sequestration through soil carbon management in agricultural systems and management of existing forests are flagged for future inclusion..."
Pro-soil carbon DPI scientists such as YN Chan and Annette Cowie have shone like beacons in the gloom surrounding the issue in the DPI which - as recently as a few months ago staged the amusing "Soil Carbon MythBusters" tour by BioChar devotee David Waters - short on soil C myths, long on Biochar promotion. And they said the tour was to clear up the 'misinformation' surrounding the issue.
Dr Cowie is behind the project in which a group of NSW soil scientists is overcoming barriers to inclusion of soil carbon in emissions trading. "Impacts of management practices on carbon sequestration in soil are unclear, with some proponents claiming large potential and others dismissing the possibility," says a DPI report.
Dr Cowie says: "Detractors additionally say soil carbon is too costly to measure, and changes in soil carbon too difficult to audit... In preparation for potential inclusion in the national Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in future, and for inclusion in the voluntary carbon trading market, it is important to investigate these objections." In the same way that carbon trading based on forestry offsets uses models to predict sequestration, soil carbon models can estimate sequestration through agricultural practices, she said. "To increase confidence about the potential for altered management practices to sequester soil carbon, researchers are undertaking paired-site studies, comparing the soil carbon stock between adjacent areas under different management," Dr Cowie said. Comparisons include high and low input grazing land management; conventional crop rotations versus response cropping or inclusion of pasture phase; and revegetation of grazing land with native tree and shrub species.
One more piece to the puzzle: CCX & Obama
Economist Richard L. Sandor founded the Chicago Climate Exchange six years ago with $1.1 million of seed money from the city’s Joyce Foundation. At that time, the foundation’s board included a state senator named Barack Obama. Today, Sandor is working with Henry Waxman whose bill for a cap and trade system is the cornerstone of Obama’s environmental agenda.
Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, agreed to give free pollution permits to utilities and allow manufacturers and refiners to meet CO2 targets by buying offset credits of the type sold by the CCX.
The government would allow as many as 2 billion offset credits to circulate, beginning in 2012. Half of those could be generated domestically and the other half from projects in other countries. The number of offsets and permits will decline over time.
The CCX model is now seen as a precursor to the government-mandated market Congress plans to create, according to Ecosystem Marketplace. President Obama has proposed auctioning pollution permits to raise at least $646 billion from 2012 to 2019. Sandor opposed that provision, saying that paying for the permits would wipe out utilities’ profits. “You bankrupt the industry,” he said.
“What this really does is buy a little bit of time to smooth out the rate impacts in the early years,” said John Stowell, vice president of environmental policy for Duke Energy, the Charlotte, N.C.-based owner of utilities in the Southeast and Midwest. “We need a bridge to get us to the new technology.”
Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, agreed to give free pollution permits to utilities and allow manufacturers and refiners to meet CO2 targets by buying offset credits of the type sold by the CCX.
The government would allow as many as 2 billion offset credits to circulate, beginning in 2012. Half of those could be generated domestically and the other half from projects in other countries. The number of offsets and permits will decline over time.
The CCX model is now seen as a precursor to the government-mandated market Congress plans to create, according to Ecosystem Marketplace. President Obama has proposed auctioning pollution permits to raise at least $646 billion from 2012 to 2019. Sandor opposed that provision, saying that paying for the permits would wipe out utilities’ profits. “You bankrupt the industry,” he said.
“What this really does is buy a little bit of time to smooth out the rate impacts in the early years,” said John Stowell, vice president of environmental policy for Duke Energy, the Charlotte, N.C.-based owner of utilities in the Southeast and Midwest. “We need a bridge to get us to the new technology.”
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Here comes the market
Ken Newcombe The former head of carbon emissions trading at investment bank Goldman Sachs started his own carbon finance business last year, C-Quest Capital. He aims to set up 85-90 percent of its projects in Asia and the United States, with the remainder in Australia, Newcombe told Reuters on the sidelines of a carbon conference in Barcelona.
"We're looking to improve land management in the U.S. and Australia, including soil sequestration, growing biofuel crops, and planting trees." Soil sequestration involves encouraging less intensive farming practices that retain organic matter in the soil, thereby storing carbon.
"We're looking to improve land management in the U.S. and Australia, including soil sequestration, growing biofuel crops, and planting trees." Soil sequestration involves encouraging less intensive farming practices that retain organic matter in the soil, thereby storing carbon.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Australian Carbon Farmers go global
"Australia's carbon farmers in quiet revolution" headlines a feature story on members of the Carbon Coalition and our struggle to make soil carbon credits a reality. Articles appeared on Reuters UKas well as the USA and versions appearing in India, South Africa, and Cyprus. The world wants to know about Carbon farming and new options for farmers and graziers.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Ecological Agriculture Australia (EcoAg) off the drawingboard
Earlier we reported on a brave attempt to create an association/community/cluster for those who feel the time is ripe for a new form of agricultural relationships in Australia. A working party was formed out of the initial meeting at CSU in Orange and 5 "Pillars" or subject areas were nominated for discussion and purposing by smaller working parties. The following is the result of that work which the group feels is ready for comment from interested parties. Please consider and contribute.
.............................................................................................
Kerry Cochrane for the Working Party - comprising David Hardwick, Rob Fenton, Maxine Blackburn, Michael Kiely, Pennie Scott, Robert Pekin- writes:
Our name: The Working Party recommends one of two names. We welcome feedback on these and if you think they are both not to your liking by all means suggest a third name, however, more than likely, we shall go with one or the other. We wait your feedback before moving on.
Name - Ecological Agriculture Australia
Abbreviation - EcoAg Oz or EcoAg Australia or E double A
Rationale - Nice corporate ring to it. Has a classical feel which means that it has a touch of longevity. The word agriculture is ever lasting although some might argue it is dated. More than likely it will be shortened to EcoAgOz.
Name - Ecological Agricultural Society of Australia
Abbreviation - EASA
Rationale - Again a classical name. It indicates that we are a community of people with similar values. It sits along side such names as The Soils Association of Australia or The Royal Agricultural Show Society of Australia
We have included a sub heading to the name. It is the advancement of farming, food, and community (or the advancement of farming food and fulfilllment). In other words the name might be...
Ecological Agriculture Australia
For the advancement of farming, food, and community
What we have done
• We have created a diagram or symbol of the organisation. It is a nested relationship between five pillars
• The five pillars represent the engine room of the organisation
• Central to the five pillars is ecology
• The mission and objectives of each pillar has been determined. This is work in progress.
• A quote for each pillar has been provided. This too is open for comment and change.
The process that lies ahead is as follows:
1. The Working Party is getting on with writing a constitution. We envisage an association to start with. If anyone has expertise re such matters we would welcome your input. We are aiming to have this completed within a month.
2. Once completed we shall form an interim governing body to manage the process.
3. We would hope to launch the organisation at a venue to be determined but one possibility is the Carbon Coalition Conference in Orange in November. This moment could represent the beginning of the new entity with election of office bearers etc.
4. It is envisaged that each of the five pillars will include perhaps as many as five members who will largely drive that section. Each pillar will have a rep on the governing body. This is still to be worked out.
The above is a broad picture of where we are at. We would welcome any feedback
.
THE OVERALL ORGANISATION
Name (here) The first set of statements are for the overall organisation
QUOTATION: "To build a sustainable society, we must first be willing to rethink our fundamental concepts of science, economics, and society. We must build a new sustainable society on the philosophical foundation of a new worldview, a new approach to science, a new economics of sustainability." John Ikird: Emeritus Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia
Vision: to develop bio-diverse landscapes, biologically enriched soil, healthy food, and vibrant communities through ecologically, holistic and ethically driven processes.
Mission: To coordinate the activities of the five pillars to ensure a strong connection between the vision and the objectives as outlined.
Objectives
1. Implementation of the objectives as outlined for the pillars of the organization: ecology; farming; food; education; and, ethics.
2. To raise the profile of ecological farming processes and its relevance to the needs of an Australian society facing diminishing oil reserves and concerns regarding climate change.
3. To foster ways of thinking that enhance an understanding of biodiversity and its value, reflects awareness of connections and relationships, and appreciates the power of systems and emergent properties.
4. To appreciate that humans are one thread amongst many threads in the web of life. To recognize and respect all forms of life.
5. To promote an ecological approach to sustainability in the interest of generations to follow.
6. To enhance the development of a quality assurance program to ensure the authenticity of ecological inputs into agriculture.
ECOLOGY
“….ecology has left the biology departments of universities and migrated into every consciousness. The scientific term has turned into a worldview. And as a worldview, it carries the promise of reuniting what has been fragmented, of healing what has been torn apart – in short caring for the whole.”
Sachs, Planet Dialectics, 1999,p63
Mission: We recognize ecology – the scientific and social scientific worldview -- as the basis for the production of food and fibre and see it as the bedrock for the healthy functioning of the earth and its subsidiary systems.
Objectives
1. To enliven the relationship between ecology and food and fibre production
2. To promote an understanding of and implementation of ecological principles as being fundamental to the survival of and preservation of our planet.
FARMING
QUOTATION: "We are told that farmers still have a strong sense of stewardship, that they are environmentalists at heart. Perhaps this is true, but many farmers have felt compelled to do whatever was necessary to survive the relentless competitive pressures in an agricultural industry driven by the economic bottom line. Many will admit that they are doing things to the land that they don’t want to do, but feel they have no choice. The gains in economic efficiency have been impressive, but what about the ecological costs? What is the value of the health and productivity of the land? What is the value of maintaining the ability of the earth to support human life?"
John Ikird: Emeritus Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia
"Eating is an agricultural act. - Wendell Berry
Mission
To increase the awareness, understanding and adoption of ecologically-based farming practices.
Objectives
To achieve the vision we will:
1. Establish a readily accessible ‘knowledge bank’ of ecological farming ideas, proven practices and networking data (eg, group contacts etc).
2. Facilitate and establish mutually beneficial partnerships with related groups and organisations.
3. Conduct and sponsor seminars, workshops and conferences to assist in the transfer of information and techniques associated with ecological farming.
4. Facilitate and support research and development into ecological farming practices.
5. To promote carbon footprint recognition per farm as a means of increasing farmer awareness of carbon emissions and carbon sequestration potential.
6. Enable support groups for farmers engaging in ecological farming processes.
FOOD
"It is a great mistake to think that food is primarily nourishment of the body. All good food, carefully selected, prepared, and presented, nourishes the soul too." - Thomas Moore, Author of Care of the Soul
Mission
To create and provide opportunities for the equitable and efficient distribution of food and fibre from farm to a range of clients including families and businesses thus increasing the connection between farmers and consumers.
OBJECTIVES
1. To establish effective and efficient connections between farmers and end consumer
2. To acknowledge farmers for their efforts in farming ecologically
3. To reduce inefficient links in the supply and value chain
4. To empower farmers to diversify and strategically become the value chain
5. To encourage retailers and wholesalers to price differentiate with ecologically grown food and fibre
6. To promote the benefits of ecologically grown food and fibre
EDUCATION, TRAINING & RESEARCH
“A sustainable community cares for its own environment and does not damage those of others. It uses resources frugally and sustainably, recycles materials, minimizes wastes and disposes of them safely. It conserves life-support systems and the diversity of local ecosystems….People can do this if they make it a priority, and if they are given the necessary powers to make full use of their own intelligence and experience.”
IUCN,WWF, UNEP. Caring for the Earth, 1991, Chpt 7
Mission: To enhance the farming communities understanding of ecological agricultural principles and ways of thinking.
Objectives
General
• To promote the teaching of ecological principles and ecological thinking skills at all levels of education
• To develop training packages to enable farmers and people not interested in a formal education to develop an understanding of ecological principles
• To communicate via the webpage to enable an attachment community to evolve that supports the principles of ecological agriculture and community marketing processes embraced by the organization
• To provide input into the national agri-food industry skills council to enable development of training competencies and their inclusion in National training packages
• Provide easy teacher access to engaging ecological agricultural learning resources.
• To support research endeavours into ecological approaches to food and fibre production or to seek funding to conduct the research
University
• To act as the Course Advisory Committee for the Bachelor of Ecological Agricultural Systems course at Charles Sturt University
• To be the repository for the alumni of the Bachelor of Ecological Agricultural Systems and to be managed through this agency
• To develop a professional body for the registration of graduates from courses relevant to ecological agriculture and land management [a body similar to the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science]
TAFE
• Work with TAFE to develop units of competency that can be included in general agriculture qualifications and develop specific eco-ag qualifications.
• To develop a repository of engaging learning resources and activities such as the Northern Rivers Soil Health card.
Secondary
• To work with state agricultural teachers and with the national body representing agricultural teachers to enable the exchange of information about ecological farming practices, healthy foods, and community marketing systems.
• Work towards getting ecological agriculture principles included in the curriculum.
Design a staff development program for agricultural teachers to develop skills in ecological agriculture.
• Provide impetus to the development of teaching and learning resources to enable agriculture and primary industry teachers to easily include this in day-to-day teaching programs.
Primary
• To develop a link between gardens and food and health.
• To promote the concept of the school garden grown with ecological sustainable practices with the participation of the children in the growing of and eating of food produced.
ETHICS & VALUES
QUOTATION:
A thing is right only when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community [soil, water, fauna and flora, as well as people]. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. - Aldo Leopold
Mission Statement
To promote the values and principles that underpin the development of an ecologically sustainable agriculture. Such an agriculture recognizes the intrinsic rights of all including the human and non-human worlds. These values and principles need to lead to a way of farming which enhances the environment (both living and non-living) within which agriculture operates.
Objectives
In order to define a set of clear principles and values to guide Australian agriculture the organisation ratifies and adopts as its working model the 4 principles and 16 sub principles as outlined in the Earth Charter.
These 4 principles are:
1. Respect and care for the community of life
2. Ecological Integrity
3. Social and economic justice
4. Democracy, nonviolence, and peace
We endorse the Earth Charter and the expressed opinions contained therein and seek to ensure their application. In this context we:
• support an ethical framework that respects values and cares for the natural ecological systems and cycles.
• endorse the three dimensions of life, ecological, social and personal
• recognise the interconnection of organisms and the environment and their intrinsic worth.
• seek to preserve the integrity and stability of the biotic community and leave as good as or better for the following generations.
Refer to http://www.earthcharter.org.au/ for details regarding the principles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
