"Bring out your dread!"

Prof. Tim Flannery may have puzzled some by appearing in his new book Here On Earth to have become relaxed and comfortable about Global Warming. But he is simply performing a therapeutic ritual we call Defusing The Dread. Denialists think they are being rational when in fact all the evidence indicates that they are deeply traumatised by fear of Climate Change- which their minds are reacting to as if to a death, the death of the future. Denial is their way of dealing with the dread of the future. The shrill tone and emotional violence of the Denialists' manner of debate gives the hint as to their stability. Tim knows that he will not reach these people by scary statistics and high anxiety. He is stepping away from pessimism and adopting an optimistic tone. But he hasn't abandoned his belief in the urgency of action on Climate Change.

PM’s Carbon Farming Initiative

The Federal Government conservatively predicts that farmers and landholders could make $500 million in 10 years under the new Carbon Farming Initiative released during the election campaign. Julia Giilard opened the door wider to farmers looking to earn carbon credits when she added “international markets” to the options facing farmers. This means carbon credits earned on-farm in Australia will be sold on the Mandatory Market where prices are always higher than in the Voluntary Market – the only market available to us until now.
The Carbon Farming Initiative covers more than seven potential revenue streams for farmers: reforestation, projects that avoid or reduce emissions from livestock, fertiliser use and manure management, savannah burning, legacy waste in landfill, and deforestation, as well as soil carbon and biochar.
Low hanging fruit for farmers is the avoided or reduced emissions from fertiliser. When it is applied, an amount of the Nitrogen in conventional fertilizer oxidizes and escapes as Nitrous Oxide. It has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 300 times that of CO2. This is good news for farmers changing their fertilizer practices to reduce or eliminate N2O emissions. For every tonne of N2O avoided, you multiply the price of carbon (CO2-e) by the GWP (300). A methodology for this offset us currently before the Expert Panel for berification. We are confident of its success because it doesn’t have the same challenges for scientists around measurement and verification.
There is also likely to be a tradable unit for avoided methane emissions from waste management systems which divert organic matter from landfill where is emits methane. The aim is to encourage on-farm composting to recycle the green wastes.
Meanwhile the Government has joined a Global Research Alliance to ‘fast track’ soil carbon work. The Carbon Coalition has applied to become a Project Partner.

The $45.6 million cost of the Carbon Farming Initiative is already included in the Budget, through the Renewable Energy Future Fund.

$500m between 100,000 growers over 10 years

They described it as 'conservative", but this estimate of the income Australian farmers is as conservative as Tony Abbott!!! The Federal Government conservatively predicts that farmers and landholders could make $500 million in 10 years under the new Carbon Farming Initiative released during the election campaign. Julia Giilard opened the door wider to farmers looking to earn carbon credits when she added “international markets” to the options facing farmers. This means carbon credits earned on-farm in Australia will be sold on the Mandatory Market where prices are always higher than in the Voluntary Market – the only market available to us until now.
The Carbon Farming Initiative covers more than seven potential revenue streams for farmers: reforestation, projects that avoid or reduce emissions from livestock, fertiliser use and manure management, savannah burning, legacy waste in landfill, and deforestation, as well as soil carbon and biochar.
Low hanging fruit for farmers is the avoided or reduced emissions from fertiliser. When it is applied, an amount of the Nitrogen in conventional fertilizer oxidizes and escapes as Nitrous Oxide. It has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 300 times that of CO2. This is good news for farmers changing their fertilizer practices to reduce or eliminate N2O emissions. For every tonne of N2O avoided, you multiply the price of carbon (CO2-e) by the GWP (300). A methodology for this offset us currently before the Expert Panel for berification. We are confident of its success because it doesn’t have the same challenges for scientists around measurement and verification.
There is also likely to be a tradable unit for avoided methane emissions from waste management systems which divert organic matter from landfill where is emits methane. The aim is to encourage on-farm composting to recycle the green wastes.
Meanwhile the Government has joined a Global Research Alliance to ‘fast track’ soil carbon work. The Carbon Coalition has applied to become a Project Partner.

The $45.6 million cost of the Carbon Farming Initiative is already included in the Budget, through the Renewable Energy Future Fund.

YOUR PRESENCE IS REQUESTED

YOUR PRESENCE IS REQUESTED

At The 4th Annual Carbon Farming Conference
Dubbo NSW, 27-28 October 2010

CONGRATULATIONS!

With your support
we won the promise of
Soil Carbon Credits,
Methane Carbon Credits, and
Nitrous Oxide Carbon Credits

The Federal Government’s Carbon Farming Initiative promises to fast track preparations to trade on international markets. Good News, but we need to keep up the pressure.

Register today for the Carbon Farming Conference & Expo to show your support and enjoy the only gathering dedicated to reconstructing the health of soils, farm landscapes and rural communities by safe, ethical trading in soil carbon and other on-farm emissions reductions.

REGISTER ONLINE AT WWW.CARBONFARMINGCONFERENCE.COM.AU
OR CALL 02 6374 0329

CONFERENCE PROGRAM DAY 1

GOOD NEWS FOR FARMERS

The Carbon Farming Initiative will reward farmers with several possible new revenue streams: reforestation, reducing emissions from livestock, fertiliser use, and deforestation, as well as soil carbon and biochar.

9.00am – Welcome to Country. Welcome to City – Mayor Allan Smith

9.10am - The Government’s New Carbon Farming Initiative –When do we start? – Maya Stuart-Fox, Director, Emerging Policy , Land Division of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency

9.40am – Six Configured Units Ready To Roll – Methodologies for Farm Carbon Trading Units - Ken Bellamy, Prime Carbon has invested heavily in building Kyoto-aligned trading protocols

10.10am – Making It Happen - Landcare’s Role In The Carbon Farming Initiative – Brett de Hayr, National Landcare Facilitator explains how Landcare will help farmers learn about the Carbon Farming Initiative

10.40am – Panel Discussion – Q&A on the Governments Carbon Farming Initiative, Methodologies, Time frames.

11.00am - Morning Tea

MEASUREMENT: SOIL CARBON FAST-TRACKED

The Government promised that it would ‘fast track’ research to overcome the barriers to trading soil carbon when it announced the latest $46.5m for Carbon Farming. What strides has Science made in 12 months.?

11.30am - How Will The Soil Carbon Research Program Assist Trading? - Dr Jeff Baldock, CSIRO Land & Water reports on the progress on the program we helped fund (by lobbying) to the tune of $20m.

12.00pm - Must We Wait for Science? - Professor Annette Cowie, National Centre for Rural Greenhouse Gas Research explores an interim proposal and explains an opportunity to be part of the next round of soil carbon research.

12.30pm - A Single Soil Carbon Score For A Property? - Professor Alex McBratney, University of Sydney – The Race is on to find the cost effective, reliable measurement method.

1.00pm – Soil Scientists Super Summit - Andrea Koch, United States Study Centre is organising a meeting of eminent scientists to discuss soil carbon

1.10pm – Lunch

CARBON COCKIES LEAD THE WAY

Farmers have led innovation in land management. These innovations are judged by the criterion “It works for me” and are spread by observation across the boundary fence.

2.00pm – From the Amazon’s Terra Preta to Australian Soils - Biochar’s Future Options - Patrice Newell, Farmer, Activist, Author, reports on her visit to the birthplace of biochar.

2.20pm – Carbon Cockies drive innovation - Simon Proust (MC) presents Carbon Catchment Highlights: Central West and Northern Rivers - A Carbon Cockie One Year On: Matt Barton - - Farmer Teaching Farmer: Little River LandCare

3.20pm Afternoon Tea

KEEPING THE MONEY IN THE REGIONS

Regional-based businesses will be able to buy offsets from local farmers. Farmers, in turn, may be able to purchase soil amendments from regional-based businesses, such as composts, inoculants, stimulants, chars and coal-based soil carbon promoters.

3.50pm – A Regional Trading Model – Helping Big Emitters Spread The Wealth In Rural Communities – Louisa Kiely, Orana Regional Development Committee

4.10pm – Carbon Footprints Could Lead to Local Win-Win - Robert Bower, TwinN Mabiotec explains how soil carbon missed an opportunity to supply offsets to his company when it decided to go carbon neutral.

4.40pm - Markets Could Look Like This: Market-Based Instrument Pilot – Dr Jason Crean, NSW DI&I reports on the project simulating a trading environment for farmers.


5.00pm WINE AND CHEESE TASTING IN THE MAIN HALL



7.00pm Conference Awards Dinner

Networking Dinner

MC: Michael Kiely On Climate Change:

“Fear Makes Me Say Funny Things”

2010 Carbon Cocky Awards

Climate Change Songwriting & Poetry Competition

Can you write a song or bush ballad about Climate Change? Bring it along.


CONFERENCE PROGRAM DAY 2

While Food Security is focussed on growing enough food to feed the world, Food Integrity describes the nutrient density of the food. Healthy soil is the beginning of the virtuous circle – soil, food, people.

HEALTHY SOILS, HEALTHY FOOD, HEALTHY PEOPLE

9.00am - Health Starts In The Soil - Dr Carole Hungerford, Farmer/ Medical Practitioner/Author explains how many modern ailments can be explained by the decline in soil health and its impact on nutrition.

9.30am - “Miracle Cure Led Me To Soil Health” - Rhonda Daly, YLAD Living Soils explains how a health issue taught her the power of soil to deliver wellbeing.

9.50am - Beyond Organic: Certified Soil Rich Foods - Ian Golding, Beyond Organics has developed a method for measuring the nutrient value of soils and the food grown in them.

10.20am – Introducing Healthy Soils Australia - Tom Nicholas, Chairman explains

10.30am Morning Tea

SOIL HEALTH + OFFSETS

Low hanging fruit among offsets for farmers is the avoided or reduced emissions from fertiliser. When it is applied, an amount of the Nitrogen in conventional fertilizer oxidizes and escapes as Nitrous Oxide. It has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 300 times that of CO2. This is good news for farmers changing their fertilizer practices. For every tonne of N2O avoided, you multiply the price of carbon (CO2-e) by the GWP (300).

11.00am - Low Cost/No Odour On Farm Composting - Gerry Gillespie, NSW DECCW Compost can create odor and take a great deal of turning to reach its point of peak effectiveness. But a new on-farm system eliminates both problems. Spray inoculant over the compost and it turns itself,

11.20am – Compost’s Promise of Soil Carbon - Darren Fahey, Waste Management Association of Australia.

11.40pm Coal Ash As Fertiliser - Dr Jane Aitken, Conneq Infrastructure Services - Coal or fly ash is available in vast quantities because power stations have mountains of by-product after coal is burned, most of which is buried in landfill. Scientists are testing different combinations to make controlled release fertiliser.



12.50pm – Cheap char? Chailings – Processed Coal Tailings - Adele Calandra GSSEnvironmental. Chailings is charcoal made from coal mine tailings. Farmers have proved for themselves that production can be boosted by the application of raw coal dust. Chailings are processed for greater effectiveness.

1.10pm Lunch

2.00pm - INTERNATIONAL SPEAKER: Make Your Own Fertiliser As You Till - Gary Lewis, BioAgtive Canada Exhaust fume burial is a novel approach to disposing of emissions by processing them into a fertiliser and wrapping them around the seed.

2.20pm - Australia’s Own Exhaust Burial Technology - Daniel Linkleter, Riverina farmer

2.40pm – INTERNATIONAL SPEAKER: Trigger Technologies: Affordable Broadacre Biology - Jim Watson, Best Environmental Technology, Canada reports that soil biology stimulants or ‘triggers’ work by ‘waking up’ native microbes rather than by delivering the microbes to the soil. This means the stimulant can be delivered in a spray pass with herbicides.

ENERGY FARMING OPTIONS

To be a Carbon Farmer is to manage Carbon Cycles – in soils, in vegetation, in animals and in biomass, wind and energy.

3.00pm - Growing Fuel Crops - John Larkin, Demand Farming explains how growing energy crops can fit into a farmer’s business.

3.20pm – Afternoon Tea

3.50pm – On-Farm Solar Opportunities: Risks and Returns – Dr Iain McGregor, Solar Choice reveals the opportunities for generating additional revenue while generating energy.

4.10pm – Water Dynamics: Reading The Landscape – Paul Newell, Landsmanship, introduces a revolutionary approach to farm planning.

4.30pm – Carbon Farming Australia: The Industry Association – Michael Kiely



CARBON FARMERS ASSOCIATION

For 5 years the Carbon Coalition has campaigned for the rights of farmers to grow and trade soil carbon safely and ethically. In that time Government has shifted its position away from a very negative, damaging attitude – farmers were to pay for all animal and fertiliser-based emissions with no access to soil carbon credits – to a very positive outcome where soil carbon offsets are government and opposition policy and reductions in methane and nitrogen emissions are to be rewarded rather than enforced. We are close to success but many obstacles remain in the way and need a dedicated voice keeping Government honest in delivering the promise. The Carbon Coalition has been entirely funded by the Convenors and a small group of benfactors. The time has come for it to become a registered association. The Carbon Farmers’ Association offers the following benefits for members: 1. Advocacy for members’ access to carbon markets through a range of offsets, including soil carbon, methane, nitrogen emissions and others. 2. Advice on contracts, risks and likely returns. 3. Education and training to maximise the business opportunities and assist in risk management in trading. 4. An On-line Library offering access to deep resources of information on carbon farming. 5. Regular newsletter – The Carbon Farmer – to Conferences alert members to opportunities. 6. Discounts on and seminars. 7. Discounts on Books and magazines. 8. Ethical trading services – Soil Carbon Baselining, Aggregation, Sub-Aggregation of Small Holdings and Brokerage, with fees invested in Assocation services, and retiring credits on first transaction to avoid exploitative on-selling. 9. Networking with like-minded people in a community of common purpose. 10. If scientists like Tim Flannery, the Wentworth Group, Professor Rattan Lal and even the CSIRO’s Michael Battaglia are to be believed, sequestration in soil and vegetation on a grand scale is essential to avoiding the worst effects of Global Warming as we transition to new energy sources for baseload supply. If this is so, farmers have more leverage in this commodity market than any other and can be price-makers rather than price takers, their usual role. And your membership fee could be the best investment you could make in a future that does not look like a scene from Mad Max.

The Carbon Farmers’ Association will be launched formally at the Carbon Farming Conference. To register interest or for more information please call

02 6374 0329. Or 0417 280 540.
Email Louisa@carboncoalition.com.au

Have mercy on the scientists

Reliable scientific data on soil carbon is hard to find. When the old Australian Greenhouse Office collected data for the national inventory of Greenhouse Gases, it could find little that was more recent than the 1980s. In the 30 years that separated those feeding data into the National Carbon Accounting Scheme from those who generated the data, there had been a major shift towards conservation land management. More than 50% of West Australia’s croppers had switched to no-till, for instance. So the scientific models were loaded up with out-of-date data and the myth that Australian soils are too old and degraded to sequester carbon was born. This lack of data has caused a dilemma for scientists who are asked to give their expert opinion on the matter. Not only is there very little data, The CSIRO’s recent survey of the available data found, according to the Report of the Inquiry into Soil Carbon Sequestration in Victoria. that most of the data comes from overseas, little of it is the result of long term trials, and the influence of climate and soil type is so great that it masks the results of land management. (This last observation nullifies measurement of man-made changes to soil carbon entirely.) For all these reasons there is little ‘sound science’ that scientists can refer to when their political masters ask for their advice on soil carbon. This creates a dilemma for the scientist: either admit ignorance or feign knowledge. The way out is to say something like this: “There is no sound scientific evidence that proves that Australian soils can sequester significant amounts of carbon.” (This appears to say that the prospects for soil carbon sequestration are limited when in fact it is saying there is no such research.)

Expert witnesses: knowledge not required

The ignorant have a right to be heard in public enquiries about soil carbon. The evidence is there in the Report of the Inquiry into Soil Carbon Sequestration in Victoria.
“…a number of experts and key agencies advised the Committee that the inquiry had encouraged them to think through many of the issues associated with soil carbon sequestration, and articulate a position on the prospects for soil carbon sequestration, for the very first time.” No wonder so much of the opinion parading as expert comment is half-baked and worthless. For example: “A report commissioned for Dairy Australia and submitted by Gipps Dairy as part of its submission to the inquiry suggested that soil carbon sequestration on dairy pastures will be hard to achieve because of the difficulty of increasing pasture production without decreasing stocking rates.” Nonsense. This claptrap deserves a place on the list of The Most Stupid Things Ever Said About Soil Carbon, alongside the Bucket Theory and The Cost of Growing Humus. Gipps Dairy sets up a pea and thimble trick when it claims that there can be three separate potential uses for one tonne of pasture produced on a dairy farm and that an estimate of the economic value of each of those uses can be made.
The inevitable conclusion: “even at a carbon price of $250 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent, it is
more profitable to use one tonne of pasture to feed cows to produce milk than it is to retain the
pasture on the soil and let it decompose for the purposes of sequestering soil carbon.”
Soil carbon is not a zero-sum game. You don’t grow it by taking animals off pasture and letting it rot. The action of the animals – incorporating the uneaten grasses and manure – stimulates the microbial life, including the photosynthetic bacteria which do not depend on getting a bucket of organic matter for their growth. That is how carbon is made, and piling on the urea is how it is unmade.

Gipps data:
Table 6.1 Value of different potential uses for one tonne of pasture
Potential uses for pasture Value of uses of pasture
Produce hay bales $150
Feed cows to produce milk $260
Retain on soil and let decompose in order
to sequester soil carbon*
$21 at a carbon price of $25 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent
$206 at a carbon price of $250 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent
* This assumes that one tonne of pasture (dry weight) contains 45 per cent carbon, of which 50 per cent decomposes to create 0.23 tonnes of soil carbon. One tonne of soil carbon = 3.67 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. The submission from Gipps Dairy also noted that the cost of fertiliser to produce one tonne of carbon has to be taken into account when calculating the costs and benefits of the scenarios outlined in the table.

Victoria - cautious, conservative and cooked

It is the best overview of the soil carbon issue we have seen. Congratulations to the Environment and Natural Resources Committee of the Victorian Parliament for The Report of the Inquiry into Soil Carbon Sequestration in Victoria. Unfortunately many of the facts it quotes are not facts and it reaches the wrong conclusion: “Due to the significant scientific and economic uncertainties associated with soil carbon sequestration, the Committee concluded that a cautious and conservative approach should be taken in establishing incentive mechanisms to encourage soil carbon sequestration in Victoria.” The world does not have the luxury of time to be cautious and conservative, as Annette Cowie told the Committee: “I think the issue of climate change is so urgent that it would be a mistake to say we have to put this off to wait for better science. I do not think we need perfect science and perfect understanding to be able to start providing incentives for landholders to build soil carbon. I think we know enough about some soil types and some land use practices that we could identify a conservative default and suggest that, ‘You will have at least that much carbon sequestered if you undertake these practices’. That is the sort of thing we need to work from at the moment and then have the science, the increasing research, undertaken in parallel so that we can firm up the models and perhaps recognise more sequestration in the future when we know more about it. Professor Annette Cowie* is Director, National Centre for Rural Greenhouse Gas Research, University of New England is a rare scientist: she knows the limitations of science and the needs of the moment. Other scientists feel the urgency as well. The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists told the Committee: “The reality is that it will be next to impossible for Australia to achieve the scale of [emissions] 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.” Even the CSIRO understands the urgency. Dr Michael Battaglia, Theme Leader, Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, CSIRO advised that “…what [soil carbon sequestration] actually gives us is time to make those adjustments.”

*Dr Cowie will be speaking at the Carbon Farming Conference & Expo, 27-28 October, 2010 in Dubbo NSW

Where is the Government's sense of urgency?

Closer inspection of PM Gillard's "Carbon Farming Initiative" reveals a slothful pace for including the main game - soil carbon. The Government says the first methodologies for units under the National Carbon Offsets Standard will be rolled out from mid-2011. These early methodologies do not include soil carbon. The only certainty is reforestation. Other early starters include: Livestock (methane); Fertiliser use and manure management (nitrous oxide); savanna burning (paying Indigeous landowners to cease firestick farming); legacy waste in landfills; and deforestation. The scary part is that these are referred to as "methodologies that are expected to be settled in the early years of the scheme". Soil carbon is relegated to a category with biochar - as needing 'further research'. This is code for 'soil carbon is mired in the quicksand of the Science of Measurement.' It is not even included in the 'early years'. We can only hope that this campaign media release was written by a party spin doctor who wasn't aware of Tony Burke's promise in March this year that "If you're able to improve the amount of carbon in the soil through sequestration, you get cash." He didn't say "You get cash sometime after 2020..." Now is the time to put maximum pressure on Science to perform - to demonstrate a sense of urgency. After 3 years of playing a straight bat and giving scientists open slather on what they present at the Carbon Farming Conference, we have decided that we will no longer listen to lists of reasons why we can't have what we want, ie. soil carbon trading. Instead only scientists who can tell us how we can get what we want will be invited to speak. We need good old fashioned "Science In The Service Of Mankind".

Carbon Farmers tell Julia: “Let’s get on with it”

“The Carbon Farmers’ Market can start tomorrow - the regions need it, the nation needs it, and the planet needs it. Let’s get on with it,” says Carbon Farmers of Australia.
“The farmers of Australia have been waiting five years to receive credits for reducing or storing carbon – and they are urging Julia Gillard to deliver the Carbon Farming Initiative she promised during the Election, says Carbon Farmers’ director Michael Kiely. The Government has already provided the framework for a voluntary carbon market, the National Carbon Offset Standard (NCOS). The Prime Minister pledged to see a pathway built from this voluntary market to the mandatory market. A body called the Carbon Trust has been set up to oversee the market. A raft of methodologies for avoiding emissions and storing carbon in soils have been submitted for approval.
“It’s time to get on with it. The NCOS market can start tomorrow because there is no problem with measurement of nitrogenous fertiliser applied by a farmer. They need only produce delivery dockets for the super they put on in previous seasons and those for the replacement source of nutrients,” says Michael Kiely. “The need is urgent as all indicators of Climate Change are running at or above worst case scenarios.”
Under the Carbon Farming Initiative the Prime Minister has promised that farmers will be able to earn carbon offset credits by a number of methods, starting in mid-2011, including avoided emissions from fertiliser usage, which is valued at 300 times the Greenhouse Gas saving as a single tonne of CO2 saved by other means.
The Carbon Farming Initiative puts farmers on the frontline in the race to stall Global Warming long enough to enable renewable energy sources to reach critical mass to deliver base load capacity. The only option the Government has to achieve this is the sequestration of carbon in the 450 million hectares of agricultural soils. The farmers have done their part by developing techniques for growing carbon in soils. The Government has done its part by introducing the National Carbon Offset Standard.
“It’s now up to the Carbon Trust to get on with the job of assessing the methodologies we have submitted and make some decisions,” says Michael Kiely.
For more information, (02) 6374 0329

Win, Lose or Draw - Thank You, Tony Burke

The Government's fate hangs in the balance - either side could claim it tomorrow. Either way, it is only right that we say "Thank You, Tony Burke" for the way he managed his portfolio in our area of interest. Tony Burke is not a farmer, but he made up for that by listening and throwing himself into his portfolio with open eyes and ears. He gave us his time and eventually his money (well, he gave it to the CSIRO, actually, but the thought was there).
The outcome for farmers was the most favourable offered in any nation. Too few farmers realise this, having had their ears stuffed with denialist propaganda and disinformation. It is a better deal than we thought possible.
Tony is also a straight shooter, like Tony Windsor. He is surrounded by genuinely nice people.
Tomorrow could find Tony either a rooster or a feather duster. Whatever happens, we're happy to crow about his achievement on our behalf.

Tony Windsor PM?

The Carbon Coalition has complete confidence in Tony Windsor to decide the fate of the nation by annointing the Party to occupy the Treasury Benches for the next 3 years. Tony has been the Carbon Coalition's mentor and coach in it's lobbying efforts over the past 5 years. He is the only political leader to have taken the time to get a complete briefing on the soil carbon issue. He then asked PM Howard a question without notice on he subject which, while it did not receive a positive reply, put the issue on the radar of many observers. Tony spoke at the Carbon Farming Conference and Expo last year.* He is an honest farmer at heart, and, were it possible, his dignified manner and good-humoured response to barbs from the barbarians inside and outside Parliament and his focus on the needs of the nation for stability and good government qualify him to be the Prime Minister ahead of the two contenders that are the only choice our political system allows. Tony Windsor as PM and leader of a Government of National Unity to meet the emergency of Climate Change!

*To be staged this year at Dubbo on 27-28 October, 2010

Soil Carbon now easy to measure

Veris Technologies makes soil probes that can be dragged across a paddock taking hundreds of measurements per second. They use Near Infrared Spectroscopy which can detect what soil contains down to 60cm. The company (from Kentucky) claims it can measure to within 90% certainty - this makes trade possible. We are negotiating with Veris to have them present the technology at the 2010 carbon Farming Conference & Expo in Dubbo, 27-28 October.

Who owns Soil Carbon: grower or government?

The Carbon Coalition supports the call by a Victorian Government subcommittee for soil carbon rights to be made law. Environment and Natural Resources Committee chair John Pandazopoulos says legislation is needed to protect the rights of growers to the carbon they sequester in their soil. Currently Western Australia is the only State to have such protection enshrined in law. The need is real. Governments in Australia have set precedents for nationalizing privately owned resources: Peter Spencer’s campaign for compensation for the impact of native vegetation laws is based on establishing the fact that the Commonwealth has used the ban on clearing to meet its Kyoto obligations. The estimated value of the carbon involved has been stretched to billions. The Spencer case will succeed only if the High Court agrees with him that, while the States banned clearing, the Commonwealth was party to the action after the event. The Government gained something of value, the farmers lost something of value, and therefore compensation should be paid.
Soil scientist Professor Peter Grace advises Governments that they own the carbon in soil: “the Crown retains broad prerogative powers of reservation and resumption in respect of leasehold land…” If this is the case then the relevant state government must assign ownership of the carbon to the landholder.” This statement would need to be tested in court.
The Victorian Committee seem to believe that soil carbon can be classified as a mineral (and the law assigns ownership of minerals to governments). The scientists use the term ‘mineral soil C’; international mineral classification experts have included a new organic category. There is enough doubt to request that Governments clarify the rights of farmers.
The obvious problem for a government thinking of hijacking a farmer’s soil carbon is this: unless the government is going to enforce certain soil management practices, it is the farmer’s choice. What incentive will it take to get farmers to change?
Academics and Green activists believe farmers should be forced by law to sequester soil carbon. Peter Grace believes that the “government should also be a signatory to all contractual agreements between the landholder and the purchaser involving crown land to warrant that it will not authorise uses of the land which conflict with the maintenance of SOC stocks.”
Given the importance of the role soils can play in our response to Climate Change and the urgency, any disincentive put upon farmers would be foolish.

The PM's Press Release About Carbon Farming

Campaign Media Release


PRIME MINISTER
MINISTER FOR CLIMATE CHANGE, ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND WATER
MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY


CARBON FARMING INITIATIVE

Farmers who help reduce and store pollution will receive credits that can be sold in Australia and overseas under a new Carbon Farming Initiativeto be set up by the Gillard Labor Government.

The initiative will provide new opportunities for Australian farmers and landholders to participate in lucrative international markets for carbon credits.

For the first time, the Federal Government will help facilitate the sale ofcarbon credits on domestic and international markets to ensure Australian farmers and landholders can take advantage of the opportunities available.

Tapping into these existing markets will give farmers and landholders the ability to find the best price available on the market for their carbon credits.

This initiative is fiscally responsible as the market will choose the most efficient and cost effective ways to reduce pollution and pay for it, rather than the Government picking winners and forcing taxpayers to bear the cost.

Farmers and landholders will benefit from a new income stream, and the environment will benefit from reduced pollution.

There will be no restriction on the number of credits that can be generated, with initial conservative estimates suggesting it could be worth about $500 million over ten years.

At present, there is no uniform way for farmers, forest growers or landholders to generate carbon credits and sell them into lucrative international markets.

Under the Carbon Farming Initiative, a Gillard Labor Government would legislate clear rules for the recognition of carbon credits that could then be sold on domestic or international markets.
This means farmers will know in advance exactly what they need to do to generate credits that are internationally recognised and available for trading.

A re-elected Gillard Labor Government will provide farmers, landholders and forestry growers with the tools to understand how to generate carbon credits.

As part of this, Landcare, the trusted volunteer organisation which has been working with Australian farmers for the past 21 years, will be funded to provide information on how farmers can further benefit under the initiative.

The initiative will also help link farmers, land managers and forestry operators with brokers, who could sell their credits on the domestic or international market.

This will allow farmers to keep doing what they do best, while also connecting them with those who have the monitoring and carbon retail know-how.

The Gillard Labor Government has already started work on setting outclear definitions about how credits can be created. These methodologies are expected to be rolled out from mid 2011.

Eligible methodologies that are expected to be settled in the early years of the scheme include reforestation, as well as projects that avoid or reduce emissions from:

•
Livestock.
•
Fertiliser use and manure management.
•
Savannah burning.
•
Legacy waste in landfills.
•
Deforestation.

As part of this initiative, the Gillard Labor Government will work at home and abroad to support further research on soil carbon and biochar. This will build on the $20 million Climate Change Research Program.

The $45.6 million cost of the Carbon Farming Initiative is already included in the Budget, through the Renewable Energy Future Fund.

NSW
14 AUGUST 2010

COMMUNICATIONS UNIT: Phone: (02) 9384 2220 | Fax: (02) 9264 2213
www.alp.org.au

AUTHORISED N.MARTIN for the ALP, 5/9 Sydney Ave. Barton ACT.


Louisa Kiely
Director, Carbon Farmers of Aust.
louisa@carboncoalition.com.au
PH. 02 6374 0329

Australia world leader in Green farming: farmers lobby group

Australia’s farmers will lead the world in restoring farmland soils and waterways to health if the Gillard Government’s $46m Carbon Farming Initiative succeeds, says the Carbon Coalition, a grassroots farmers’ Climate Change lobby group.

“Australian farmers already lead the world in developing innovative ways to farm sustainably. This proposed agricultural soil carbon trading system will provide the incentive required to convert the majority of landholders to new ways of land management that extract CO2 from the air and use it to enrich the soil,” say Carbon Coalition convenor Michael Kiely.

“If all the farmers of the world join the soil carbon movement, we can slow Global Warming down for long enough to let alternative energy generation reach critical mass, according to world soil carbon experts.”

The world’s farmers manage more than 5 billion hectares of agricultural land. Even the tiniest amount of carbon absorbed into soil would amount to a significant shift in airborne CO2.

The Carbon Coalition praises Minister For Agriculture Tony Burke, but also acknowledges former Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Turnbull who first put soil carbon on the political agenda.

The Carbon Coalition – through its not-for-profit operational arm Carbon Farmers of Australia - has been educating farmers about soil carbon since 2006. It stages the annual Carbon Farming Conference & Expo – to be held this year in Dubbo on 27-28 October – at which leading Carbon Farmers and Soil Carbon Scientists share their insights. It also published The Carbon Farming Handbook, the only book of its kind in the world. And it conducts one- and two-day workshops called Soil Carbon 101: From Soils To Sales. Carbon Farmers of Australia is the only training organization with credentials in the field of soil carbon trading.

Thanks, Jon

"I applaud all your efforts in raising public and farmer interest in soil carbon. Regardless of whether soil carbon is ever traded at an economically meaningful level, greater awareness of the sustainability and productivity benefits are a great thing. I came here from the US a few years ago where I do not think I have once seen soil carbon discussed in the media and here it is hard to pick up a newspaper without reading an article on soil carbon.

Regards,
Jon Sanderman

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Jonathan Sanderman
Research Scientist
Carbon and Nutrient Cycling
CSIRO Land and Water

White House requests link with Carbon Coalition

Links have been requested from a White House blog. "We visit your site regularly," writes blog administrator Jerry Thomas.

The dangers of talking down soil carbon

Could farmers sue industry executives for bad soil carbon advice? The managing director of Dairy Australia Ian Halliday is not a financial adviser, but does he take on the same responsibilities when he offers advice that will affect investment decisions of his members. Dairy Australia may not be covered by the financial services industry standards, but it is very likely to have exposure under Civil Law (Torts) which extends the duty of care beyond professional advisers*. “Negligent mis-statements” can be made by anyone who holds themself out as an expert and does not exercise a ‘reasonable’ standard of care for the accuracy of their information. Mr Halliday and all amateur commentators on the emerging soil carbon offsets market should consult their legal advisers. This includes scientists who speculate outside their field of expertise to warn farmers off the market opportunity.
The fact that Mr Halliday is new to the role and comes from outside Agriculture explains but does not excuse his blind acceptance of the arguments against soil carbon trading recited in this report. Any reasonable dairy farmer would conclude from Mr Halliday’s defence of this report (in a letter to Australian Farm Journal, August 2010) that:
1. Soil carbon must be stored for 70 to 100 years (Wrong.);
2. Australia’s soils are too dry and hot to capture carbon (Wrong.);
3. Most dairy soils are saturated with carbon; (Wrong.)
4. Farmers need to grow an impossible amount of pasture to lift soil carbon levels 1% in 5 years (Wrong.);
5. Carbon would need to be $200/tonne to deliver a better return than feeding pasture to cows; (Wrong.)
6. The cost of building carbon is too high because of all the N,P and S you have to apply to grow it; (Wrong.)
7. Soil carbon is expensive to measure, which impacts returns; (Wrong.)
8. Changes in weather, etc. could see farmers having to repurchase credits to make up their shortfall. (Wrong.)
“The basic science of soil carbon sequestration strongly indicates that dairy farmers should approach the issue of signing up for soil carbon sequestration with considerable caution,” he concludes. Your land will lose its value, he says. Then leaves the biggest falsehood till last: “The Dairy Australia review is an important piece of work for all pasture-based industries…” As proof he observes that it “has been endorsed by numerous leading soil scientists.” The only conclusion a reasonable reader could come to is to stay clear of soil carbon.
The Carbon Coalition doesn’t give advice to farmers, but we’ll make a exception in this case: Dairy farmers who decide to give soil carbon trading a miss when it comes available should make a diary note to that effect and lodge it with your solicitor or accountant. You will need to specify that you are not moving because of the negative assessment by your industry body. You might find it handy if you want to join a class action to recover lost revenue when it becomes plain that Mr Halliday was misleading – caught up in the hysteria infecting scientists recently when soil carbon is mentioned. To call the report a ‘review’ implies even-handedness, yet not one positive aspect of soil carbon trading was mentioned. This was a hatchet job. It’s lack of objectivity should shame Science. (For a complete report on the soundness or otherwise of soil carbon science, go to Good Science Or Snake Oil?)

*SHADDOCK V PARRAMATTA CITY COUNCIL (1981) ALR 385

Hysteria among scientists

A tone of hysteria pervades a report from Dairy Australia in which prominent soil carbon advocate Christine Jones is described as “a businesswoman with training in pasture agronomy” – she is Dr Christine Jones; her PhD is in Botany and Agronomy and she has more than 30 years experience in research. She is the founder of the Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme. This remarkable report - Soil Carbon Sequestration under Pasture in Southern Australia, Prepared for Dairy Australia Project MCK13538 - goes on to claim ‘she is not an expert in soil science’ and she has no peer reviewed publications. Both statements are incorrect. Dr Jones is declared unfit to advise governments by the report, which goes on to list the prominent scientists in the field who presumably are, one of which does not have a PhD. By listing them, the author of the document involved them in the libel. The managing director of Dairy Australia, Ian Halliday, claims in a letter to the Australian Farm Journal that the Report “has been endorsed by numerous leading soil scientists.” Which parts of the Report? The libel on Christine Jones? (For a complete report on the soundness or otherwise of soil carbon science, go to Good Science Or Snake Oil?)

Abbott's soil carbon strategy "robust"

The shadow spokesman for climate change, Greg Hunt, said the Opposition's policy on soil carbon was robust and many farmers were keen to take part. The opposition's climate change policy relies on paying farmers to enrich soils with 85 million tonnes of extra carbon a year, accounting for about 60 per cent of the minimum greenhouse cuts Australia has promised in the next decade, reports the Sydney Morning Herald.
''Three established industry groups have identified soil carbon savings almost twice those recognised by the Coalition,'' he said.
''If anything, our estimates are deeply conservative and it is undoubted that we should be pursuing a once in a century replenishment of our soils and our soil carbons.
''Our view of both the desirability and the achieveability has strengthened significantly through subsequent study over the last six months.''
Hunt cited letters endorsing the policy from three groups with an established interest in carbon farming supporting its stance, including from Dr John White, the executive director of Ignite Energy Resources, which is in a partnership with an organic fertiliser company.
''The CSIRO and the state agricultural bodies will tell you it is impossible but we have got farmers who are sequestering 10 or more tonnes of carbon per hectare right now,'' White said. ''We have half a million hectares already.''

Business groups attack soil carbon trade

The Australian Industry Group recently argued against soil carbon trading with the following statement: “If we rely on abatement that is not recognised as meeting Australia’s commitments, we must either undertake additional abatement at further expense, or risk undermining the international framework that justifies the cost of abatement.” The Group made two mistakes. Mistake 1: Confusing the Mandatory Market (under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) with the Voluntary Market (under the National Carbon Offset Standard). Soil Carbon Offsets will initially only be available on the Voluntary Market. As the word 'voluntary' implies, no one is forced to purchase these offsets. As well, there is no 'further abatement' or 'additional expense' because there is no mandatory market. The second mistake is to refer to 'undermining' the Kyoto principles which 'justify the cost of abatement'. Two things: 1. Kyoto was not set in stone when it was formulated. It was designed for the first trial periods and was always meant to be revised. It has been discovered that the emissions-centric nature of the model does not do justice to Agriculture and a powerful alliance of Governments and NGOs (USA, EU, World Bank, etc.) are seeking a new, separate set of provisions for the sector that recognise the fact that carbon is both emitted and captured in a biological environment 2. The current prices of offsets around the world make the statement a little humorous.

CSIRO claims based on bad science

Soil scientists commenting on the potential of Australian soils cannot be believed because the science has not been done, according to a farmers’ lobby group.
“Two senior CSIRO soil scientists set limits on the amount of carbon we farmers can capture and hold in soils, but their science is out of date,” says Michael Kiely, convenor of the Carbon Coalition.
No attempt has been made to test the 'potential' sequestration capability of Australian soils. And there is no work underway that will reveal it. There is no attempt to study the impact of biological farming on its own and, more to the point, there is no plan to study 'portfolio planning' or combinations of land management practices that complement and reinforce each other to maximise soil C sequestration.
“This is the reality on the farm. This is what Carbon Farmers do. (Eg. At "Uamby' we use grazing management, pasture cropping and probiotic innoculants, on the same piece of ground.) We have developed the Soil Carbon Optimising Tool to help farmers build a carbon farm plan to 'mix and match' their sequestration techniques. So while Science is measuring the potential of the past, we are seeking to live the potential of the present while helping to create the future.”

The facts are as follows:
Australia’s soils have not been studied comprehensively for their potential as a carbon sink.
Australian soils have only been fully studied for their capacity as a source of emissions.
There has been no major investment in research in this field until the Commonwealth Government arranged for a total of $26.5m to be allocated to studies overseen by the CSIRO. This research is yet to be completed. It is not designed to reveal the upside potential of different soils to sequester total carbon.
The data relied upon by CSIRO scientists to make statements about soil carbon potential must always be at least 5 years out of date due to the requirements of the scientific ‘peer review’ system. The actual research takes at least 3 years. Then it must be reviewed by a panel of scientists who can recommend changes to the report or even that work be redone. After clearance, the paper must appear in a scholarly journal of note before it is widely accepted.
Most of the research relied upon to ‘prove’ that Australian soils can sequester little or no carbon do not meet the basic Kyoto requirement that there be a change in land management beyond ‘business as usual’ Without a change in land management there can be no sequestration.
No research conducted or being conducted in this field is focusing on land management practices which have demonstrated in on-farm trials the greatest impact on sequestration rates. They are: 1. Biological Farming and 2. Carbon Farming (or portfolio planning), the latest innovations in this field.
Dr Jeff Baldock is wrong when he says “if you really want to capture enough carbon to start affecting our total emissions, a big chunk of land is going to have to be converted from the agricultural use it has seen into something else.” Practical experience reveals that actively grazed pastures and rangelands sequester more carbon than other land uses. There are more than 400m hectares of these lands in Australia. Even in croplands, changes to land management do not mean land must go out of production. It is the active life of the roots of plants that produces soil carbon.
Corn crops can sequester 5tonnes of carbon per hectare per year, according to NSW Industry & Investment researchers. (See below) That is the equivalent of more than 15 tonnes of CO2.
Dr Mike Gundy is wrong when he says that the Opposition could not reach its target when sequestering only half a tonne of carbon per hectare. 0.5 tonnes of carbon is equivalent to 2 tonnes of CO2. Australia has more than 400m hectares of agricultural lands. At 2tonnes CO2-e, the potential annual sequestration is 800m tonnes.
WHITE PAPER: A comprehensive analysis of why formal science suppresses soil carbon sequestration rates can be found in a white paper titled “Good Science & Snake Oil” posted at http://goodscienceandsnakeoil.blogspot.com

Michael Kiely
Convenor
Carbon Coalition
(02) 6374 0329


Corn crop can sequester 34 tonnes CO2-e per hectare per year (DI&I)

Corn can be used to build soil carbon levels. Total carbon added from corn roots averaged five tonnes per hectare per year with cotton-corn and 9.3t/ha/year with back-to-back corn, says Industry & Investment NSW senior research scientist, Nilantha Hulugalle. THIS IS THE EQUIVALENT OF BETWEEN 18 TONNES OF CO2-E AND 34 TONNES OF CO2-E PER HECTARE PER YEAR. Soil organic carbon dynamics in these farming systems have focussed on inputs of above-ground material.
“Addition of root material to soil carbon stocks either in the form of roots dying and decaying during and after the crop’s growing season are, however, significant," she said in a Land Newspaper report.
A project examining grey clay cotton soils near Narrabri found root death and decay contributed more than half of corn’s carbon to soil. Corn is a summer crop often grown under irrigation after cotton.
“We measured corn root growth in back-to-back corn and a cotton-corn rotation sown on one metre beds during the summers of 2007-08 and 2008-09, Dr Hulugalle said. Root measurements were made at intervals of two to four weeks during the growing season by using a combination of soil cores, a minirhizotron and an image capture system, using a video camera inserted into the soil through a clear plastic root observation tube. “The video camera was connected to a field computer with software which is able to take root images at specified depths. Carbon was analysed in roots sampled by coring.
The amount of carbon held in the crop roots at the end of the season and the amount of carbon added to the soil by roots dying during the growing season, were measured. Corn root densities, particularly towards the latter part of the growing season, were higher with back-to-back corn than with cotton-corn rotation.
“The amount contributed by root death during the growing season averaged 11% of the total amount.
“Relative to carbon contributed by the whole corn crop, above and below the ground, the amount of carbon contributed by roots can range from 50% to 65%.”

Waiting for a Soil Carbon Offset Unit

When the Commonwealth Government released what it calls the National Carbon Offset Standard, it did not set down the rules for making offsets. Instead it invited industry to write the rules for them: "Proponents may propose methodologies for offset projects and develop offset projects within Australia from emissions sources not counted toward Australia’s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol target." Agriculture is not counted. The Carbon Coalition sees this opportunity to achieve its goal, stated in
our mission: To see soil carbon traded and farmers paid fairly for what they grow. Recognising that the investment and technical expertise to formulate a methodology that would solve the many 'problems' surrounding soil carbon trading was beyond it, the Coalition opted to provide support and advice to others willing to take the risk.
After 2 years work by a cluster of businesses and organisations, and a huge personal investment by its principal Ken Bellamy, Prime Carbon has applied for certification of six different “Offset Units” for agriculture under the National Carbon Offset Standard. That means six different ways that farmers can reduce or absorb emissions of Greenhouse Gases and be paid for it. Soil Carbon Sequestration is the first. There are also offsets proposed for reducing Nitrous Oxide emissions from fertiliser use, Soil Stewardship, Revegetation, Reduced Usage of Lime, and Water Efficiency. Other opportunities include solar power and wind turbines to generate energy to be sold back into the grid. These have been submitted and we now await the 'consultation' process promised when the Standard was released late in 2009. Greg Combet, Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change Penny Wong, told us in June that a consultation paper wold be forthcoming soon. The Government has established an independent body called the Carbon Trust to oversee the administration of the Standard. It is chaired by former Environment Minister Robert Hill and includes on its Board Tony Coleman, who first identified climate change as a major business risk while chief actuary of IAG and who subsequently played an important role in the influential "Business Forum" which carried the issue up to Government and convinced the Howard regime to change its approach. We just want a fast track to an offset unit so we can get on with saving the world. (If it is not forthcoming, the Coalition favours going to the market and letting the people decide...)

Waiting for Gillard

A day is a long time in politics, they say… Prime Ministers can come and go in a day. Policies usually take a little longer.
The Gillard Government has not yet made a clear statement of its intentions with the carbon market yet, but we are confident that statements from Gillard supporters Tony Burke (Minister for Agriculture) and Greg Combet (Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change) and from the Department of Climate Change itself will hold true – agricultural carbon offsets will soon be possible.
These are the reasons we are confident:
1.The majority of Australians believe Climate Change is real and man-made and expect something to be done about it.
2. The Government must face the people in an election before Christmas, possibly next month.
3. The Government must be seen to be doing something about Climate Change.
4. The Prime Minister has ruled out “putting a price on Carbon” until 2012 (which is code for introducing an Emissions Trading Scheme based on a cap and trade system or a ‘mandatory market’ mechanism.)
5. The Prime Minister wants to build a ‘community consensus’ on Climate Change before implementing a price on carbon.
6. Large corporations including ANZ, NAB, Qantas, Fosters and Lion Nathan have announced that they will buy offsets through the Voluntary Market launched on 1 July, 2010 (National Carbon Offset Standard or NCOS).
7. Soil Carbon Offsets are a good news story for the electorate – assisting with Climate Change, with environmental restoration and with supporting farm families.
8. Offsets cost the Government nothing.
So until the Mandatory Market emerges, the Voluntary Market is all there is to choose from. And if it has to wait until consensus emerges in the community, that could be a long, long time.
Which means we will have the market all to ourselves at least until 2013.

The Outrageous Potential for Climate Change Agriculture

Imagine what could happen if close to 100% of Australia's agricultural soil was managed to sequester carbon and soil health levels rose across 450 million hectare. What tipping points would be reached? What emergent properties would emerge? No one can tell because it has never happened before. It seems like an outrageous suggestion, but some Australian farmers claim that they can slow, stall and even reverse the progress of Climate Change if given a chance. Members of the Carbon Coalition say they know how to turn Australia’s agricultural soils into a carbon sink large enough to play a major role in saving the world from the worst that climate chaos can inflict on us.
“Carbon Farming is already part of the Government’s policy on Climate Change. The decision we are looking for is a fast track to approval of soil carbon offsets under the National Carbon Offset Standard so we can get on with the job of saving the world,” says Michael Kiely of Carbon Farmers of Australia (the not-for-profit commercial arm of the Coalition.)
The world’s most highly awarded soil carbon specialist Professor Rattan Lal has announced that the world’s agricultural soils and vegetation can capture and hold enough CO2 from the atmosphere to stabilise Global Warming while the world makes the change to renewable energy. “It buys us time”, he says. Adviser to the US Government on soil carbon, Dr Lal believes plants and soils can be a bridge to the future because of their capacity to ‘draw down’ or absorb via the process of photosynthesis a massive amount of CO2, equivalent to 50ppm. In the race to contain global mean temperature below 2°C increase, we are told we must limit airborne carbon to below 450ppm – as the needle rockets through the 400ppm point.
Australian scientists agree. The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists announced that it is now too late to hope that setting targets for reductions in emissions will meet the 450ppm limit. It too advocates agricultural soils as an essential ingredient in the world’s survival plan.
Soils are the largest carbon sink mankind has the ability to influence – holding 1500 gigatonnes of CO2 vs 650Gt held in vegetation and 750Gt in the atmosphere. Photosynthesis is the only known process that can extract CO2 from the air and transform it into soil or plants. The world’s farmers control 5 billion hectares of soil which can start absorbing airborne carbon at a faster rate tomorrow if they are willing to change the way they farm. They need an incentive to grow a new commodity: carbon. They need a market.
The potential of soil carbon sequestration is uncharted by Science because no one alive has witnessed a landscape in which soil carbon levels were rising. Modern agriculture is carbon emitting by nature.
The upside potential is dramatic if there is widespread adoption of “Carbon Farming” practices. There will be more vegetation providing more ground cover and consequently less bare earth. This will have two outcomes: the landscape will capture and hold more of the rain that falls (which would otherwise rush off the bare earth carrying top soil into creeks and rivers and further baring the earth) and the landscape will be cooler as the darker surface provided by vegetation reflects less sunlight than bare earth.
Scientists call this the ‘albedo effect’ – lighter, harder surfaces reflect sunlight, heating the air above them. The ‘reverse albedo effect’ cools the air above. This cooler environment is likely to attract more rainfall than locations reflecting heat skywards as clouds are attracted to cooler air. There is the possibility of the “reverse albedo effect” creating “micro-climates” on individual farms. A micro-climate is a localised climate pattern that is caused by local conditions (can be man-made) that have an effect that is different to the general climate of the district. Vineyards are often sited to capture the effects of a micro-climate. Carbon farmers report increases in moisture in paddocks revegetated by trees on fencelines or scattered across the pasture.
Can the micro-climate effect be generalised to cover districts and whole regions as individual farms make the transition to carbon farming? The cumulative effect cannot be predicted because no one alive has experienced it. But outcomes could be dramatic as feedback loops kick in and new patterns emerge. Scientists do not speculate on the extreme upside, but do concede that conservatively it can be expected that Carbon Farming will provide farms with a ‘buffer’ against higher temperatures and lower rainfall.
Buffer or better than buffer, all is speculation. The simple fact remains that more vegetation and less bare soil means more soil carbon, less erosion, more effective rainfall, and cooler landscapes. Multiply these effects over 450 million hectares in Australia and the impact must be dramatic. Extended across 5 billion hectares around the globe, and we have Professor Lal’s Carbon Bridge to the Future.
Reference: Rattan Lal, The Potential for Soil Carbon Sequestration, International Food Policy Research Institute, Focus 16, Bri eF 5, May 2009 http://www.ifpri.org/2020/focus/focus16.asp. Rattan Lal (lal.1@osu.edu) is Director of the Ohio State University’s Carbon Management and Sequestration Center and Professor of Soil Science in the School of Environment and Natural Resources.

"Some men see things as they are and say, 'Why'? I dream of things that never were and say, 'Why not'?" (Senator Robert Kennedy)

Pew Outback carbon study only half the story

A study by the Pew Environment Group understates the Australian countryside’s carbon storage by more than half. The study measured only carbon captured in plants and trees, overlooking soils which can hold three times as much carbon as vegetation. The Pew Study says vegetation could possibly contain an extra 1.3 billion tonnes of carbon by 2050. Australian scientists have said the soil can sequester nearly a billion tonnes of CO2 each year.
NASA estimates that the world’s soils hold 1500 gigatonnes of carbon while the world’s vegetation holds less than 800 gigatonnes.
The Pew website describes its study as "An assessment of carbon storage, sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions in remote Australia."
Why would the Pew study ignore soils if it wanted to demonstrate the carbon capture capability of our farmlands and rangelands? It is very pointed. Green groups cannot get their heads around anything that isn’t forests and native vegetation. Carbon Farming includes protecting native vegetation and reforestry. The Pew study report hides the exclusion of soil carbon in a footnote. This suspicion of farmers and the ideological belief that they should not be rewarded for changing to more conservationist farming practices because ‘they should be doing it anyway’.


Potential soil carbon sequestration tonnages: various estimations

256 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year – rangelands only
(Baker, B, Barnett, G., and Howden, M. “Carbon Sequestration in Australia’s Rangelands” CRC for Greenhouse Accounting, Canberra, 2000)

596 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year - rangelands, cropping soils (Garnaut Climate Change Review 2008)


928 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year – rangelands only
(Grace, Peter, Carbon Models and Rangelands, Carbon Farming Conference, 2008)

946 million tonnes carbon dioxide per annum – rangelands, cropping soils (Dr Christine Jones, Pers. Comm, Garnaut Enquiry, 2008)

Carbon market not Python's Parrot, says The Land

The Land declared the carbon offsets market alive and breathing in a recent item by MATT CAWOOD.

HE WROTE; THE CPRS might be dead — or at least in deep freeze —but carbon trading opportunities for farmers are likely to emerge as Australia opens up a voluntary emissions trading scheme.
The Federal Government is backing the voluntary market with its National Carbon Offset Standard (NCOS), due to begin on July 1, which will establish government-endorsed benchmarks for trading in emissions credits, but without the strings of heavy government regulation. For agriculture, the most significant aspect of NCOS is that it allows emissions brokers, research agencies and other interested parties to suggest new approaches to creating tradeable emissions offsets.
Greg Combet, Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change, told the Voluntary Carbon Markets Association in a recent address that “given the ingenuity of stakeholders in this arena”, he expected plenty of proposals to be put on the table.
“Australian businesses, particularly farmers, will have the opportunity to develop offset credits from a range of activities that reduce emissions while providing other resource management benefits — such as the management of native vegetation and soils, and rehabilitation of rangelands,” Mr Combet told the association.

Michael Kiely of the Carbon Coalition said he was aware of several proposals for trading soil carbon due to be put before NCOS.
After talking with farmers across the country during a series of workshops, he has some of his own criteria for an effective soil carbon offset credit. “Farmers won’t consider a contract that’s any longer than five years, and if the money is inconsequential, they won’t play at all,” Mr Kiely said. He believes the success of the voluntary emissions market, and of a market for farm-derived offsets, is of some importance to the government after the political killing of its mandatory trading scheme.
“Penny Wong described the voluntary market as the mandatory market on trainer wheels,” Mr Kiely said. “The government needs this voluntary market to work as a gateway back to the CPRS, or another version of it. They are asking for the same level of scientific rigour, but without the same rules.”
Mr Combet gave this impression before the Voluntary Carbon Markets Association, where he commented that “progress on climate change cannot be taken for granted ... reform is difficult”.
“You can help to educate and inform the public about climate change and the sorts of changes we can all make to reduce our emissions. You can provide the mechanisms whereby individuals and households take action by buying a carbon neutral product."

Minister confirms Voluntary Market for farmers (Pinch yourself)

"Australian businesses, particularly farmers, will have the opportunity to develop offset credits from a range of activities that reduce emissions while providing other natural resource management benefits - such as the management of native vegetation and soils, and rehabilitation of rangelands." Greg Combe, Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Penny Wong, said this to the Voluntary Carbon Markets Association National Conference yesterday. He confirmed that we are engaged in shaping the future, not building models of the past. In the clearest statement of the inevitable yet made by the Government he said that the Government was looking for 'firms to come forward with new approaches for other domestic offsets that are not currently counted towards our Kyoto target, including soil carbon and forestry.' He then made reference to the thought leaders in our field: "Given the ingenuity of stakeholders in this arena I am sure there will be many abatement proposals put forward for consideration"
The Carbon Coalition urges all Ministers and Policy advisers involved in choosing 'experts' to oversee the launching of the voluntary market to be aware that they are designing a solution for today to address problems of tomorrow, not building a mausoleum for yesterday. And should you falter at the threshold or fold under pressure - for there are many still actively whiteanting and libelling soil carbon and its promoters - be aware that a voluntary market standard is neither compulsory nor exclusive, nor can it negate the right of free individuals to enter into commercial transactions under other standards not sanctioned by governments or interest groups. Or even no standard at all. Should you fail to provide a workable mechanism, the market will emerge of its own accord. The people want action because they feel the urgency. The sudden collapse of support for the Rudd government after scrapping the CPRS said it all. The silent, despairing majority want someone to do something.

Minister Ian MacDonald's Contribution to Soil Carbon Cause

There will be no statue erected to Ian MacDonald in the Hall of Heroes of the New Agricultural Revolution. While not celebrating his departure, the Carbon Coalition can reveal that former Minister for Primary Industries was not a supporter of farmers when it came to carbon sequestration. He dismissed soil carbon sequestration out of hand when we spoke to him, reciting as his reasons the standard Farm Institute line - can't measure it, Kyoto Rules, etc. Instead he was confidently looking forward to deep burial Carbon Capture and Storage - untried, uncosted, and potentially dangerous technology that lives only in the imagination of a dwindling number of devotees. Mr MacDonald's shrinking Department conducted the "Soil Carbon Myth Busters" propaganda tour of all states of Australia, with the CSIRO. More recently DPI researchers announced that they could find no carbon sequestered when Carbon Farming techniques, such as grazing management and pasture cropping, are applied. Here's hoping the Department can return to its former glory after this dark period is forgotten.

Hatchet Job on Bioferts?

Is the MLA performing a hatchet job on biological fertilisers under the guise of scientific trials? Why do we ask? Because "science" has traditionally been used to discourage adoption of innovations that emerge from the grassroots and because the language used to report the project indicates that the outcome is predictable. The story starts with the blanket statement; "Australian farmers have always prided themselves on innovation but when it comes to alternative fertilisers, they're justifiably wary." Bioferts are considered dangerous by the scientists conducting the eight Producer Sites across southern Australia. Soil scientist Jeff Hirth is quoted as saying that "many farmers fall under the spell of clever marketing by alternative fertiliser products." Holbrook grazier Ian Locke - one of the participating graziers -also jumps to conclusions before the findings are in, saying, "It would be difficult to be a profitable low input production system." The MLA Research Adoption Manager Jane Weatherley felt confident enough of the outcome to make the sweeping statement: "Farmers want optimum beef production out of their land and not all the products on the market can enable that." How can you know the results of a race before the race has been run? WE predict that this project will repeat the recent Department of Industry and Investment report on pastures and soil carbon - finding that none of the alternative products will be validated by science and the reason will be found in the methodology. Products in the trials include TM21, Nutrisoil LS, CalSap, Bactivate, Prolong, RUM and single super a 123KG/HA. (Feedback, May 2010) COULD THIS be the pushback attack we have been anticipating? (Hint: The Sales Manager of one of the candidate bioferts was asked to supply one litre of product for the trial! This person revealed that the company had not been informed of the trials, nor was it consulted about application of the product. This is common practice when hatcheting. The DI&I last year failed to involve Col Seis in trials of pasture cropping in NSW, despite the fact that there are many conflicting definitions of the practice. Not only did they fail to consult the originator of the practice on the accuracy of the methodology, they sought to deny his role as originator in the final report.)

The Soil Carbon Data Register & Casebook

The Soil Carbon Data Register & Casebook

Hi,

I would like your opinion on the following. Would you contribute data?

We are sitting on an unleveraged advantage - all the case study data gathered routinely in the course of business. On their own they may not carry much weight - but as a body of work - cases from every state, every type of farming and grazing - the sheer weight of numbers begs the question - why the gap between scientific reaility and on-farm reality?

This is very important now as the voluntary carbon standard is being finalised.

Cheers!

MIchael Kiely
Convenor
Carbon Coalition Against Global Warming

Why should the other side have all the data?
After the Farm Institute’s Mick Keogh delivered yet another damning presentation on the prospects of soil carbon trading recently, we asked him could he find one positive thing to say about it. He replied: “Show me the data.”
WE have data – lots of it. IT’S TIME we showed it to them.
Send your data to the Soil Carbon Data Register…

The Soil Carbon Data Register is a central database of results from on-farm trials and routine sampling commissioned by farmers.
It aims to highlight the performance of farmers who can increase soil carbon levels in their soils faster and higher than the science community has achieved.
The sheer weight of numbers of cases showing higher results would raise the question: why?
Scientific studies fail to reproduce the results farmers can achieve because they lack the farmer’s skill in managing soils and because they have yet to study biological practices which are delivering dramatically higher results than ever before.
As a result, the only ‘science’ that is presented to politicians and decision-makers is that which ‘proves’ that soil carbon can only be increased extremely slowly, if at all.
This issue is important in the next few months because the details of the National Carbon Offset Standard (which will allow the soil carbon offset market to commence) are being finalized.
The Soil Carbon Data Register will be used to support the reality of soil carbon.
The following information will be needed:
Name of Farmer:
Name of Property:
Location:
Area Involved:
Soil Management Practices:
Soil Carbon Results:
Name of Soil Laboratory:

By contributing you data you are giving us the ammunition we have been needing for so long.
For more information, call (02) 6374 0329 or email michael@carboncoalition.com.au

Soil Offsets Scheme to Launch 1 July 2010 - without CPRS

A senior member of Penny Wong's management team told us this morning that the National Carbon Offset Standard would be going ahead despite the shelving of the CPRS. Director of Strategic and Technical Analysis in the Offsets Office of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Kath Rowley, confirmed that the following text from the background papers for this Wednesday's Soil Carbon Workshop for Research, Industry, Policy and Market Stakeholders is an accurate statement of the Government's position:
"Provided there is sufficient progress on international climate action, the Government will legislate the CPRS in 2013. The National Carbon Offset Standard will support additional voluntary action to reduce emissions, and commences on 1 July 2010."
"Agricultural emissions including soil carbon will not be liable under the CPRS. Instead, subject to the development of robust methodologies, offsets will be able to be generated for soil carbon abatement (both sequestration and avoided emissions."

CSIRO optimistic, but Malcolm T set the pace for passion

Several delegates to the invitation-only Soil carbon Workshop for Research, Industry, Policy ad Market Stakeholders in May referred to the Carbon Coalition in their brief position paper they were asked to submit. We stand accused of formenting 'unrealistic expectations', using 'a lot of rhetoric', making 'over-optimistic claims', and being 'dogmatic and anti-scientific'.
We make no apology for shaking the sleepwalkers. In 2006 Mike Steketee could not have written what he wrote in today's Australian about the CSIRO:

"Perhaps the government will get serious about exploring the potential to offset carbon emissions by putting carbon into the soil through improved land management and innovations such as biochar. The CSIRO has estimated that an extra one billion tonnes of carbon can be stored in Australian soils and vegetation each year for the next 40 years, which alone could offset all of Australia's annual emissions."

We were also described as 'passionate advocates'. But the person with a passion for soil carbon who turned the tables for Agriculture is Malcolm Turnbull. Welcome back, Mr T.

Corn crop can sequester 34 tonnes CO2-e per hectare per year (DI&I)

Corn can be used to build soil carbon levels. Total carbon added from corn roots averaged five tonnes per hectare per year with cotton-corn and 9.3t/ha/year with back-to-back corn, says Industry & Investment NSW senior research scientist, Nilantha Hulugalle. THIS IS THE EQUIVALENT OF BETWEEN 18 TONNES OF CO2-E AND 34 TONNES OF CO2-E PER HECTARE PER YEAR. Soil organic carbon dynamics in these farming systems have focussed on inputs of above-ground material.
“Addition of root material to soil carbon stocks either in the form of roots dying and decaying during and after the crop’s growing season are, however, significant," she said in a Land Newspaper report.
A project examining grey clay cotton soils near Narrabri found root death and decay contributed more than half of corn’s carbon to soil. Corn is a summer crop often grown under irrigation after cotton.
“We measured corn root growth in back-to-back corn and a cotton-corn rotation sown on one metre beds during the summers of 2007-08 and 2008-09, Dr Hulugalle said. Root measurements were made at intervals of two to four weeks during the growing season by using a combination of soil cores, a minirhizotron and an image capture system, using a video camera inserted into the soil through a clear plastic root observation tube. “The video camera was connected to a field computer with software which is able to take root images at specified depths. Carbon was analysed in roots sampled by coring.
The amount of carbon held in the crop roots at the end of the season and the amount of carbon added to the soil by roots dying during the growing season, were measured. Corn root densities, particularly towards the latter part of the growing season, were higher with back-to-back corn than with cotton-corn rotation.
“The amount contributed by root death during the growing season averaged 11% of the total amount.
“Relative to carbon contributed by the whole corn crop, above and below the ground, the amount of carbon contributed by roots can range from 50% to 65%.”

Contour Plot Illustration Opaque, Not Fake

Willem said...

Michael,

I think you are misintepreting the figure. It is still possible that is a mock-up.
What you are looking at are the values on the contour lines, there are actually no real data points in the plot, although they are suggested by the "bomb craters". The contour lines might suggest the same values, but they are the result of the spatial integration that was used to make the plot and thus represent some sort of average between points.


Willem

Hi Willem,

I stand corrected. If those values on the control plot are contours or 'isobars', that would account for them. But the caption implies otherwise. The average reader is not a scientist. It is "A Farmer's Guide". However there is no evidence that the map is a 'fake'. Just opaque. I withdraw the comment and apologise.
The significance of this "illustration" - whatever it is - must be understood: it appears to be a powerful argument against trading in soil carbon. It is an obstacle. Some people have invested enormous amounts of time and money identifying and publicising obstacles to the trade in soil carbon. Why have they not invested the same resources in searching for ways to remove these obstacles? Given the benefits to society that the 'recapitalising' of our degraded soils would bring, who does this obstruction benefit? If President Kennedy was relying on people with this attitude to put a man on the Moon, he would have heard: "Sorry. Can't do it. It's too hard."

Sequestadors from Mexico

A delegation of hydrologists and soil carbon scientists from Mexico visited the Carbon Coalition's HQ in the Cudgegong Valley near Goolma NSW to talk about water and see the rare sight of full dams, running creeks and tall grasses in our district. One of the party, Dr Jorge Etchevers from Chile,, co-edited Carbon Sequestration in Soils of Latin America with Dr Rattan Lal. The party was brought to our carbon farming/woolgrowing enterprise by Dr Willem Vervoort to meet the farmers who started a grassroots soil carbon campaign. Dr Vervoort, Senior Lecturer Hydrology & Catchment Management in Alex McBratney's Faculty at Sydney University, had visited Mexico because of the similarities of their challenges with soils and climate change. Dr Israel Velasco and Dr Waldo Bustamante are hydrologists interested in irrigation. Luckily we found a great deal of water running through our soils towards the creek, because of the clay pan we inherited from nearly 200 years of mouldboard plowing. Dr Etchevers informed us that the soil classification system used by the Aztecs was approximately the same that scientists in South America use today. Jorge also shares the same anxieties about soil carbon trading that Australian scientist suffer. As the party was leaving, Dr Velasco told me he was going to become a sequestador. Nice word.