http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/scientists-question-carbon-farming-plan-20110420-1dog2.html

Scientists and agricultural experts say Labor's plan to pay farmers to store carbon in their soil won't do much to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The federal government introduced draft laws in March to reward landowners for growing trees or sequestering carbon dioxide in their soil.

It wants the carbon farming initiative (CFI) up and running by July.

But CSIRO sustainable agriculture director Brian Keating says while it's good to encourage landowners to take action, carbon farming won't play a major role in cutting emissions.

"While forest carbon and soil carbon sinks are opportunities worth pursuing, current research would suggest the abatement likely to be achieved, in the short term at least, is likely to be modest," Dr Keating told a Senate environment committee examining the CFI.

Agriculture accounts for 23 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions but the sector will be exempted from Labor's carbon tax and emissions trading scheme.

The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Research Economics and Sciences (ABARES) said a carbon farming credits scheme would be ineffective if it was not linked to a domestic carbon price.

"In the absence of which, there is likely to be insufficient demand for CFI offset credits," ABARES deputy executive director Paul Morris said, adding that landholders needed to see a clear economic benefit to participate.

Nevertheless, the National Farmers' Federation (NFF), which opposes a carbon price, supports the carbon farming initiative.

"Voluntary, market-based mechanisms, the carrot rather than stick approach, is the appropriate way of dealing with this issue for farmers," NFF economics and trade manager Charles McElhone told the inquiry today.

Government climate adviser Ross Garnaut believes once carbon farming is part of an ETS it could be worth $2.25 billion a year - the equivalent of another wool industry.

The federation says there's a risk the CFI could encourage some farmers to plant trees on land otherwise used for food production.

"The NFF would be extremely concerned if, as a result of any carbon policy, large-scale carbon sink forests dominated the Australian landscape at the expense of agricultural production, regional communities and the environment," it said in a submission to the inquiry.

Mr McElhone said the government had at least acknowledged the risk by revising its legislation.

The Australian Plantation Products and Paper Industry Council told the inquiry timber growers would be unlikely to join the carbon farming initiative as currently proposed.

"It's our considered view that the carbon farming initiative, as detailed in the legislation, is unlikely to attract the interest of commercial plantation growers," the lobby group's chief executive, Richard Stanton, said.

Growers would not take the economic risk associated with establishing a project in the absence of a "meaningful" carbon price market, he said.

Hey, Macca et al, perhaps you could explain how the Libs stack up on similar proposals!?

Maqqa should just start an RSS feed...

I like Maqqa

He values integirty and justice for all

http://thehumanscorch.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/1243271414_black_guy_laughing.gif

Abbott's climate change policy is bullshit Malcolm Turnbull .




While a shadow minister, Tony Abbott, was never afraid of speaking bluntly in a manner that was at odds with Coalition policy.

So as I am a humble backbencher I am sure he won't complain if I tell a few home truths about the farce that the Coalition's policy, of lack of policy, on climate change has descended into.

First, lets get this straight. You cannot cut emissions without a cost. To replace dirty coal fired power stations with cleaner gas fired ones, or renewables like wind let alone nuclear power or even coal fired power with carbon capture and storage is all going to cost money.


To get farmers to change the way they manage their land, or plant trees and vegetation all costs money.

Somebody has to pay.

So any suggestion that you can dramatically cut emissions without any cost is, to use a favourite term of Mr Abbott, "bullshit." Moreover he knows it.

The whole argument for an emissions trading scheme as opposed to cutting emissions via a carbon tax or simply by regulation is that it is cheaper - in other words electricity prices will rise by less to achieve the same level of emission reductions.

The term you will see used for this is "least cost abatement".

It is not possible to criticise the new Coalition policy on climate change because it does not exist. Mr Abbott apparently knows what he is against, but not what he is for

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/abbotts-climate-change-policy-is-bullshit-20091207-kdmb.html

The Australian Plantation Products and Paper Industry Council told the inquiry timber growers would be unlikely to join the carbon farming initiative as currently proposed.

"It's our considered view that the carbon farming initiative, as detailed in the legislation, is unlikely to attract the interest of commercial plantation growers," the lobby group's chief executive, Richard Stanton, said.

Growers would not take the economic risk associated with establishing a project in the absence of a "meaningful" carbon price market, he said.

This is from the link you posted Macca!!!

;)

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/scientists-question-carbon-farming-plan-20110420-1dog2.html