This is it: ...
STEVE CANNANE: Mick Keogh says that based on these estimates, Greg Hunt's figures don't add up.
MICK KEOGH: To reach the 150 million tonnes per annum of carbon dioxide equivalence would be 75 million hectares at the upside, that is at the two tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent per hectare per annum, or about 500 million hectares at 0.3, which is the lower level of the estimate.
STEVE CANNANE: But when I went back to Greg Hunt today, he said he defines 100 square kilometres as a hundred by a hundred, not 10 by 10.
GREG HUNT: When I talk about the 100 squared, that's all about a hundred by a hundred square kilometres or a hundred kilometres by a hundred kilometres, 10,000 square kilometres, a million hectares. You can play a game, respectfully, or we can be serious about what's the calculation here. A million hectares at a 150 tonnes of C02 equivalent per hectare is the figure that we're talking about, but that's the intensive number.
STEVE CANNANE: Greg Hunt has altered the transcript of the original Lateline interview and posted it on his website to reflect what he says was his intended definition of 100 square kilometres.
Based on this altered figure, Greg Hunt believes 150 million tonnes of carbon dioxide can be abated in one year over one million hectares.
But using the CSIRO's best estimate, you'd need a land mass of at least 75 million hectares to do this. And if you take the CSIRO's figures at the lower end of the scale, then you'd need 500 million hectares, or 65 per cent of the land mass of Australia.
But Greg Hunt questions the CSIRO figures.
GREG HUNT: Well there is a debate, and what we're seeing is that people such as Christine Jones, probably the pre-eminent soil carbon scientist in Australia and one of the world's leading soil carbon scientists, has a very different view. Her view is that Australia can capture an extraordinary part of its overall emissions, far greater than we've proposed. We've been very conservative in our estimates of what Australia as a whole through incentives to farmers could absorb.
STEVE CANNANE: The CSIRO does not take into consideration the field work of Dr Christine Jones because it's yet to be peer reviewed.
Peter Cosier says the Coalition is being irresponsible with their target.
PETER COSIER: We're very much in favour of soil carbon, but I think it's irresponsible to set a carbon reduction target based on information which is not sufficient to give you that target. So I think they're creating false expectations, I think farmers will be very reluctant to enter that market even if it did happen, and when they do, I don't think you'll achieve the volumes that have been promised in the Coalition's policy.
STEVE CANNANE: Steve Cannane, Lateline.
source: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3179336.htm
ANTI-MARKET FORCES ABBOTT IS LOOKING DODGIER EVERY DAY!!