Does it matter if the opposition climate change spokesman can't get the basic maths right, given that they hope tree planting will contribute 60% of their emissions reduction policy? When Greg says 100 square kilometers, he actually means 10 000 square kilometers, whereas CSIRO means 750 000 square kilometers.
video:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/04/01/3179338.htm
transcript:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3179336.htm
Quote:TONY JONES, PRESENTER: The Federal Coalition's Climate Change spokesman is under attack from scientists and researchers who claim he's made a major error in his policy on emissions reductions.
Last week Greg Hunt told Lateline that 150 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year could be abated through soil carbon sequestration over a land area of just 100 square kilometres.
Mr Hunt now claims he was misunderstood and that he was talking about a much larger area of land, but critics say the Coalition's policy still doesn't add up.
...
The Coalition does count soil carbon. They're banking on it to deliver 60 per cent of their targets, up to 85 million tonnes in the year 2020.
...
In a recent interview on Lateline, Greg Hunt said an even greater figure could be achieved on a relatively small area of land.
GREG HUNT, OPPOSITION SPOKESMAN ON CLIMATE ACTION & ENVIRONMENT: We are talking about a land mass, if you are achieving the 150 million tonnes, of an area of roughly 100 square kilometres. Not tens of thousands, but 100 square kilometres of intensive agriculture would make an extraordinary achievement on many of the estimates.
STEVE CANNANE: But Lateline has spoken to experts in the field who dispute the claim.
...
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.