Opinion 
 Blogs 
 State Politics 
 Carbon trading a must to counter clearing ban costs 

Carbon trading a must to counter clearing ban costs

In a win for the staff of Queensland's Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, they have finally succeeded in publicising the woodlands research by former staffer Dr Bill Burrows.

Many Queensland landholders suffering the uncheckable consequences of vegetation thickening will recall with disdain the way the State Government treated Dr Burrows. The pre-eminent expert on woodlands ecology – respected worldwide for research into vegetation thickening – was gagged by the Government from talking to the media during the land-clearing debate of 2002-04.

The reason for the shabby treatment was that Dr Burrows' 40 years of research directly contradicted many of the environmental and economic arguments put by Premier Peter Beattie, then Primary Industries Minister Henry Palaszczuk, and former Natural Resources Minister Stephen Robertson.

Dr Burrows and a team of DPI scientists and economists had found that without the use of dozer and chain, which was banned under the State Government's tree-clearing laws, it would be unviable and unaffordable for graziers to control native vegetation as it thickened with regrowth.

The thickening process, it was shown, threatened the future of some grass and bird species, as well as the economic viability of the grazing sector. It was estimated in 2003 that the net present cost to Queensland of unchecked vegetation thickening over a 25-year period would be $900 million – a far cry from the State's $150m assistance package.

The report was revealed to the public only after an extensive investigation by Queensland Country Life. Dr Burrows and his team had been ordered to destroy all copies of the report.

So it was with some sense of irony then to find that the minders in Brisbane cleared for release a DPI&F press statement highlighting the contribution of the now-retired Dr Burrows to current woodlands research and acknowledging many of his findings.

While the deficiencies of the land-clearing laws are not the making of current ministers for DPI and NRW, Tim Mulherin and Craig Wallace respectively, they now have the opportunity to remedy the situation.

They have two immediate options: Either drop the dozer and chain restriction for controlling thickening, which is unlikely; or convince their colleagues in Federal Labor not to sign to the Kyoto protocol.

The DPI&F press release talks about the massive carbon sink provided by regrowth, but it is a forgotten fact of the land-clearing debate that the Federal Government deliberately omitted the impact of thickening from its greenhouse accounting when negotiating Australia's Kyoto targets. If that protocol is ratified, it would lock Queensland farmers out of selling the carbon their regrowth has absorbed and of recouping some of the lost income not compensated for by the State or Federal Governments.

Equally, they and Coalition MPs must lobby the Federal Coalition that when it receives its carbon-trading report later this month it includes in any carbon market that's created a baseline year that predates Queensland's clearing bans. The Commonwealth has been quick to boast about how it is meeting its Kyoto targets – it's time to repay graziers who have delivered those results with a workable carbon market.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1

Comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Exchanging loss of productivity for carbon credits? Get real.

The paltry sum a grazier will be paid for carbon credits will never go anywhere remotely near the value of lost production.

Regrowth control, even with a dozer and chain, to pre-Vegetation Management law condition is common sense and the only economic solution.


Posted by Trugger on 17/05/2007 4:33:32 PM
It is time this government realised that they are behaving like dictators and start to make amendments to most of the legislation they have implemented that affects rural people.

What they don't seem to understand is that rural people cannot pass on costs, and the more cost pressure, the more ecological pressure.

Landholders should be paid a good sum of money annually, from the public purse, to compensate them for being unable to produce to the potential of their land "for the good of the community".

Posted by Concerned Northerner on 17/05/2007 5:57:23 PM
Carbon sequestration using agriculture ignores the basic fact that coal and oil are old carbon, tied up for over 300 million years.

By using agriculture to store carbon only brings that carbon into the present cycle of life and it will still circulate through the natural system.

We have to stop using old carbon at all and use renewable emission-free power sources.

Posted by Chris G on 18/05/2007 8:16:58 AM
Why should the tax payer have to give money to graziers who made the mistake in the first place by over grazing the land?

When the white man first came into the mulga country it was beautiful open grass land.

Why can't they look after the land themselves?

The answer is ''greed". They will never look after the land when the tax payer keeps giving them money.

If they can't make a living themselves I suggest they sell to someone who will!!!!!!!

Posted by john on 20/05/2007 7:04:09 PM
Any poor farmer trying to control woody weeds on his own private property is faced with the full force of the law, and yet the government gives carte blanche to their buddies in big development to mow down as much forest as they please.

Not long ago, this form of "clever politics" was known as corruption.

Posted by God bless Australia on 30/05/2007 10:10:37 PM
State Politics
Tell us your thoughts on the latest developments in Queensland politics and how it will affect life in rural and regional areas.

11/12/2008 | Farm lobby groups will decide next week whether the future of farm representation will stay as it is or be broadened to bring in the big end of town.
QCL Subscriptions
 
QCL Rate Card
 
Rural Bookshop
 
QCL - Mail Order Cataloge
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...