News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Finance 
 Decide now on emissions trading for ag, govt told 

Decide now on emissions trading for ag, govt told

13 Oct, 2008 03:43 PM
Representatives of the Australian grains industry are calling on the Federal Government to make an immediate decision to exclude agriculture from its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

In a joint response to the Government's Green Paper on the Scheme, the Grain Growers Association, GrainCorp and the Grains Council of Australia have argued that leaving a decision until 2013 will create uncertainty and act as a barrier to investment in the grains industry.

In a statement issued by the three groups today, GGA chairman John Eastburn said there were downsides to both delaying a decision and to including agriculture in the scheme.

"Agriculture will be the sector most strongly affected by climate change, and we support the general thrust of the Government's Scheme in reducing Australia's emissions," Mr Eastburn said.

"However, the proposed scheme is aimed at companies emitting more than 25,000 tonnes of CO2 and there will be few individual farm businesses in that category."

Instead, Mr Eastburn said sustainable development of the Australian grains industry would be enhanced through the development of an industry-specific voluntary market-based mechanism for trading carbon equivalents.

He said this would be more suitable to working at an individual farm scale.

"Such an approach will reward Australian farmers for adopting farming practices that reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses," he said.

The voluntary market system proposed would be similar to that developed by the Chicago Climate Exchange.

"Such a market would allow agriculture to provide offsets to those industries covered in the Governments compulsory Scheme, as well as providing an incentive to reduce direct emissions," Mr Eastburn said.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
If Agriculture is to be included in the CPRS then acknowledgement of the hard work done by Ag should be reflected in the terms and conditions. primary industries emmissions have dropped by 20+% whereas by example the standing power generation has increased by 40%. If ag is included then this must be recognised and rewarded. the burden needs to be fair as farmers will already be paying for emmissiosn from power, fuel and fertiliser before even on farm reductions. I do not beleive the CCX model is the right one to follow - it is simplistic and has limited effect. And one point of clarification is that facilities over 25Kt of emissions must report on emissions under the NGERS and controlling corporations with over 125Kt must report. To put the 25Kt in perspective that is 12,500 cows or 50,000 sheep or 25 megawatts of power or 8.3 M litres of diesel. Getting the baseline right will be the most diffiuclt for Ag, if the 1990 baseline is accepted then how we cope with fluctuating stock numbers and area cropped will be critical. In some cases it will be better not to plant or expand herds due to emissiosn liabilities.

The current government proposal to have no end to the laibility of forestry activities also needs to be looked at in detail. The inclusion of ag or otherwise does need to be sorted out quickly, especiually for those entering into forest sink agreements. Farmers can now sign up to get paltry returns for what will become permanent liabilities without knwoing if they will need the forests to offset thier own emissions later. What is the government going to do about all those companiess that take the carbon rights for planting tress and sell them off, the landhodlers have the liability and the comapny has the profits, what happens when the price of carbon triples and climate change kills the trees, then who has to buy the carbon back? my gut feel is the companies who made all the money will just walk away and leave it to the landholder. Furthermore under the current prefered options the government would leave it ot the landholder to nominate if they want ot participate. This throws into question the power of landholders on leasehold land. The other option is to allow anyone ( with consent) to opt in. I would be going back to any carbon contract and looking to see if the comapny can opt in, transferring liability tot he landholder. We have already been told by the Western Lands Division they will not allow landholders to enter the scheme until all risk is removed form the WLD. This is reducing the opportunities of landholders to access another income stream and shows the lack of understanding of the scheme by the WLD. Catchement Management Authorities, NGOS and private companies are all trying to get their hands on your land and in crisis times they are taking advantage of landholders. The government needs to act and act now to protect the agricutural industry form these vultures and oppotunists. Landholders get an expert to look at your planse BEFORE you sign anything. The Lorax

Posted by the lorax, 14/10/2008 8:37:11 AM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
POLL
Q: Do you believe that buying back irrigation properties is the best way for the Federal Government to address water shortages in the Murray Darling Basin?

Yes
(25.6%)

No
(70.1%)

Other
(4.3%)

Total Votes: 679
Poll Date: 12 October, 2008

Most popular articles

Advertisement



Queensland Country Life







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...