That's the view expressed by the National Farmers' Federation in its formal response to the Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Green Paper.

It its submission the NFF says that agriculture in Australia could be decimated unless there are significant changes to the proposed carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS).

"It should be recognised that Australian agriculture is a lower intensity emitter of carbon than the agricultural sectors of other developed countries," the report states.

"It is critical therefore, that the CPRS design does not have the perverse consequence of driving food and fibre production off-shore and in so doing, increase global emissions.

"Farmers, as price takers in the marketplace, are extremely vulnerable to increasing costs that may result from the implementation of a CPRS – even as an uncovered sector."

While the NFF agrees with the government's position that agriculture should not be included in the emissions trading scheme when it first begins, it says further consideration is needed on how to appropriately include agriculture when the time comes.

"Accurate measurement, monitoring, verification and reporting of emissions at the individual enterprise are major obstacles to agriculture’s coverage," the NFF submission states.

"The National Carbon Accounting System cannot currently provide an appropriate farm scale carbon estimation mechanism for agriculture.

"The international greenhouse accounting rules do not appropriately acknowledge the full sequestration function of agricultural production systems.

"These accounting rules are not appropriate for the longer term goals of Australia's CPRS and are adding to misleading interpretations of agriculture's contribution to global warming."

The NFF also argues that the Government's eagerness to use vegetation as a carbon sink needs to be carefully approached due to the risk of "perverse" environmental outcomes, such as the invasion of woody weeds and regrowth, and a reduction in water run-off due to forestry plantations.

The NFF also warned that "cost-effective mitigation options" are not yet widely available for most agricultural sectors, nor the food supply chains.