News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Garnaut: Soil carbon a must in an emissions trading scheme 

Garnaut: Soil carbon a must in an emissions trading scheme

04 Jul, 2008 03:12 PM
Soil carbon must be recognised if agriculture is to be part of an emissions trading scheme, according to economist Professor Ross Garnaut, who today released a draft report into Australia's response to climate change.

Speaking exclusively to Rural Press following his address in Canberra to the National Press Club, Professor Garnaut said not having the measurements right for soil carbon was one of the reasons he recommended "not to go quickly" with agriculture.

He has recommended in his report to the Federal Government that the agriculture sector be initially left out of an emissions trading scheme.

"It's very important that the arrangements put in place give true credit for carbon that is in the soil," Professor Garnaut said.

"That's one of the reasons we can't go quickly with agriculture is because we're still working out how to measure that."

He said the amount of carbon which that could be stored in the soil "could be very big".

"Getting the measurement right, the administration right is crucial and a lot is going to be depending on that," he said.

"But my view is we shouldn't be moving to put agriculture in until we've got that right."

Professor Garnaut told the press club there would be winners and losers from the introduction of an emissions trading scheme, but would not say which of those would apply to agriculture.

He said it would be very important sheep and cattle industries were given some assistance once agriculture is included in a scheme, because despite being considerable emitters, they were also significantly trade exposed.

While the agriculture sector has argued that Kyoto agreement accounting rules should be changed to give greater recognition to the life cycle of farming and farming's contribution to reducing emissions, Professor Garnaut said we should forget Kyoto if the measurements in agriculture can be perfected.

"I think we can move ahead of the Kyoto rules," Professor Garnaut said.

"If we think we can measure things right, we can go ahead, even if the international community doesn't recognise it.

"It will be some cost for us but I think we should do it.

"But we've got to get it right, and if we can get it right then that could be an example to the world."

* Click here to read the full Garnaut report.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size


comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
I know who this is going to cost! It will break many hard working Australian backs! Make some cunning administrators rich and do nothing for the environment. There are as many scientists agin global warming theories as for, only they don't have as loud a voice as there is no money to be made by espousing the negative opinion. Global warming will be thrust upon us even if we don't like, believe or need it and it comes with carbon trading which will not grow food for one person. Let's drop carbon trading and deal with some real problems ie. how to feed the worlds starving.
Posted by Mal, 5/07/2008 8:05:36 PM
I have a slide from a prominent scientist's presentation which describes those of us promoting Soil Carbon as "Snake Oil Merchants". Professor Garnaut: welcome to the Snake Oil Soil Society. Your endorsement is yet another brick kicked out of the wall. Dr Christine Jones should be honoured as Australian of the Year 2010 for the sacrifices she has made to make soil carbon opportunity available to farmers and the community and the environment. She has been and is still treated abominably by some scientists. The real heros are those scientists who risked their reputations to engage with the farming community and the Carbon Coalition to raise levels of knowledge about soils on both sides.
Posted by Michael Kiely, 5/07/2008 9:48:47 PM
Let's get real about this. The good farmer who retains stubble and has built up soil carbon levels has little scope for increasing soil carbon much more. Yet the farmer who has historically burnt stubble (that is done the wrong thing for years releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere) has low soil carbon levels and therefore a lot of scope for increasing soil carbon levels into the future. Should this scheme come into place, which farmer will benefit?
Posted by John, 7/07/2008 10:33:46 AM
John is correct. Measuring soil carbon is not the difficult part. It is the starting point for each farm. The only workable solution is to have a base starting point allocation for each farm soil type in each broad goegraphical location as both soil type and termperature, and possible rainfall patters also, affect the natural soil carbon content.
Posted by Terry, 7/07/2008 2:34:41 PM

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.
Professor Ross Garnaut
Professor Ross Garnaut
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
POLL
Q: How do you rate the effectiveness of the current exceptional circumstances drought assistance program?

Excellent
(8.1%)

Good
(17.2%)

Average
(17.7%)

Poor
(24.7%)

Terrible
(32.3%)

Total Votes: 344
Poll Date: 06 July, 2008

Most popular articles

ELDERS NEWS MREC SJ



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...