News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Political 
 Nothing for ag in Labor's climate policy 

Nothing for ag in Labor's climate policy

30 Jul, 2010 02:12 PM
THERE were no major incentives for the farm sector in Labor's climate change policy announced last week, despite high hopes there would be new measures or research dollars to encourage carbon abatement and sequestration in agriculture.

The Federal Government announced some of its revamped climate change policy, designed to reassure the community it is acting on climate change even though it is delaying the introduction of an emissions trading scheme until 2013.

One of the headline components of the policy is a commitment to establish a "citizen's assembly" if re-elected, which the Prime Minister wants to use to develop a community consensus for action on climate change.

There was a big $1 billion funding promise to connect more renewable energy projects to the national grid.

A pledge to pay "cash for clunkers" and give a $2000 rebate to people to trade in old, heavy polluting vehicles for newer, environmentally friendly cars, also attracted plenty of media attention.

But the big-ticket commitments the farm sector was looking for from Labor were not part of the announcement, even though Minister for Agriculture, Tony Burke, last week said the Government's climate change policy would be good for farmers.

Just days ahead of the Government's policy unveiling, Mr Burke told journalists while touring the marginal Central Queensland electorate of Flynn that the Government's climate change policy would be beneficial to farmers and he expected primary producers to be pleased with the plan.

He also said farmers should be reminded how much Labor was putting into research and development in agriculture to help it adapt to climate change.

"We're adapting and dealing with climate change while at the same time improving productivity and profit for farmers," Mr Burke said.

There were hopes the $50 million research package that had formed part of the Government's amended CPRS legislation, but was canned on defeat of the Bill in the Senate, might resurface in the revamped climate package.

The National Farmers Federation said it was waiting for further climate change announcements from the Government with specific reference to how it would treat agriculture.

NFF said if the Government was to have a community consensus assembly on the issue, it was crucial farmers were "centrally involved".

What they would have preferred to have seen in the announcement was a commitment to building international consensus to get proper recognition for agriculture in the flawed Kyoto Protocol, which does not properly recognise the contributions farmers can and are making in the area of climate change.

"The NFF’s primary concerns relate to the impact of the CPRS on farmers competitiveness on international markets, particularly from the impact on processing costs," NFF president David Crombie said.

"For this reason we have not supported the CPRS and have welcomed the decision to delay introducing the CPRS Bill – a decision reinforced in today’s speech by the Prime Minister.

"The NFF believes that any “citizens’ assembly” as described today by the Prime Minister must have a proportionate representation from the farm sector, particularly given the enormous contribution agriculture has already played in the reduction of our carbon emissions."

NFF said the $1 billion Connecting Renewables initiative, to bring more renewable energy onto the national grid earlier, was positive because many renewable energy sources were generated in regional communities.

They said the funding would broaden the scope for projects around biomass energy creation.

"The commitment to provide credit for abatement undertaken prior to the introduction of the CPRS unfortunately does not appear to apply to rewarding early abatement actions by sectors outside the CPRS cap – including agriculture. We need clarity on this," Mr Crombie said.

"We await further climate change policy announcements from Labor on the specifics of how they would treat agriculture," Mr Crombie said.

"We also await clear recognition of these challenges and opportunities in the Coalition’s and Greens’ election commitments."

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1


comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
The rural sector doesn't believe in climate change, so why should it get government money to reduce its impact? Fund it yourselves!
Posted by B, 30/07/2010 4:53:42 PM
Constant delay might be the only politically viable yet rational action. What no one wants to mention is that even if catastrophic global warming represents a real threat - and at this stage that is only true in the virtual worlds of far-from-perfect models - a no-regrets policy of providing the most available, reliable and affordable electricity so the population can use all the defensive heating/cooling required is the best policy. Unfortunately no politician appears to have the courage to point out that the Western world does not control global industry, energy use or carbon dioxide emissions, we are along for the ride for the foreseeable future. To protect vulnerable citizens we need to maximise affordable electricity and we have abundant, accessible carbon resources with which to do it. Time to stop handwringing and realise the world will be using carbon-dense fuels for at least the next 50 years, just get on with it. The probability is high we'll have been through another ice age scare before then anyway.
Posted by Barry, 31/07/2010 4:22:39 PM
I don't want government handouts, if the government just keeps it's hands out of my pockets I'll be happy.
Posted by Qlander, 1/08/2010 5:13:56 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.
David Crombie.
David Crombie.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
POLL
Q: What is the issue of most concern to you when deciding how to vote at this election?

Health
(13.2%)

Education
(3.2%)

Climate change
(11.5%)

Infrastructure
(18.1%)

Agricultural policy
(39.8%)

Other
(14.2%)

Total Votes: 620
Poll Date: 25 July, 2010

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...