News 
 State News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Farm carbon offers 'unparalled economic opportunity' 

Farm carbon offers 'unparalled economic opportunity'

22 Oct, 2009 04:00 AM
Agricultural land could be the focus of an "economic opportunity of unparalleled scale", according to the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, which has called for a re-write of emissions trading legislation to properly recognise "terrestrial carbon".

In a discussion paper released earlier this week, the Group argues that by focusing on terrestrial carbon sequestration as a solution to climate change, Australia can simultaneously address many of its most pressing environmental challenges.

Terrestrial carbon includes carbon stored in forests, woodlands, swamps, grasslands, farmland, soils, and derivatives like biochar and biofuels.

"We're about to create a multibillion dollar terrestrial carbon market, and that has the potential to radically change our rural landscapes," said Wentworth Group director Peter Cosier.

"We have to maximise the benefits and minimise the consequences."

As the paper puts it: "… carbon economics of the 21st century presents our generation with the opportunity to improve the health of our landscapes and conserve the world's biodiversity, at scales that would have been unimaginable even a few years ago."

In the Group’s view, that will require a substantial re-writing of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to account for all terrestrial carbon, while protecting against "perverse outcomes", like runaway planting of productive farmland to trees.

Founded in 2002, the Wentworth Group aims to drive innovation in the management of Australia’s natural resources and related policy.

Among its 11 members are Professor Tim Flannery, chair of the Copehagen Climate Council, and Professor David Karoly, co-coordinating lead author on the IPCC.

According to the paper’s introduction, global warming science now regards it as impossible to avoid dangerous climate change solely through emissions reduction. Positive change in the carbon balance can only be achieved if parallel efforts are made to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

"At a global scale, a 15 per cent increase in the world's terrestrial carbon stock would remove the equivalent of all the carbon pollution emitted from fossil fuels since the beginning of the industrial revolution," the paper says.

"The power of terrestrial carbon to contribute to the climate change solution is profound."

A recent CSIRO study that examined Australia's capacity to sequester terrestrial carbon suggested that carbon-friendly grazing practices could be capable of storing 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (Mt Co2-e/yr) for the next 40 years.

However, the biggest opportunity lies with "carbon forestry", including biodiversity plantings and timber plantations, with the potential to sequester 750 Mt CO2-e/yr over 40 years.

Overall, CSIRO estimates that the Australian landscape has the potential to store an additional 1000 Mt CO2-e/yr in soils and vegetation over the next 40-50 years.

"If we could capture just 15pc of this biophysical capacity, it would offset the equivalent of 25pc of Australia's current annual greenhouse emissions for the next 40 years," the Wentworth Group paper said.

However, it added a note of caution on food security.

If CPRS legislation and investment mechanisms are not carefully crafted, the most profitable use of prime agricultural land could become carbon forestry, with a subsequent loss of agricultural productivity.

"ABARE has estimated that if Australia commits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25 per cent by 2020, over 40 million hectares—an area equivalent to 40 per cent of the Murray Darling Basin—could be economically suitable for Kyoto compliant carbon forestry.

"If the new terrestrial carbon economy takes large areas of agricultural land out of production, as has happened recently in the United States when corn was turned into biofuel, or when the European Union set biofuel targets but didn’t ban the clearing of tropical rainforests to produce it, then we risk creating more problems for Australia and the world than we solve."

* Click here to download Optimising Carbon in the Australian Landscape.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1


comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
We need more talk about this before anything goes ahead. So far all the talk about ag is how much to charge and nothing has been mentioned about what emissions the farms take in. There is a lot that needs to be cleared up first.
Posted by Bruce, 22/10/2009 10:51:36 AM
This is an excellent letter. Clearing of Australia's uniquely old soils is economically extraordinarily productive but has extraordinary consequences for the planet. The huge eucalypts are the biggest stores of carbon in the world, and salinity has made most rivers unusable in the winter rainfall zones. As these become deserts as the Hadley circulation expands a degree poleward every three years, we must realise that there is no hope for the long-term future of farming in southern Australia unless we want energy-intensive desalination-based irrigation, which would compound the problems of a switch to an arid climate. If we were to plan for likely future climates, farming would be phased out everywhere south of Dubbo and the economies of southern Australia. Though Australia is a net exporter of food, this would not be a huge threat to world food security and it would improve the economic status of farming families abroad on much superior soils with more reliable and suitable climates. What could be better for the environment than that??
Posted by Julien Peter Benney, 22/10/2009 11:10:51 AM
There are 2 sides to the cause of climate change: 1 increased emissions; 2 reduced area of forest to absorb emissions. Trees are the lungs of the world. They breath in CO2 & Oxygen out. The world's forest are diminishing at 800 ha per hour. That’s 20 football fields a second, the area of Greece per year. The equation is: Increasing emissions + reduced absorption = climate out of balance. If you were to have 10% of your lungs removed every year you would struggle to breathe too. Greenpeace focuses too much on deforestation. They should focus reforestation. Plantations sequester more carbon per ha as they are planted at a greater rate than natural forest. Also a growing forest sequesters CO2 faster than old forests that simply store it. Greenies need to recognise when a forest is harvested much of the carbon remains stored in the timber. Under the KYOTO Protocol it is deemed all carbon is lost. This is Greenie bull. I commend the Wentworth for their pragmatic approach. The reality is, increasing the world's forest area will rebalance the atmosphere. Carbon trading makes it economical to be paid for planting forests. Sorry but fire risk in Aussie is too high for me so I am investing in NZ forests.
Posted by Richard, 22/10/2009 1:36:34 PM
Dear All, Here is a way you can have your trees and eat "them" too: http://www.TreesFTF.org The folks at this not-for-profit have been teaching farmers worldwide how to plant 7 or so layers of trees, plants and yams without fertilizers or pesticides for 30 years or so. Regards, Wendell
Posted by mouseking, 23/10/2009 1:15:20 AM
In the Group’s view, that will require a substantial re-writing of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to account for all terrestrial carbon, while protecting against "perverse outcomes", like runaway planting of productive farmland to trees. However, the biggest opportunity lies with "carbon forestry", including biodiversity plantings and timber plantations, with the potential to sequester 750 Mt CO2-e/yr over 40 years. Something's a little oxymoronic here!
Posted by Gerry Mander, 23/10/2009 7:05:50 AM
Trading in soil carbon is a death trap. If there are to be credits when soil carbon is increased, then there must be debits when the carbon levels fall. There are tight limits on the soil carbon content, and rises and falls are driven by the weather. And as I look at the comments above from presumably honest men, I ask, who taught them so much garbage? There are so many lies in this AGW campaign that it is necessary to start again from the beginning to get a clear understanding.
Posted by Ted O'Brien., 23/10/2009 9:34:23 AM
Let us never forget the role played by the Wentworth Group in the "taking" by the Commonwealth of the benefits acrrued towards the Kyoto target, through land clearing controls. Vociferous in the lobbying to restrict land clearing - Cosier a former adviser to Robert Hill, the architect of this abomination - they were silent on the issue of compensation. Cosier now says that landholders could benefit from terrestrial sequestration. Give me a break! I also note that there are a number of critics who adopting the attitude of the Club of Rome - 1970 - state that we must cease production in parts of Australia. Technology proved the idiocy of the portents of gloom in the Club of Rome and agriculture is smart enough to adapt to new challenges now. In fact if the climate change rules were in favour of agriculture one of the significant benefits to our carbon accounts would be the conversion of those "old and fragile" soils to carbon rich and productive systems. The debate over ag's role in carbon cycles and possible mitigation, has been subsumed in this background chatter from dilettantes and self-serving special interest groups.
Posted by phil_oc, 23/10/2009 10:09:09 AM
"We're about to create a multi-billion dollar terrestrial carbon market, and that has the potential to radically change our rural landscapes," said Wentworth Group director Peter Cosier... $$$ and the death of logical science...there's your answer for it all right there...all you "pseudo environmentalists" keep biting the hand that feeds with your AGW rubbish and see how it works out for you.
Posted by whatever, 23/10/2009 10:17:45 AM
I am a third generation forest owner who was on the AGO's consultative panel on land-use change and forestry until familiarity with the climate industry bred a deep and enduring contempt. And my response to the Wentworth Group's recent discovery of terrestrial carbon is to ask: "Where were you guys ten years ago when Bill Burrows was seeking recognition for the 90 million tonnes of CO2 that is absorbed each year by woodland thickenning?" Nowhere to be seen, that's where.

These people played a major role in the fraudulent lock-up of vast areas of farmland that consisted of regrowth that had already regrown to remnant height. Bligh has just confiscated another million hectares and these goons want 40 million hectares more. And when all these extra trees have cut river flows by half, guess which farmers will be asked to sacrifice their allocations to restore river health? Yep, every one of us, that's who.

Never, ever, do business with spivs.

Posted by Ian Mott, 23/10/2009 11:42:10 AM
Ian, I finally agree with you. Where the hell were these guys when the debate was needed? Now they want to get in on the act and make a buck. Where were they when Beattie sold out the western Queensland farmers for a pittance so the coal industry could keep increaseing emissions? Why are the rules for landholders so one sided? It gets worse when you delve into the regulations around carbon and regrowth. As the current regulations stand you are better to kill any regrowth and then replant it to get any carbon return. Seems a bit daft.
Posted by the lorax, 26/10/2009 11:54:07 AM
1 | 2  |  next >

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.
The Wentworth Group's Peter Cosier
The Wentworth Group's Peter Cosier

Most popular articles

Ray White Rural Pro-Tech
 
Metromax
 
IRRIGATION CONFERENCE 2010
 
photo gallery
 
QCL Facebook
 
QCL Twitter


 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...