News 
 State News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 New possibilities for how ETS will hit ag 

New possibilities for how ETS will hit ag

14 Oct, 2009 02:23 PM
LEVIES on sales of nitrogen fertiliser, milk and livestock, and carbon payments on land clearing are among the proposals laid out in a new discussion paper that calls for agriculture to be tightly integrated into a low-carbon economy.

The Climate Institute paper, released today, calls for a package of measures "to send strong and clear price signals to agriculture to invest and innovate, and contribute its fair share to national emissions targets".

"Sooner rather than later, Australia will need to enact a concerted climate strategy for agriculture; to provide certainty, to avoid the costs of delay, to live up to our global responsibilities, to enable adaptation to now-inevitable changes, and, of course, to reduce our emissions," the paper says.

The Institute suggests a range of measures, among them a government-supported "Decade of Climate-Friendly Farming" program starting in 2011 and amendments to the CPRS legislation to allow landholders to be rewarded for any "credible, measurable and internationally compliant" carbon sequestration activity.

More controversially, the Institute suggests that agriculture should be made accountable for its emissions with a package of measures that could include "emissions intensity" levies on sales of nitrogenous fertiliser, milk and livestock; carbon payments and/or bans on land clearing; and widespread adoption of on-farm "carbon forestry".

"It's all about risk management," said Climate Institute chairman, Victorian grazier Mark Wootton.

"If people put their preconceptions about climate change to one side, what are they going to do if climate change is a reality? No farmers in any developed country are more exposed to the effects of climate change than we are here in Australia."

Price signals that encourage innovation will not emerge if farming sits apart from the national emissions trading scheme, Mr Wootton said; hence the discussion paper's emphasis on being somehow engaged with the ETS.

"In the right policy environment, farmers and other landholders who are part of the global solution to global warming will emerge as winners in a low-carbon economy," the paper says.

Alternatively, the costs of global inaction on global warming are potentially severe. The Institute quotes CSIRO studies suggesting that under some climate change scenarios, Australia could become a nett importer of wheat by 2050, with a 26 percent chance that the nation could have no wheat surplus by 2070.

But the Institute acknowledges that there are a raft of challenges to overcome before agriculture can be cost-effectively effectively linked to the CPRS.

The issue of "leakage", in which higher farm costs under the CPRS make overseas products not subject to emissions charges more cost-competitive, is acknowledged.

Ultimately, the Institute argues, the most effective way of reducing leakage is to have international emissions agreements in place.

In the interim, it supports limited assistance for trade-exposed industries "commensurate with the actual risk for an industry, to avoid over-compensation".

Accounting linkages to the CPRS could initially be created under a hybrid model, where upstream processors of products like fertiliser, meat and milk carry the liability for these products, but farms or groups of farms would be allowed to enter emissions trading voluntarily.

"It would see those companies with a low marginal costs of abatement entering the market while providing an incentive for investment in researching and developing new, low-cost abatement measures."

Funds raised from emissions charges on agriculture should be re-invested back into the sector, the paper argues.

It suggests that some of the revenue should be used to create incentives for large-scale private investment in "climate-friendly farming" and new land uses, and to create a pool of funds that farmers can access to develop abatement and adaptation measures.

The Climate Institute wraps up its discussion paper with an extended argument against the "do nothing" approach, quoting a recent ACIL Tasman paper on climate change and agriculture:

"There is no 'do nothing' option on the table ... agriculture, along with the rest of the economy, is looking at a major departure from the status quo in coming years - even if it remains outside a formal emissions market as such."

* The Institute is actively seeking constructive comment and suggestions to build on the ideas outlined in the paper.

Click here to download the paper, Towards Climate-Friendly Farming.

Submissions should be addressed to Corey Watts, Regional Projects Manager, at cwatts@climateinstitute.org.au

Deadline for submissions is November 13.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
If you tax me more on my imputs I won't be able to invest in innovations. What are levies going to be used for? I hope not for fatcat long lunches or dodgey institutes. The shonks haved moved on from the MIS mess and think carbon trading is good for a quick buck. I want to buy swamp land from this guy or at least snake oil.
Posted by THE FARMER, 14/10/2009 4:32:04 PM, on Queensland Country Life
What a joke. This is all just another way of imposing another very large tax on us and not much being presented on the supposed potential income side. I'm not sure if the government is even interested in doing the hard yards and just wants the big tax grab they will get. They seem to have rejected the British Government's proposal for burial of power station CO2. If they think climate change is happening and will be such a disaster then why are they only looking at taxing and not the supposed solutions. If cattle and sheep farming are supposedly such big emmitters of methane, then why are there not large queues of gas producing companies wanting to collect all this methane for profitable uses instead of expensive drilling for it in many hard to get at areas. Feedlots could be easily enclosed for a continual supply of methane which if was in the quantities that is quoted at times would give a far greater income than the meat production. Makes one question the accurracy of the quoted figures and the whole climate change scam.
Posted by Max, 14/10/2009 7:15:47 PM, on Queensland Country Life
“Alternatively, the costs of global inaction on global warming are potentially severe. The Institute quotes CSIRO studies suggesting that under some climate change scenarios, Australia could become a nett importer of wheat by 2050, with a 26 percent chance that the nation could have no wheat surplus by 2070.” The key words here are: “Potentially”, “Suggesting”, “Some” and “Could” x 2, all in one paragraph. Nothing like definitive words to make ones case. Mark Wootton may be a Victorian grazier however, he has just flogged this ‘precautionary principle’ cow, sheep, crop, and horse to death.
Posted by Rob Wass, 15/10/2009 12:36:47 AM, on Queensland Country Life
How many of these 'experts' from the Climate Instititute have ever tried to earn a living from the land...my guess is 'none'! Sure it is important for farmers to be environmentally aware but when farm owners are families the chances are that they will be partly out of conern to pass on a better situation to their children than they inherited. Some of the worst farming from an environmental perspective took place as a requirement from government (eg the clear it or lose it policy of the past) and on large company owned properties. The other side of the coin is the need to give farmers carbon credits for every bit of grass and every try on their property and until this is done, there should be no penalties for practicing farming.
Posted by bushie, 15/10/2009 5:50:01 AM, on Queensland Country Life
Same old lies and spin in the lead up to Copenhagen. None of their alarmism has come true but don't let that stop them taxing you into the ground.
Posted by sam, 15/10/2009 7:34:33 AM, on Queensland Country Life
As numerous writers have stated, the ETS is nothing more than a sinister tax to bring not only farmers but also most of the community down to pauper level. This way this despicable KRudd government can control the population by limiting income to all. Meanwhile, the social engineers will prosper thanks to KRudd.
Posted by walda, 15/10/2009 7:42:21 AM, on Queensland Country Life
What the paper does not recognise is that farmers are the only section of the Australian community to have already made a large contribution to reducing green house gas emissions. It is up to other sections of the community to catch up before adding more on to agriculture. To continue to bash agriculture is going to cause a real food supply shortage and hunt young people away.
Posted by TS, 15/10/2009 7:44:47 AM, on Queensland Country Life
The Government is planning to slug you for methane and nitrogen while withholding your access to the carbon you can sequester in soils. Government scientists and agronomists have been conducting a campaign to convince us all that soil carbon is too dangerous to trade, too hard to measure, too expensive to manage... And they claim we are the only country in the world that can't sequester carbon in soils safely. Why? Think back to Howard swiping the carbon credits for avoided aforestation (after the Native Vegetation Laws 'nationalised' the trees)... Rudd is in the same position. He needs a hollow log. We need your voice at the Carbon Farming Conference (4th-5th November, National Field Day Site, Borenore, near Orange NSW - 6374 0329 - www.carbonfarming.net.au) Hear the real story about soil carbon. Stand up and be counted.
Posted by Michael Kiely Carbon Coalition, 15/10/2009 8:04:59 AM, on Queensland Country Life
Let's face it: they are all lying. End of Story.
Posted by Genazzano, 15/10/2009 8:11:49 AM, on Queensland Country Life
The real problem facing the globe is "how are we going to feed 9B people?" Food producers need to be encouraged, not put out of business by nonsensical levies to fix an imaginary problem. If Australia stopped all its emissions, it would make little difference to the global scenario. However, if Australia stopped producing food, and grew trees instead, I cannot imagine our northern neighbours allowing us that luxury. They need food, and would soon find a way of making Australia a food bowl again - with or without our co-operation. Our job is to produce as much food as we can in a sustainable way. That means we need to make a profit, and to have access to modern tools and techniques. That's what Govt policy should be focussed on.
Posted by Practical Farmer, 15/10/2009 8:39:46 AM, on Queensland Country Life
1 | 2 | 3  |  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.
Climate Institute chairman Mark Wootton.
Climate Institute chairman Mark Wootton.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
12 October, 2009
13 October, 2009
14 October, 2009
POLL
Q: For which levy rate will you vote at this year's WoolPoll?

0%
(43%)

1%
(9.9%)

2%
(32.2%)

2.5%
(4.5%)

3%
(10.5%)

Total Votes: 314
Poll Date: 11 October, 2009

Most popular articles

SPRAY AWARDS NEWS MREC



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...