News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Garnaut backs soil carbon sequestration 

Garnaut backs soil carbon sequestration

4/09/2008 6:55:00 PM
In a boost for agriculture, Professor Ross Garnaut has thrown his influence behind the push to include soil carbon in the greenhouse accounting process.

Ahead of announcing his proposed targets for carbon emissions cuts, Mr Garnaut said today that boosting biosequestration - via soil or vegetation - could have significant benefits in meeting those goals.

If such systems are recognised by the international community, it could drastically reduce the economic impact on conventional, high-polluting industries of having to cut their emissions.

Greens Leader Bob Brown has backed the call for greater natural sequestration to be included in the Government's plans.

"Professor Garnaut's call that better management of agricultural and forestry assets could be genuinely transformative, in both Australia's greenhouse gas mitigation efforts and the global response to climate change, is spot on and requires serious consideration," Senator Brown said.

"The recent Australian National University 'Green Carbon' report showed that an end to destruction of Australia's forests and woodlands could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a massive 24pc.

"This would have an immediate effect and outstrip an emissions trading scheme in reducing emissions rapidly and cheaply."

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size


Comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Two momentous events have occurred in the past fortnight. One is the refusal of Justice Emmett of the Federal Court to initially award compensation to Peter Spencer, and the second is the comment by Professor Ross Garnaut, that carbon sequestration, by farmers is significant. The fundamental mistake made by Justice Emmett, is what is known as the doctrine of Nine Queens. The Government is vested in the Queen. The Queen takes advice from Parliament and "courts" under the Australian Constitution. Only One of those nine Queens, is legitimate, that is the Commonwealth Queen. The state Queen's are pretenders. There can only be One God Almighty, and the Commonwealth Queen, represents Him. The State queens are pagan wannabees. If Justice Emmett understood his power, he would have ordered compensation. The State Government is only an arm of the Federal Government. What they do is subject to the same laws as the Commonwealth.
Posted by Peter Gargan on 5/09/2008 7:49:02 AM
Be very careful farmers, Garnaut is looking at the inclusion of soil carbon from an economic perspective. From a farmers' perspective it will have monumental impacts that may well restrict the way you manage and use your farm. If an an economist and a greenie are in favour of it then I would be concerned as a farmer, 9 times out of 10 you get the wrong end of the stick. Under the plans for forest sinks you will be responsible for any emissions sold from your property - forever. If you sell carbon from your property and the price goes up you will in effect have a liability. This is not all it is cracked up to be
Posted by the lorax on 5/09/2008 8:33:40 AM
The green paper highlights that at present if you pay the fee (tax) pollution can continue with no provision for credits for sequestration apart from reafforestation. It has been proved that grass type plants lock up carbon in the soil in a far more stable form. I would suggest the with better land mangement, of controlling monoculture of trees and encouraging park like grass land is the best option for all concerned. It will lead to better production and better carbon management. This is especially relevant if better grazing management is applied. Invasive native scrub is causing degradation and this will increase with the present sledge hammer approach to native vegetation laws in Queesland. Governments and conservationists get better press from tree preservation rather than grass production and soil science.
Posted by Dick on 5/09/2008 10:21:11 AM
Whoever made the comment about biosequestration having the ability to 'drastically reduce the economic impact on conventional, high-polluting industries of having to cut their emissions', has missed the point. I take this quote from a good 'Carbon Farming' friend...... [Soils have the ability to start sequestering carbon from the atmosphere NOW. As Dr Rattan Lal * says “Soils are our bridge to the future”. They can do the job for the environment for the next 20 – 30 years while the other technologies begin to take effect]. This is not about reducing the economic impact on Big emitters, it is about using soil carbon to give the world time to get its act together, and devise, and put in place systems to reduce our current emissions.
Posted by Tagabob on 5/09/2008 10:59:28 AM
"This would have an immediate effect and outstrip an emissions trading scheme in reducing emissions rapidly and cheaply." The above quote gives the impression that carbon that is sequestered in this manner will be worth less than if it were sequestered by other means, Why ????
Posted by Graingrower on 5/09/2008 11:17:27 AM

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

Q: Is there a future for young people in agriculture?

Yes
(63.4%)

No
(30.9%)

Undecided
(5.7%)

Total Votes: 722
Poll Date: 31/08/2008
26/11/2008 | If we're serious about roo farming, we'll need to start with a breeding program and kangaroo EBVs for marbling and tenderness.
 
Fuel Offer
 
Subscription
 
Horse Deals Australia
 
Media-Kit-08-09
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...