Farm soils should benefit from locking away carbon, which can act as a food source for soil microbes, as well as helping soil moisture and other desirable properties. So, at least theoretically, the $3 billion of government money now on offer to help lock up carbon should benefit everyone. In practice, it is likely to be a different story. A complicated tender system will have to be satisfied, and the proposed 15,000 "Green Army" could be more trouble to farmers than it is worth.
Here is an outline of the proposals -
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-20/coalition-climate-change-direct-action-policy-explained/5067188
And, for one view, the University of W.A. is sceptical -
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-21/nrn-soil-carbon/5611742
Quoting from this report -
"There's been controversy over the role of soil carbon storage in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In its submission to the Government's Direct Action plan, the CSIRO said carbon storage would make only 'low level' cuts to emissions.
Marit Kragt, an assistant professor of agricultural economics at the University of Western Australia, says it will be a tough call for farmers as to whether it is worthwhile to undertake rigorous monitoring and reporting to earn carbon credits, especially for those who have already done significant environmental work on their property.
"With Australia's long history of natural resource management in agriculture, most farmers will have already taken those unproductive areas out of production," Dr Kragt said.
"I've seen a lot of farmers doing wonderful things, planting trees along their fields, fencing areas off for native vegetation. Those areas that they've already adopted those sustainable practices on won't be eligible for this new methodology.
"It won't be eligible for any carbon credits since this methodology has been approved."
No comments:
Post a Comment