when lamb or beef is exported, the recipient is the user of the carbon absorbed and should be recognised as the user of that carbon, i agree with the above article, New Zealand has got it wrong with regard to the suggested carbon emmisions from farming.

Soil carbon will likely prove to be the eventual winner in the race for supremacy within the carbon sequestration race. Forest sinks are susceptible to environmental events such as drought (any forest becomes an emitter if it does not receive its required allotment of moisture), fire, insect attack, fungal and bacterial disease, all of which reduce or reverse the carbon fixing or sequestering cycle.

Where as sequestered carbon into soils will stay and build at a predictable rate. Yes all of the required science is not in yet to determine the best way to assess consistency of accumulation, but there has been an old and proven method of determining soil carbon as part of business as usual on any soil test done over at least the last at least ten years. The labile or active carbon is where the relative unknown factor is, but soil carbon loss will only occur if a farmer changes practice from sustainable no or minimal till and minimisation or elimination of synthetic fertilisers that has allowed for sequestration cycle of the soil carbon to accumulate. Drought will have some effect but on the whole soil sequestration is far more secure a method to travel down than forest sinks, and on top of that, the amount of abatement that can be calculated through less fuel use and not loosing the fixed carbon that is included as part of the soil integrity as shown by simple Albrecht soil testing procedures is of a phenomenal rate and to determine the exact amount of carbon that has not been released to atmosphere is determinable by pure mathematical calculation (old science) and so as the commonwealth government has not seen fit to include soil carbon sequestration as part of the climate change action plan possibly until 2015 science research pending, shows that there is still a lot of unexplained action taking place.

In the mean time abaition or abatement actions that can be verified will be the most easily accessible plan for farmers to become involved in the sustainable agriculture industry drive.

Anthony Foo Managing Director Skyfarms Australia P/L

The carbon trade will attract all the shonks, wide boys, white shoe brigade, fedora fat men & junk bond floggers. Markets are about fear & greed there is nothing noble in a market. The people trading carbon will never see it or understand it, they will just flog it. We already have laws about pollution & waste. Make them tougher & expand them. Make it a licience & permit scheme. A trade run by bankers & commodity traders will be just as damageing as one run by the bob browns.

the debate between soil carbon and trees as the best sequesterer of carbon needs to be stopped. Both have a critical role to play in mitigating climate change and dealing with current, historical and future emissions. The issues with soil carbon are well documented and I do not know anyone who does not think soil cabron should play a role but not until the risks and legislation is in place to deal with many of the issues, in particular measuring, monitoring and landholder rights. Let us remember that trees grow in soil as well and they do increase the soil carbon content over time.

The big issues are the long term maintainence of soil and tree carbon and that must be addressed. Carbon in farming is going to change so much in the farming context that farmers really need to be aware of all the complexties. I have been involved in carbon and agriculture for over five years and it iwas very difficult to engage farmers and farmer bodies until it became apparent that there may be some cost or benefit involved. Farmers need to see carbon as part of the farming cycle and farming business, beware of the long term committments and of the administrative burden, be careful what you wish for. Make no mistake those promoting soil carbon are aiming to make money out of it and if landholders are not aware of the long term implications they could enter into a 100 year management nightmare. I would advise any landholder to move cautiosly and get expert advice.

If you genuinely want Australian farmers to have access to the value in the carbon the grow in the soil, you will join the only organisation that fights for this right: the Carbon Coalition - www.carboncoalition.com.au and the biggest source of information online is our library nd blog site: carboncoalitionoz.blogspot.comOr you can email the convenors at michael@carboncoalition.com.au. We have been in this field for two and a half years, everyday working on and with politicians and scientists and extension. There are some johnny come latelies and some professors who peddle bovine excrement and sound as though they know. The Land said that we 'singlehandedly barnstormed soil carbon onto the national agenda". Congratulations Stock & Land, but it's not as simple as it sounds. Read the latest issue of Australian Farm Journal, another Rural Press Publication. It is the real story of soil carbon.

Somewhere I have read that the CSIRO did find that the best plant to sequestrate carbon is....... Sugar Cane! The greenies do not like that because one it's too easy i.e. no money for anybody, no comittees, no 20 year plan research, etc. and on the other hand farmers are growing cane with synthetic fertilizers so there is no point in even talking about it!!!!! How about we start talking organic fertilizers in very very large quantity, let's see if governments are willing to help and subsidise the price after all it would be much cheaper, faster and much more effective then pie-in-the-sky technology like clean coal and all the rest of the nonsense that will take another 10 or 20 years before it's implemented.

But then again... I suppose it's too simplistic an idea... no consultant, no 10 years implementation plans involving 100 public servants, no grants to some obscure research group and the list goes on!!!!!!!!!

The purpose of carbon trading was to fight climate change. Now that we know that after ten years of searching there is as yet no evidence to link carbon emissions to climate change the issue of carbon trading must go right back to the drawing board.