News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 How the green paper stacks up for farms 

How the green paper stacks up for farms

16 Jul, 2008 07:35 PM
The Government will decide by 2013 whether agriculture should be included in an emissions trading scheme (ETS), with hopes to have all major polluting industries, including the farm sector, covered by the scheme by 2015.

The Federal Government this morning released its much-awaited "Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme" with a green paper - or draft design - of an ETS to start in July 2010.

It will initially cover about 75pc of Australia's emissions, or 1000 companies and businesses, central to its ambition of leading a global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

But the Government also wants most of the obligations for agriculture under a scheme to apply off-farm, recognising that significant compliance costs would be involved if the scheme was heavily applied at an on-farm level.

The Government will spend the next few months talking about this option with stakeholders, keen to determine the merits of covering agricultural emissions by applying greater obligations on fertiliser suppliers, abattoirs, dairies and beef exporters.

It will also provide incentives for on-farm abatement, or the reduction in carbon pollution.

The report says the Government does not consider it practical at this stage to include agriculture emissions in the trading scheme from the start in 2010 but believes it will eventually be brought into the fold.

"While the Government is disposed to eventually include agriculture, it recognises that considerable consultation and joint effort with industry are still required to identify practical methods for inclusion and to develop reliable and cost-effective methods for reporting," the green paper says.

But the report does suggest options for how agriculture would be treated in a scheme once 2015 rolls around, suggesting obligations be imposed either directly on businesses or indirectly on upstream inputs such as fertiliser or downstream on food processors, or through a combination of the two.

Large farm businesses could be given the option of managing their emission obligations directly.

Climate Change Minister Senator Penny Wong told journalists and industry leaders that climate change was a threat to Australia's food production, agriculture and water supplies.

* More details in this week's Rural Press agricultural weekly newspapers.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size


RELATED COVERAGE

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Govt's effective removal of responsibility from vehicles a dissapointment but what can be done in the face of huge public ignorance and self interest?
Posted by chris, 16/07/2008 4:54:05 PM
Read the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change (Google it) and you will see there is informed dissent out there about trending global climate conditions. I believe the rush by Kevin Rudd to try and be a hero on the world stage with ETS ahead of gaining a broad global concensus is a dangerous gamble with an insignificant polluter (1% of global emissions) by world standards. He's playing high stakes poker with Australia's future to pander to his ego. Be careful Mr Rudd, I don't think you're smart enough to handle this one.

Why means test solar technologies at a household level; why not embrace Natural Sequence Farming methods and promote build up effective meanns to improve soil carbon retention and increase fertitlity; why not redirect northern Australian water down the Darling; why not follow examples set by nations like Israel that can make the desert bloom and who have the most efficient irrigation technologies in the world; why not position Australia as a a world leader in solar, wind, wave and other alternative technologies; why not simplify the tax system to encourage business investment in R and D? The list goes on but all Labor can do is implement another tax? Nothing unusual but the problem is that this hits those "working families' the hardest.

This nation is headed for tough times based on inconclusive evidence and backed by individuals like Al Gore, whose carbon footprint is obscene. Australians must keep questioning what politicians of all persuasions have in mind otherwise we are riding for a fall.

Posted by unconvinced, 17/07/2008 9:54:13 AM
Can someone get through Penny Wong's head that it is not tractors killing the earth, it is all the people down in the city in their cars stopped because of a crash and it is doing the harm. Farmers are not getting money, we are all going broke so stop the stuff down in the city. If they charge us for driving tractor and header the cost of food will go even higher so stop the Politicians stuffing everything up. Come on.
Posted by Poletishions Crap, 17/07/2008 7:43:53 PM

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.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
POLL
Q: Do you believe the creation of an emissions trading system poses a threat or opportunity for your farm business?

Threat
(59.6%)

Opportunity
(17.7%)

Unsure - more information needed
(22.7%)

Total Votes: 480
Poll Date: 13 July, 2008

Most popular articles

Ray White Rural MON0152
 
IRRIGATION CONFERENCE 2010
 
S&L Subscriptions
 
2010 Beef & Cattle Directory
 
Rural Bookshop
 
S&L Facebook
 
S&L Twitter
 
photo gallery


 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...