I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Sir, but the Government has no intention of allowing farmers to sell the carbon credits they can create by changing their land management style. The Government has declared in the Green Paper that it will 'nationalise' all soil carbon offsets and use them to meet the Government's Kyoto target. They cannot be used twice - that would be double counting. Under the heading "OFFSETS", they spell it out in bureaucratese: "Offsets also do not increase national abatement, as the provision of credits into an emissions trading system allows additional emissions in the covered sector. Since the scheme already creates an incentive to reduce emissions in covered sectors, it makes sense for offsets to be considered only in uncovered sectors. However, if a sector may be covered in future—for example, if agriculture is to be included in the scheme in 2015—it makes little sense to develop offset methodologies and install the required administrative arrangements for such a short period, particularly given the questions raised above regarding baselines and the lack of additional abatement. Accordingly, the Government is not proposing to establish an offset scheme for the agriculture sector prior to a final decision being made in consultation with the industry on final inclusion of agriculture in the proposed Carbon Pollution Trading Scheme (in 2013)." So whether in or out, we get it in the neck. Too bad farmers can't tow their farms into another jurisdiction, like the blackmailers in heavy industry are threatening to do. How ethical does this sound?: "If you make us pay our fair share, we'll move to China which doesn't give a damn and will let us pollute for free!" Mr President, this may sound like conspiracy theory, but the people who are behind the Government's move on Agriculture are the same people who sat down at the table without you to decide the nation's fate as part of John Howard's Taskforce in 2007. It was no accident. They are the same people who appear in Clive Hamilton's book Scorcher and Guy Pearse's book High & Dry. They used to call themselves the Greenhouse Mafia. They effectively ran Government Policy when the bureaucracy was largely run by the people running it now. Their fingerprints are all over the Green Paper and no doubt will be all over the Legislation. You know their names. How is it the Agriculture has been given the reputation of being the ‘second biggest emitter' (16% vs 50% for stationary energy) based mainly on estimates of gross methane emissions when the bureaucrats tell us it is impossible to measure accurately the methane from a single enterprise for accounting purposes? On the back of what envelope was the calculation done that created the figure that has been bandied about the corridors of power, among policy makers who are either too busy or too lazy to come to grips with the science behind the recommendations being made to them, condemned Agriculture to be the ‘problem’ sector? Nothing less than a judicial enquiry into the management of the science on which GHG policy for Agriculture has been decided is warranted – and fast, before they tie the noose> The Carbon Farming Conference next week at Orange (18-19 November, 2008) will see carbon farmers and scientists discussing these issues - www.carbonfarming.net.au or 6374 0329 - in a spirit of collaboration. Everyone is welcome. Even the Mafia...