The GRDC has been the source of many statements about soil carbon:
STATEMENT: “Any suggestion that farmers can increase soil carbon to levels of 3% or greater fails to understand that soil carbon is part of the carbon cycle, and heavily dependant on plant growth, soil microbial activity and seasonal conditions.” (Alan Umbers, GRDC - Research Update - Carbon in Australian cropping soils [16 August 2007)
FACT: A typical carbon score for a paddock in the cropping/grazing zones on the slopes in the Central West of NSW is 1.5%. According to Dr YN Chan (Principal Research Scientist (Soils) NSWDPI and global top 10 scholar by references to his papers by other scientists) we have lost more than half the carbon the soils held originally and that farmers can replace that amount and possibly more. This would make 3% achievable.
STATEMENT: “Our soils are very old, very fragile, very thin, very weathered. Often we are running spoils with 1% or less carbon.” (Alan Umbers, ABCRadio Country Hour, 11 July, 2007)
FACT: Generalisations about Australians soils are dangerous. Alpine soils contain around 10% soil carbon, and desert soils around 0.5%. Soils tested for soils workshops with farmers at Mudgee and Rylstone have between 0.9% and 7% Carbon and averaging 2.2% at Mudgee and 2.7% at Rylstone.
STATEMENT: “Given the age and degraded nature of Australian cropping soils and the ‘natural’ low levels of organic carbon, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that there is a real possibility that organic carbon levels can be increased by cropping or farming practices at anything other than slow rates, reaching an equilibrium point well below that of northern hemisphere soils.” (Alan Umbers, GRDC - Research Update - Carbon in Australian cropping soils [16 August 2007)
FACT: There is no scientific evidence that age, nature or low levels of carbon can determine how fast carbon can be sequestered. There is considerable scientific opinion to the contrary: Sydney University Professor Alex McBratney said: “While it is true that much of Australia’s soil cover is on old landscapes this in itself does not preclude reasonable levels of soil carbon. It’s misleading to say that because Australia has old soils there isn’t potential for enhanced sequestration of carbon in our soils.” - Alex. McBratney is Pro-Dean, Professor of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Food & Natural Resources, The University of Sydney.
FACT: Comparing Australian soils unfavourably with soils found in the Northern Hemisphere reveals poor knowledge of European and North American soils – eg. the least of Australia’s soils have their counterparts in parts of Spain and America such as New Mexico.
STATEMENT: “Importantly, upon reaching any new or higher carbon equilibrium, these soils will require continued inputs of organic carbon at high levels just to remain at an elevated organic carbon level. This may lead to the areas involved becoming ‘uneconomic’ as farm land, as the cropping and grazing systems would have to be dramatically altered to retain the levels of organic matter needed to sustain higher soil carbon levels.” (Alan Umbers, GRDC - Research Update - Carbon in Australian cropping soils [16 August 2007)
FACT: A common mistake is to overlook one critical factor in the sequestration process: there has to have been a change in land management that led to the additional carbon being sequestered. “Business as usual” is not considered under Kyoto. This factor renders all the case studies used by our critics irrelevant. [Article 3.4, KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE specifies “additional human-induced activities “. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry” speciies: “Change in management within a land use or change in land use to one with a higher potential carbon stock can increase carbon stocks in an ecosystem, leading to a net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.” http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/land_use/157.htm]
STATEMENT: “Changed circumstances on farm, such as drought, changed tillage system, crop types and rotations, pasture management and fertiliser practices can all have serious effects on levels of soil carbon.” (Alan Umbers, GRDC - Research Update - Carbon in Australian cropping soils [16 August 2007)
FACT: Farmers entering into contacts to trade soil carbon commit to a change in land management for the period of the contract. This is the basis for the Chicago Climate Exchange model and variants. The farmer is expected to change from practices that emit Greenhouse Gases to those that avoid emissions and which tend to sequester carbon in soil. So “changed tillage system, crop types and rotations, pasture management and fertiliser practices” are prescribed in the contract. (Prime Carbon Soil Carbon Sequestration Protocols)
FACT: Non-man-made impacts on emissions from land are currently counted against any nation which includes soil sequestration in its accounts, under Article 3.4. The Australian Government, the FAO, the EU, the USA, and the International Federation of Agricultural Producers have all lobbied under the Copenhagen round of negotiations to have non-anthropogenic sources of emissions from land (drought, bushfire) excluded.
STATEMENT: “Farmers involved in producing grain are generally net emitters of greenhouse gasses through the use of fossil fuels and fertiliser.” (Alan Umbers, GRDC - Research Update - Carbon in Australian cropping soils [16 August 2007)
FACT: This statement is true only for ‘business as usual’. Not for changed land management required to sequester soil carbon. There are many farmers in the Carbon Coalition who have reduced emissions to below their sequestration rates.
STATEMENT: “The limited potential for Australian soils to increase levels of organic carbon, with estimates by many scientists of less than 100kg per hectare per year, even under the most effective non irrigated farming systems.” (ibid)
CORRECTION: No properly funded research has studied the “potential” of Australian soils to take up carbon under Best Practice Management. Most official studies recorded poor carbon performance because they studied only traditional techniques which are destructive of soil carbon. There were no advanced farming practices – such as time controlled grazing, pasture cropping, biological farming – included in the official studies.
STATEMENT: “You can lift soil carbon 0.001% a year if you’re lucky.” (GRDC Manager Alan Umbers, ABC Radio Country Hour, 11 July, 2007)
CORRECTION: This statement is based on out-of-date data. Cases that are in the pipeline for reporting to the AGO include the following: 1. Pasture cropping/time controlled grazing combination in Central West NSW that has recorded a 100% increase in soil carbon to 4% over a decade, with most of the growth in the last few years. 2. A till-to-no-till case in Albany, WA where an increase from 4% to 6% was achieved in 3 years. 3. A 20 year study of till-to-no-till techniques at Wagga NSW recorded a gain of 12 tonnes of carbon per hectare, or 0.6% per year.
GRAINS COUNCIL ASSERTION: “Normal farming practices emit greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, with the latter having a global warming potential equal to 310 times that of CO2.”
CORRECTION:“Normal farming practices” are no guide to the potential of land management to make a difference. “Carbon Farming Practices” reduce emissions of CO2 and NO2 and enable the farmer to ‘grow’ carbon to offset their emissions.
GRAINS COUNCIL ASSERTION: “Any carbon trading scheme will require farmers to show that increased organic carbon will have to remain permanently in the soil for up to 70 or more years”
CORRECTION: The 100 Year Rule applies to forests. But on the biggest carbon exchange trading farm soils – the Chicago Climate Exchange - soil carbon is traded in renewable four year contracts.
GRAINS COUNCIL ASSERTION: “Drought or changed farming techniques may cause carbon to be released to the atmosphere and this is an important factor to consider while balancing grain production emissions with any carbon sequestration.”
CORRECTION: Carbon Farming techniques actually increase the soil’s ability to hold and use available water better than traditional techniques. However severe drought is a reality and carbon trading contracts include insurances and make good provisions, like any other contract.
GRDC ASSERTION: “Any carbon trading scheme will involve enforceable contracts and auditing of farms. This will increase costs for farmers, possibly outweighing any financial benefits.”
CORRECTION: The Chicago Climate Exchange arrangements set aside 30% of the trade value for aggregation of growers into 25,000 acre trading units, auditing, administration, etc. Farmers in the US don’t seem to mind. Total volume traded to date on the CCX is 2.7 million tonnes.
ASSERTION: “More accurate measuring of carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions will need to be developed.”
CORRECTION: The AGO has already spent millions developing emissions calculators. The technology exists. It is time to populate the calculators with data. What’s the hold-up?
GRDC ASSERTION: “Farmers need to be cautious about any attractive sounding claims about the income earning potential from future carbon trading schemes. These will have significant transaction and verification costs, involve long term contracts, be enforceable and auditable, and may not end up paying more than a few dollars per hectare”. Mr Umbers said.
CORRECTION: “Farmers need to be cautious about anything they hear about trading carbon, especially from the ill-informed who have studied the market by relying on official research that was never designed to support the claims made by by standers.
STATEMENT: “W hile there are factual aspects to much of this information, it would seem sometimes it gets extrapolated a bit too far, possibly for individual or commercial gain.” A GRDC-funded seminar series promotional item in Kondinin Group newsletter, 2.9.2008
COMMENT: The following is an example of the ‘optical illusion’ that many conventional scientists fall into when considering the claims of Carbon Farmers about sequestration rates. They start with a belief in a small amount of carbon per hectare. But the calculation must step up the value twice: First from Carbon to Carbon Dioxide Equivalent, a multiplication exercise:
C x 3.67 = CO2-e.
The second calculation is also a multiplication, from one hectare to the total area:
CO2-e/ha/yr x Total ha = Total CO2-e/yr.
When 0.15C/ha can become 27,500tCO-e, no wonder scientists cry foul. But if they want to take part in a conversation which is not strictly scientific, they must observe the language of the discussion and respect the rules.
If we take a small increase of 0.15tonnes Carbon/h/yr over half the area used for Agriculture in Australia (225m ha) we shall see if soil, which already has Critical Mass, can also have Massive Capability:
0.15tC/ha x 3.67 = 0.5505tCO2-e
225m ha x 0.5505tCO2-e = 123.8mtCO2-e.
The represents about a quarter of Australian emissions per year.
No comments:
Post a Comment