No “Fart” Tax, No “Fert” Tax, Yes “Soil Carbon Credits”

In 2006, when the Carbon Coalition started campaigning for farm-based carbon credits, the Australian Greenhouse Office believed that farmers would be forced to reduce emissions from animals and cropping or pay for offsets. They assumed that, because Agriculture was the second-biggest emitter of Greenhouse Gasses, farmers would have to pay. And they were certain there could be no credits for soil carbon captured and stored because there was no scientific proof of it.

By 2009 PM Kevin Rudd instructed his Minister For Agriculture to look into soil carbon.

By early 2010 Minister Tony Burke told farmers that there would be no ‘fart tax’ or methane bill and there would be no nitrogen fertilizer tax. He said that Agriculture was…“The only section of the Australian economy where we ignore the emissions, ignore them completely. Even if they go up, we ignore them… But if you’re able to reduce your emissions through abatement, you get cash.” And farmers who store carbon in soils and vegetation also get cash.

In August, 2010, PM Julia Gillard announced the Carbon Farming Initiative: “Farmers and landholders will benefit from a new income stream… Government [will] legislate clear rules for the recognition of carbon credits.

In October 2010, the Government released a document for consultation. It wants replies by 21 January, 2010. The program is scheduled to start on 1 July, 2011.

Why is the Government doing this?

The Government’s change of heart is not hard to understand when you look at the facts:

1. Agriculture as an industry was on its knees after 10 years of devastating drought when this turnaround. Climate Change “taxes” would cause the industry damage.

2. The changes to soil management that are required for carbon sequestration are the same required for building a buffer against Climate Change. The Government would have to spend a lot to convince farmers to make these changes anyway.

3. By choosing to set a price on carbon and allow a market form has the effect of getting polluters to pay for the changes needed.

4. The profit motive will reduce the need for expensive extension services running expensive programs to encourage change.

5. Food Security and Regional Conflict over Access to Resources is driving many international organizations to press the case for soil sequestration. Instead of reducing the capacity of the industry by imposing new taxes, the Australian Government has chosen to improve Agriculture’s profitability.

This document explains what is proposed and what changes we think should happen before the market begins.