1. The 100 Year Rule is not based on science. It is a convention of uncertain origin. It is not based on the period required for a molecule of CO2 to cycle through the atmosphere, as is commonly believed. (See "The 100 Years Rule: Deal Killer or Price Support?")
2. Offsets based on avoided emissions are no more or less secure than offsets based on sequestration. They cannot guarantee that the emissions avoided will remain avoided for 100 years.
3. State Ministers of Lands are unlikely to allow Crown lessees to enter contracts that run longer than the lease itself.
4. There have been very few programs established anywhere in the world with 100 Years ruling them in 2005-2012.
5. There are precedents for a range of periods, based on achieving a range of objectives.
6. Short periods can have long term effects, as farmers tend to renew stewardship covenants. A series of short term agreements can provide long term benefits.
7. More than 95% of buyers of forest-based offsets say the co-benefits of carbon sequestration can add significant value to them .
8. The statement that the carbon credits are merely a ‘bonus’, that the real benefit is higher production, demeans the CFI and the change it could bring and the blockage the 100 Years Rule represents.
9. There are several options to the pure 100 Years Rule, including buffer pools, insurances, government guarantees, ‘banking’ offsets, hedging, etc.
10. There are entrenched attitudes in Australian society that farmers should provide ecosystem services to society for free. If landholders are to be paid, it should be made as hard as possible so farmers will not make ‘money for jam’, hence The 100 Years Rule.

For More, see "The 100 Years Rule: Deal Killer or Price Support?"
 
Read more…

OK, so Steve Fieldus is an unlikely contender for Greenie of the Year. He runs 11 bulk haulage trucks out of Dubbo, and has a tattoo of his favourite one on his bicep. But this quietly spoken 'truckin' man from north Dubbo NSW now runs the only carbon neutral fleet on the planet! 

Lets say that again - He emits over 4000 tonnes of CO2 into the air each year, but he is determined that HE won't be adding to the load of CO2 in the air! He says he wants to 'clean up after himself'. Not only is he slashing the amount of CO2 his trucks emit, Steve is voluntarily paying a carbon tax to cover the emissions he has yet to reduce.

We are absolutely thrilled to announce that this week Steve completed the last requirements for certification under the National Carbon Offset Standard, a voluntary program run by Low Carbon Australia - a Commonwealth agency. The process took 10 months to complete! First we had to measure the company's carbon footprint, and then we decided how much of his emissions he could eliminate in the first year. This left a gap that he cant fill with savings this coming year, so he purchased offsets on the Voluntary market. In this case he contributed to a project in Africa.  
"I wanted to buy offsets from Australian farmers - especially soil carbon offsets but they aren't available yet. Hopefully next year" he says.

Happily, Steve was inspired by attending the Carbon Farming Conference last year. "I'm not a farmer, but I want to do my bit, I want to ensure I don't add to the problem of too much carbon in the air, and the vision put forward by Carbon Farmers Of Australia - a farmer led organisation that believes that massive increases in photosynthesis on the world's farmland can stall global warming, really sounded great to me"

With Climate Change Minister Greg Combet's recent announcement that Australia will be scrapping its carbon tax agreement in favour of linking with the European Union's carbon trading schemes, a lot of farmers may be asking how this change will impact them.

Click here to download a fact sheet explaining how this ETS will work moving forward. We'd love to hear your thoughts on this, which you're welcome to leave in the comments section below. For more information, please contact us.

Some believe that 100 years is the time it takes for a tonne of CO2 to cycle through the atmosphere. It is not. This is a common misconception. Eg. "The internationally accepted timeframe for ensuring sequestration is equivalent to emissions is 100 years. This is based on the estimated life of one tonne of carbon pollution in the atmosphere." - Carbon Farming Initiative Handbook (P.17)

Let's ask a scientist:
john.friend@industry.nsw.gov.au wrote

"Regarding your questions about where did I get the "100 year" figure for carbon dioxide and its relation to the issue of permanence. The figure has its origins in the Kyoto protocol. The IPCC have then used 100 year horizon values to compare the other greenhouse gases to carbon dioxide (the IPCC table is here). Regarding a specific reference for the 100 year value, I can't find one. From what I can gather, the rationale behind using 100 years is from this paper which states an "adjustment time" of 50-200 years". This paper actually states that the decay of excess CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be expressed in a single figure, so the 100 year figure seems to be more politically correct than scientifically correct."

Dr John Friend, Leader, Soil and Salinity, Natural Resources Advisory Services, Department of Primary Industries, NSW Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services

“This 100 year timeframe is a policy-determination, not a technical one,” reveals a peer--reviewed report by Pedro Moura Costa and Charlie Wilson.(1) It is a period chosen by the IPCC for calculating the Global Warming Potential of each different Greenhouse Gas compared to CO2. For instance, Nitrous Oxide has a GWP of 298 (ie., one tonne of N2O is equivalent to 298 tonnes of CO2).

Some believe that 100 years is the time it takes for a tonne of CO2 to cycle through the atmosphere. It is not. This takes only 4 years, according to an IPCC Report. “The turnover time of CO2 in the atmosphere, measured as the ratio of the content to the fluxes through it, is about 4 years. This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean.” (2.) However, it can take far longer for the atmosphere to adjust to the new levels of CO2, up to 200 years. (3.)

The EcoSecurities analysts calculate that removing a tonne of CO2 and holding it for 55 years is sufficient to counteract its effect on Global Warming. The IPCC uses 20, 100 and 500 year periods in much of its analysis. “The Kyoto Protocol set the time horizon against which [GWPs] are to be determined at 100 years (addendum to the Protocol, Decision 2/CP.3, para. 3)." (4.)

"To be consistent, it can be implied therefore that the Protocol also requires the benefits of sequestration in counteracting the radiative forcing effects of CO2 emissions to be evaluated over a 100 year time horizon. Any uncertainties derive from both this choice of time horizon, as well as future scenarios of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, are not technically driven but rather are a natural consequence of ‘arbitrary’ policy selections.” 

“Functional Permanence”

Clearly, there is no definition of Permanence for Biosequestration that is dictated by Scientific Fact. The periods quoted range from 4 years to ‘forever’, with points of 20, 50, 55, 100, 200 and 500 years in between. The choice of 100 Years appears to have been a function of the need to find a scale on which to compare the Global Warming Potential of various Greenhouse Gases. Its choice as a time horizon took place as part of the negotiations around the Kyoto Protocols and was based on functional considerations. One function – the engagement of farmers in soil carbon sequestration activities – was overlooked. 

FOOTNOTES:
(1.) Pedro Moura Costa and Charlie Wilson, An equivalence factor between CO2 avoided emissions and sequestration – description and applications in forestry, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Volume 5, Number 1, 51-60 
(2.) Watson, R.T., Rodhe, H., Oeschger, H. and Siegenthaler, U. 1990. Greenhouse gases and aerosols. In IPCC Report No 1, World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme, Cambridge University Press.
(3.) “This short time scale must not be confused with the time it takes tor the atmospheric CO2 level to adjust to a new equilibrium if sources or sinks change This adjustment time… is of the order of 50 - 200 years, determined mainly by the slow exchange of carbon between surface waters and the deep ocean.” ibid
(4.) "Reaffirms that global warming potentials used by Parties should be those provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its Second Assessment Report (“1995 IPCC GWP values”) based on the effects of the greenhouse gases over a 100-year time horizon, taking into account the inherent and complicated uncertainties involved in global warming potential estimates. In addition, for information purposes only, Parties may also use another time horizon, as provided in the Second Assessment Report.” IPCC, REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES ON ITS THIRD SESSION, HELD AT KYOTO FROM 1 TO 11 DECEMBER 1997, PART TWO: ACTION TAKEN BY THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES AT ITS THIRD SESSION, 25 March 1998, P. 31, Decision 2/CP.3

So, there seems to be a picture being built up, now that the scary 'price on carbon'  is here. Such a political hot potato has detracted from the job we can all do to ensure the sustainability of our way of life, as well as ensure the security of our soils, and farms.

SAVE THE DATE: 2012 CARBON FARMING WEEK COMING IN OCTOBER

In a piece reported by Econews today, China is laying the groundwork for their Carbon Market. Wow, this blows a complete hole in the 'rest of the world is doing nothing' argument! China is the rest of the world! Well, practically anyway! 

If you go to the article you will see some very similar words to the ones being used for our market: “The GHG emission reductions shall come from specific projects and be real, measurable, and additional.”

This is the language used to give buyers confidence they are getting what they are paying for! Given that we are ALL doing this to achieve overall reductions in GHG, so we have a planet to hand over to our grandkids, it is important that the world does maintain very strict rules and regulations. It's a pain when you are trying to make these 'methodologies' embedded in the Carbon Farming Initiative Process work, but necessary. 

For instance, I was talking to a Canadian aggregator yesterday. He aggregates (brings together) pools of soil carbon credits. And sells them - he's about to put a multi million dollar deal together. However, he says the Canadian Government has NOT insisted on the highest integrity in soil carbon, and as a result he believes the floor will drop out of that market. He welcomes Australia's approach.

He will be our International Speaker at this years Carbon Farming Conference and Expo, so you will be able to hear all about it.

“By farmers, for farmers” is our motto. We are farmers. Everything we do and have done in the past 6 years ago to get a market started has been to see farm carbon offsets traded and farmers paid fairly for carbon captured and emissions avoided. Carbon farming is now law. The next task is to make sure farmers will want to get involved. Farmers are saying: “Show Me The Money”. This ‘quick-read report’ tells you about 5 ways we are doing this.

Australia’s dairy farmers have been given a cold shower on Climate Change by Dairy Australia. “It doesn’t matter if you believe in Climate Change or not, because it is now a major political and social force that is and will continue to impact on all industries, including dairy,” it says on its website. Many in the farm community have been convinced by those who deny the science of Climate Change. “The physical reality of Climate Change remains is still debatable for some. This will continue to be the case because it is very hard to differentiate small changes to the average climate from the background of large and poorly understood climate variability. However, ‘belief’ in Climate Change is no longer relevant because the very idea of Climate Change, backed up by clearly more volatile weather events, has created its own, overwhelming social and economic momentum. ‘Climate Change’ is fundamentally changing everything from the behaviour of Governments to consumer choices. It has become one of the critical lenses through which every decision must pass – how individuals and industries react will fundamentally their future resilience and competitive advantage.”

Hysterical Predictions

“Farmers need policies that remove obstacles to implementing climate-smart agriculture, and create synergies with alternative technologies and practices.”
Among the millions of words being uttered at COP 17 this week, these are the most potent. They come from the World Bank.

The Bank believes it is time that the 194 nations attending the Durban meeting got serious about Agriculture – the life and death issue:

‘The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) places a high priority on agriculture. Article 2 of the treaty states that the “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations .......... should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient .....to ensure that food production is not threatened......” It is thus surprising that a detailed treatment of agriculture has yet to enter any of the Agreements. The negotiat¬ing text proposing an agriculture work program under the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) was already available for COP 15 in Copenhagen but has yet to be adopted.

‘Addressing agriculture is critical to achieving global climate change goals, both in terms of adaptation and mitigation. Agriculture will be significantly impacted by climate change, and is crucial for global food security, rural development and poverty alleviation. It can also contribute significantly to meeting mitiga¬tion targets. Food security, adaptation and mitigation can and should be dealt with in an integrated manner — thus the need to incorporate agriculture in future climate change agreements.

‘Key deliverables for COP 17 include:

• An agriculture work program under SBSTA that covers both adaptation and mitigation. It should be informed by science to enhance the role of agri¬culture in achieving synergies between adaptation, mitigation and food security
• Text that makes crops and pasture eligible under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol

‘Placing agriculture in a global agreement would help provide a policy framework for fully incorporating agriculture into adaptation and mitigation strategies. Further work on numerous technical issues (e.g. moni¬toring methods, identification of new technologies and approaches) and institutional issues (e.g. how to make sure benefits reach poor farmers) would be stimulated by such an agreement.’

There have been 16 glorified gabfests called Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – where the leaders of the world meet to talk about saving civilisation from environmental destruction - and at not one of them has the ability of the world to feed itself been considered as part of the main agenda. And still, at COP 17 in Durban, 20,000 delegates will discuss every trivial detail of an imaginary accounting system for emissions that has a death wish, but Agriculture is relegated to a little side event. 

Nothing demonstrates the distorted values of the Kyotocrats more dramatically than their refusal to give their attention to the centrality of food production to the human tragedy of Climate Change and the potential solution that resides in the soil beneath our feet. Urbanites, most of them, suffering from the Supermarket Delusion, they see Agriculture merely as an inconvenient source of emissions, not as the difference between peace and war as mass migration of millions in search of food and water create conflict.

Read more.