The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Farming the climate > Comments

Farming the climate : Comments

By Jeffrey Parr and Leigh Sullivan, published 20/2/2007

New research has found a way of storing carbon emissions in the soil, naturally, just by choosing the varieties of crops we grow.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Perseus, I dont disagree with you. But a line needs to be drawn in the sand somewhere. Suppose its 1990. Dont count any emmissions or sequestrations prior to that point. Yes, some will be penalised, but to go back further just gets too complex.

The authors of the article point to an additional income stream for farmers that wont impact the yield income from crop harvesting. I would be a little cautious on this - I would expect to see some trade off between harvest yield and plantsone yield. So long as the income from one covers the other, then there shouldnt be too many problems.
Posted by Country Gal, Tuesday, 20 February 2007 1:13:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We agree on most things, country gal, but not this one. We must give credit where credit is due, to every form of anthropogenic carbon sequestration. No-one is taxed on their pre-1990 emissions but people can be taxed on their past sequestration.

I have 5,000 tonnes of carbon on my property that was not there in 1942. And when I go to sell some of that carbon, in good order and stable, as timber to someone else I will most probably be taxed at $40-$50/tonne. And that is $200,000 to $250,000 in total for carbon that has only been sequestered because my family chose to let trees grow in the places my grandfather was forced to clear as a condition of title.

And because we started absorbing carbon before 1990 we will get no credits for any growth that takes place after 1990 but will still pay carbon tax when those newly grown trees are harvested under some sort of "business as usual" euphemism for gross injustice.

Meanwhile "joe suburb", who owns no trees and who pats himself on the back and takes a high moral tone for reducing his per capita emissions from 27.5 tonnes CO2 (7.65tC) down to 18 tonnes CO2 (5.0tC) will only pay $200 to $250 a year in carbon tax.

The IPCC assumes that every native forest that was present prior to 1990 is an untouched old growth forest that loses as much carbon through decay as it absorbs through growth. This is plain wrong and to persist with this illusion is deliberate, premeditated act of injustice. They then assume that any harvesting, even of trees that are beginning to rot faster than they add growth, amounts to a reduction in sequestered carbon stocks. The fact that other trees in the forest will quickly grow to replace the volume of carbon in the removed tree, is totally beyond the IPCC's wit.
Posted by Perseus, Tuesday, 20 February 2007 4:31:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks OLO!

The article is very interesting and if there is an economic advantage, then it should be exploited. There are parts of the article I do not understand. Perhaps the authors may consider the needs of non-technical readers a little more.

Somone asked about other sites and I found:
http://plantstone.com.au/

Perseus says he's going to be taxed for selling timber. I don't see how that makes sense. Harvesting existing timber does not create CO2. But if so, sell it off before the tax arrives, then plant more trees and pocket the carbon credits. Surely a workable carbon credit system treats plantation timber as a carbon sink.
Posted by David Latimer, Tuesday, 20 February 2007 6:08:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From the lack of comment on the research described in this article, one would think it is April 1st.
I think the authors should put the potential of their findings in perspective to encourage discussion.

From my layman’s view point, 300 million tonnes of CO2 stored by phytoliths each year in the natural carbon cycle represents about 4 percent of the CO2 emitted from the burning of fossil fuels per year[7500 million tonne].

If cropping accounts for one third of this 300 million tonnes and we tripled the CO2 stored by new cropping practices then we are looking at socking away 4 percent of the worlds fossil fuels emissions, with the potential to achieve much more.

That these people have to ask the Government for support is disgraceful.
Instead of solving the climate change problem by encouraging such people in every way possible, we endure political point scoring and profiteering from carbon trading schemes
Posted by Goeff, Tuesday, 20 February 2007 9:30:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that there is many a slip twix the cup and the lip with carbon trading. I have no problem with people being rewaarded for genuine long tern carbon sesqiestration. This is why I favour EPRIDA at present. The University of Georgia has being doing work on this with the idea of making small scale units for use in the third world. Their figures suggest that 10 tons of waste will make 3.2 tons of biodiesel and 1.5 tons of low temperature charcoal. Carbon credits should be available this carbon. The charcoal increases soil fertility by a factor of 3 and stays in the soil for 2 thousand years. The system will also increase farm incomes
Posted by Whispering Ted, Wednesday, 21 February 2007 10:33:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phytoloiths to the rescue? We don't have to get stoned on grass to accept that there are benefits; that scientific inquiry into such areas is worth supporting; of more interest than great-grandad's scythe blades having been quickly blunted by it.
But, what pecking-order do phytoliths occupy in the biosphere where carbon is king? Where all living things are built from carbon - with calcium or silica for scaffolding, phosphorous and other elements only as facilitators? In practicality, this planet's biomass is carbon - all life. It is long past time that Homo sapiens put its own status in perspective. About a quarter of all that biomass is what we consider the lowest of the low - fungus and its ilk. And we get free service from it. Some of those services are both indispensable and irreplaceable. They don't need feeding or watering - just respect for their particular environments. The top 300 millimetres of earth is one environment normally chockers with mycological entities; most heavily populated in the surface layer.
Mycology benefits vegetation, commercial or otherwise. It is readily disturbed by large-scale monoculture and is difficult to re-establish.
Agriculture associated with huge volumes of wind and water erosion of surface soils is responsible for the removal of carbon from it in huge quantities. Most, upon decomposition, escapes to the atmosphere as CO2.
Only a small proportion of the commercial agricultural community is taking steps which automatically foster mycological health. Further support, and assistance from science, is appropriate.
Phytolith research does need funding because it is a component, if only small, of the vast ecology of soil and planet health - of which the largely invisible world of mycology is dominant.
What chance does that research, in part or whole, have of obtaining funding? Under current philosophy, nil: The Government is unlikely to see, in two years, immediate cash benefit accruing from it. We will just have to make the best of the view from the handbasket taking us to hell under this, or any likely alternative, administration.
Posted by colinsett, Wednesday, 21 February 2007 11:58:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy