Bizarrely when the mainly methane gas from the West Atlas rig caught fire it became CO2 with less GWP. Perhaps the carbon traders will want to sell credits from that episode. Even the coal mining industry presents measurement problems with some 'gassy' coal seams releasing methane as they are excavated, perhaps adding up to 30% to the GWP of the later coal burning. You would think however the number of tonnes of coal burned in power stations would be accurately recorded. Maybe not since we now know the International Energy Agency fudged the numbers on oil production and Chinese factory data is now suspect.

I agree it is unproductive to waste time attempting each farm's net emissions ie how many cow farts and whether gum trees put on weight. Let's assume CO2 estimates from coal, oil and gas are reasonably accurate and focus on that. That means that free permits and offsets to the fossil fuel industries must be drastically curtailed. They are the obvious targets and should get the detailed monitoring. Secondary economic effects may limit the growth of meat and dairy in any case.

I don't understand the enthusiasm of controlling carbon flows for carbon already in the biosphere. The underlying problem is apparently caused by us digging up carbon and adding it to the biosphere. This is what has to be controlled.

Trying to control carbon flows strikes me as near impossible. It will add huge complexities to already complex and difficult to implement rules. The push for it looks to be coming from foresters and farmers who want to get their nose into the CO2 trading scheme trough.

The whole topic is bulltish

Unfortunately not the sort of bulltish which produces assessable methane or you can spread on the garden to encourage the roses

I was at a presentation breakfast recently (my Victorian Taxes being abused by public servants… at least I got a coffee and croissant out of it) to do with carbon trading and some “NGO” representative I happened to end up sat next to told me she was there to make sure everything was “ethical”…

I am not sure who appointed her as the “public conscience” and was not inclined to ask but I did point out to her, and her naivety, that unless it (carbon trading) was commercially viable, it stood no chance of ever being “ethical”.

I do not think she enjoyed being told the facts of life … not that I care… NGOs, ETS and the like is just techno-babble jargon, designed to employ the otherwise unemployable.

Carbon trading will not put a roof over your head, food on your table or milk (from all those farting cows) in your cup .

Carbon trading is designed to stealthily tax or otherwise diminish ones quality of life, not enhance it, by forcing us to support the fanciful and unproven aspirations of the pointless

Again,I ask someone to tell me where to find the science that proves that CO2 is a pollutant.
If we are going to charge our farmers for farting animals, what will they do in Africa where herds of farters far exceed those we have here and most of them are in National Parks! Will they get rid of elephants? Gnu's, Zebra? If they don't get rid of them, who will pay for their methane?
It has not been scientifically proven that these minute traces of so called green house gases are controlling our climate.
Why not read what the late Rhodes Fairbridge thought about it and you can also contact Richard Mackey. http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf
Just because carbon traders have persuaded politicians that they will make big bucks out of trading carbon credits (and we'll look after you Kevin and Malcolm) there is no excuse for ignoring sciencs.
Rudd, Wong et al accuse sceptics of scaring the public. What did Al Gore do? Didn't the IPCC set out to scare the world?
Read what Dr Vincent Gray wrote about this. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2010

Farting does NOT add to CO2 in the atmosphere.
Farts are CO2 and methane and are only produced AFTER the human or animal has eaten a plant or an animal that has eaten a plant.
The methane decays to CO2 in a few weeks.
The plant has taken CO2 from the air to build its structure.
The fart is THE SAME CO2.
It goes round and around.
Only fossil carbon adds to CO2 in the air.

Undidly, I'd never thought of it that way, tho I have often wondered about the figures on the thousands of litres of water it takes to produce a kilogram of beef, because I know from close observation that a lot of the water that goes in at one end of a cow soon comes out the other end and back into the water cycle.

Phoenix94, CO2 is not a pollutant, but increasing the amount in the atmosphere will change things in a way that will not be comfortable for homo sapiens - and as fossil fuels are finite and we will have to do without them one day, why not get cracking on the alternatives and stop pandering to the coal industry.

Averaged over 20 years, methane is rated as 72 times more potent per tonne, than carbon dioxide in causing global warming. Australia's methane emissions come primarily from 28 million cattle and 88 million sheep. The livestock emissions, on their own, will cause significantly more warming in the next 20 years than all our coal-fired power stations. Is it time to stop breeding sheep and cattle in Australia if we are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, because methane is such a massive contributor to climate change?

Whoever said that “most proponents of human-induced global warming are either ignorant of science or have too much personally invested. They rely on authority, consensus and a maniacal desperation to stamp out contrary views.” could not have made a more accurate observation of the substance of the IPCC and all its hangers-on and fans.

Col Rouge, has anyone, to your knowledge, explained just how the government will "divy" up the CPRS Tax income? It seems to be going into general revenue, less the the normal "deductions" that must be taken by "yes minister".
If, as we are told, this could be some $11Bn in income per year, how much will go to say, the new bureacracy to hunt income, the feet on the ground that will do the compliance, the techno-boffins to measure the carbon on the farms and emissions from "emitters" and the contributions Australia is about to sign up for to fund the UN ex-gracia payments to "poor nations"? How much of this revenue will actually be left to reduce carbon emissions?

*The livestock emissions, on their own, will cause significantly more warming in the next 20 years than all our coal-fired power stations.*

Not so Native, for as has been pointed out, herbivores simply
recycle CO2, they don't dig it out of the ground, as humans do.

If you want less methane, then shut down all the new CSG developments
being undertaken immediately, for all they are doing is drilling
coal seams to release methane, for your benefit.

I remind you, that when a cow craps out the back, she fertilises
grass, which thus grows faster, absorbing more CO2 from the atmosphere.
Grass grows roots, which sequesters carbon back into
the earth. You only need to increase soil carbon content by
1% and you have largely solved the CO2 question.

In fact plants grow faster with more CO2, that is why in some
greenhouses, they actually pump the stuff in there.

Candide, if you ignore the IPCC and instead Google the NIPCC at http://www.nipccreport.org/ you will perhaps get a greater grasp of the truth. Dismissing something because it is funded by an interest group is counter productive if you consider that Governments around the world are an interest group. Interested in taxing your hip pocket or purse.
The amount of human made CO2 is insufficient to drive the climate. It is more likely that the climate change is related to the sun. Read Rhodes Fairbridge at http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf
CO2 is an essential life support gas that is a natural plant food.
As the population of the world increases there will be a greater demand for food. Were it possible to reduce CO2 levels by human intervention, we would risk posterity's food supply.
The CPRS tax is a get rich tax for Al Gore, Kevin Rudd, Malcolm Turnbull et.al. Check out The Green Chip Review to see how to make 32% profit PER MONTH. http://www.angelnexus.com/o/web/17514

phoenix94: "I ask someone to tell me where to find the science that proves that CO2 is a pollutant."

Why? I don't recall anybody claiming it is a pollutant in the sense that you imply. Say like lead in the atmosphere is, for example. This is just your classic straw man argument, which is why everybody ignores it.

phoenix94: "Read Rhodes Fairbridge at http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf"

This gentleman and lots of others have put their scientific 2c worth in. So far stuff all of their peers agree with them. I am not really in any position to say, so I will go with the majority. This is a pretty easy thing to do because the majority in this case is overwhelmingly large.

As for the solar forcings theory - I gather the prediction is we have hit some sort of a peak and temperatures should start declining soon. If they don't within 2 decades we can discard it completely.

Interesting but no one seems to have thought this whole thing through.
The legislation also seems to be silent on measurement.

When you make a charge or payment for something you immediately put
yourself under the requirements of the Commonwealth and State
Weights and Measurements Acts.

A dealer who buys sells a credit for so many tons of CO2 has to be
certain that there really was that many tons involved at some
specified accuracy.
A farmer that receives the payment will have to be able to
prove the amount of CO2, not guess it or estimate it, prove it !

The same applies internationally. This morning the East African
countries said they will release how much they expect western
countries to pay them for the CO2 we have generated.
How are you going to measure that ? With what accuracy ?
The whole thing becomes a madhouse, it appears from this post they
have no idea of just how to do it.

Bazz: "The whole thing becomes a madhouse, it appears from this post they have no idea of just how to do it."

Agreed. But it doesn't have to be. It is real simple. There are two ways we add carbon to the biosphere: dig up coal, and drill for oil / natural gas. That is it. It isn't hard to measure how much oil and coal we mine. Charge a levy, carbon trade or whatever on that amount and be done with it.

But no, every Tom, Dick and Harry wants to get their nose in the trough. And in trying to please everyone, the pollies have made a complete mess of it.