by clicking the arrows at the side of the page, or by using the toolbar.
by clicking anywhere on the page.
by dragging the page around when zoomed in.
by clicking anywhere on the page when zoomed in.
web sites or send emails by clicking on hyperlinks.
Email this page to a friend
Search this issue
Index - jump to page or section
Archive - view past issues
Australian Cattle Council : Yearbook 2008
page 42 C aTTL e COUNCIL OF a USTR a LI a Y ea RBOOK 2008 table 1: approximate rates of greenhouse sequestration or abatement arising from farm greenhouse offsets, and their value as greenhouse emission offsets at two different carbon prices. Category offset tonnes Co2-ea per ha per annum Annual return $/ha $10 per tonne $30 per tonne permanent High rainfall timber plantation 30 300 900 permanent Low rainfall timber plantation 5 50 150 Non-permanent Soil carbon management.b 0.3–1.0 6 18 Non-permanent Cattle management to gain 10% lower emissions (normally 3–5 tone CO2-e per head pa)c 0.3–0.5 4 12 Non-permanent Sheep management to gain 10% lower emissions (normally 0.1–0.2 t CO2-e per head pa)c 0.1–0.2 1 3 a CO2-e = carbon dioxide equivalent. b approximate figures published by the NSW Department of primary Industries. c assumes approximate carrying capacity of 10 dry sheep equivalents (dse) per ha. a challenge associated with many non-permanent farm offsets is that the greenhouse impact they have will be difficult and expensive to measure directly, especially because they are subject to a high degree of seasonal variability. Soil carbon levels and methane emissions from cattle and sheep, for example, are highly dependent on seasonal conditions which makes changes of five or ten percent difficult to detect. adding to the challenge, on a per hectare or per head basis the greenhouse impact of some of the changes possible will be small, even though they might amount to a sizeable offset when aggregated for the entire farm. This suggests that a preferred option for the farm sector may be the development of best management practice farm greenhouse standards (BMps) which would be available for voluntary adoption by farm businesses wishing to obtain payments for non- permanent greenhouse offsets, with payments based on the average greenhouse benefits the BMp had been shown to generate. a limited scheme of this type for soil carbon is already operated in the USa, with the greenhouse offsets generated marketed on the Chicago Climate exchange. a real dilemma for farm businesses at present is that until the rules for farm offsets are developed, there is no direct incentive to do anything to improve farm greenhouse performance, and in fact the opposite is actually the case. a very real risk at present is that implementing greenhouse-positive changes now will mean that a farm business will have less options available to improve greenhouse performance after an emissions trading scheme is implemented, and therefore less opportunity to generate revenue from greenhouse offsets in the future. It will be critical for the farm sector to ensure that non- permanent greenhouse offsets are recognised in a future emissions trading scheme, because otherwise the one sector of the australian economy that has already substantially reduced greenhouse emissions over the past decade – agriculture - will be the sector most disadvantaged by future australian greenhouse policies. A very real risk at present is that implementing greenhouse-positive changes now will mean that a farm business will have less options available to improve greenhouse performance after an emissions trading scheme is implemented…