Monday, 07 March 2011 14:24

Farmers wary of carbon debate

Written by 
Julia Gillard Julia Gillard

CARBON PRICING has once again grabbed the attention of politicians in Canberra. 

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has announced in her “year of action” that Australia will have a carbon price from July 2012.

By now, I’m sure farmers have carbon fatigue. This is after four years of debate, two elections, countless reports and inquiries and political point-scoring from all sides.

Meanwhile, farmers are getting on with the job and are hoping that they don’t get caught in the economic crossfire of any carbon policies and programs. Their concerns are legitimate.

We have been told that farmers will be excluded from liability for their emissions under the scheme – in its early years at least – and if we can believe Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, then the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) is also a potential win for agriculture via credits for improved farming practices.

However, the industries that QFF represent are all users of high energy inputs such as fertiliser, fuel, and electricity, where the indirect impacts of a carbon tax could weigh heavily on these input costs.

It is worth pointing out that the agriculture and food production sector will, quite rightly, be calling for compensation for increased costs – just as many other sectors will. However, the difference for agriculture is that our farmers are already extremely efficient in their energy use, given that these inputs are too expensive to waste. That is to say, the existing price of these inputs is driving efficiency without any further government taxes.

Likewise, some farm practices cannot be changed. For instance, there is currently no other viable option for machinery operations than to burn fuel. But this puts the government in a quandary as to how it can reduce pollution, but not destroy important industries.

My understanding of a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme is that the entire policy objective is to change behaviour when it comes to energy use.

What is perplexing, though, is why the politicians in Canberra do not have the spine to implement this reform without dishing out compensation far and wide to various sectors to ensure that these sectors are “no worse off”.  If various sectors are compensated for extra costs, then there is no longer an economic incentive for them to reduce their energy use.

To me it is an obvious dilution of the intent of the policy and therefore runs a risk of simply achieving nothing more than creating layers of bureaucracy, a handful of jobs in Canberra – and otherwise putting a handbrake on our economy.

Subsequently, if our trade-exposed exports become less competitive globally, then surely there is even less possibility that the world would follow our lead with carbon legislation. Because, suddenly, other exporting nations will have a cost advantage over Australia and therefore even greater incentive to not adopt

carbon legislation.

It is entirely possible that sugar producers in Brazil or coal miners in Africa would be ecstatic that Australia – one of their major competitors – is about to make some of its major exports more expensive to produce.

Therefore, farmers will be looking to Ms Gillard for policies that can create real change which encourages low emission technologies and in particular low emission farming systems.

To force a change in production or consumption habits, when there is no alternative to the status quo, would be unfair and cause collateral damage.

Australia needs to have a serious debate about nuclear energy in the context of carbon pollution. Former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke is also reported as saying that the issue needs a “full-blooded debate” at the Labor Party conference later this year.  If Julia Gillard was serious about creating effective and viable change that could reduce carbon emissions, while also providing large amounts of energy, then she would be leading the debate on nuclear energy.

To have it currently dismissed so quickly is a demonstration about the lack of courage and foresight in this debate at the political level.

Gary Sansom is the Queensland Farmers Federation president.

More like this

CFI fails to balance the ledger

The Federal Government's Carbon Farming Initiative will return very little money to the pockets of dairy farmers who face rising energy costs under the carbon tax.

CFI could impact food security

Nationals Senator Fiona Nash has called for a public food security impact statement to be done before any agricultural property is sold for carbon sequestration and trading under the Federal Government's Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI).

Reducing carbon emissions saves money

REDUCING CARBON emissions on-farm means saving money and a new project completed at the Macalister Demonstration Farm (MDF) in Gippsland reveals what savings can be made.

Help needed as farmers recover

IMAGES COMING from Queensland have been horrific. There is no other way to describe them.

The stories of local residents losing everything – from a lifetime of possessions and memories in a flood-affected house, to livestock washed away down the river – can reduce you to tears.

Opposition says Govt can’t meet deadline

PRIME MINISTER Julia Gillard is deliberately misleading Australians by claiming she wants to keep the Murray-Darling reform process on time, according to Coalition Murray-Darling Basin spokesman Senator Simon Birmingham.

More from this category

Milking It...

A rod for their back

A shortage of labour is a bugbear for most farmers, but how many would think this would be a problem on a prison farm?

Help needed as farmers recover

IMAGES COMING from Queensland have been horrific. There is no other way to describe them.

The stories of local residents losing everything – from a lifetime of possessions and memories in a flood-affected house, to livestock washed away down the river – can reduce you to tears.

China and India will shape global market

 

DEVELOPMENTS OVER the last 12 months have changed Rabobank’s view on the likely role of China and India in the world marketplace through to 2014.

Long advocates of the likely self-sufficiency of these markets, Rabobank now believes that China faces a structural market deficit that will be difficult to erode in coming years.

GENOMICS HAS hit the dairy breeding industry by storm.

During the past couple of years, we have gone from almost no application of genomic/genetic marker results in breeding programs to widespread use of genomics.

THERE'S NEVER been a more important time for the Federal Government to look at the big picture when preparing policy.

A NEW report on progress of the Commonwealth water buyback for the Murray Darling indicates that the two tender rounds that were held in Queensland's Lower Balonne have been undersubscribed, leaving most of the budget of $140 million unspent.

The new milk season looms as a period of consolidation for most Australian farmers but we are starting to see a concerning divergence of fortunes between those in south eastern Australia and those in Queensland, northern NSW and Western Australia.

WORKING WITH teams both sides of the Tasman enables me to see various approaches to getting the best out of people. So I'm thinking about teamwork, in particular the merits of different leadership styles.

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated.\nBasic HTML code is allowed.

» Get social

When butter and chocolate collide

TWO New Zealand companies Lewis Road Creamery and Whittakers have teamed up to deliver what must be every dairy lover’s dream: chocolate butter.

Milking it - Ice cream for dogs

EFFORTS to extend the market for dairy know no bounds, with an American company The Bear and The Rat, creating a yoghurt-based ice cream for dogs.