This blog’s fraternity of AGW denialists (climate realists) would be dismayed to learn that their good friend Al Gore was in Sydney yesterday to open the Financial and Energy Exchange (FEX). Another good friend, Bob Carr introduces the “big man” here.
Their web site states: “FEX Climate Pty Ltd is the carbon and environmental arm of Financial and Energy Exchange Ltd a new platform for trading sustainability and cleantech stocks, financial, energy, carbon and environmental commodities and derivatives. The Financial and Energy Exchange (FEX) is supported by significant international investment and global partners including sharing its headquarters at 5 Bridge Street in Sydney with business news broadcaster CNBC. Internationally renowned derivatives trader, Brian Price, is the founder and CEO of FEX. FEX Climate has been built from the ground up a dedicated group, lead by CEO Fiona Waterhouse, who believes the market has an important role to play in directing investment towards businesses which use and produce sustainable technologies, products and services.”
But the real action was happening quietly up in the grazing paddocks of central Queensland. Bypassing the political debate over recent vegetation legislation and scientific researchers dreaming of a rural carbon market, Terry McCosker has established the CarbonLink company , a sister company, to the well known grazing consultancy, Resource Consulting Services (RCS) . RCS being a big advocate of the somewhat controversial cell grazing technology.
Carbonlink (CL) has developed enough credentials to be part of FEX. CL can estimate soil carbon reserves and their improvement through better grazing management. The company acts as an aggregator combining carbon on offer from various graziers, into packages large enough to be of interest to European or US emitters for a sale through the FEX. In a lead from private enterprise FEX seems to also have bypassed the government debate on possible trading systems.
Despite the Greenhouse Office and Minister McGauran being bearish over the prospects for sequestering carbon in Australian soils, McCosker is upbeat saying that grazing systems have plenty of capability compared to cropping lands, and that there are secondary improvements in pasture production, soil structure, and improved pasture quality resulting in less methane emission from grazing cattle.
CL hopes to have a 100,000 tonnes of CO2 for sale on FEX by Christmas.
CL press release says ” CL is in the process of verifying its first packages of soil carbon from several properties in eastern Australia.”
This carbon is expected to be available for trading in the coming months.
“When people think carbon they usually think trees,” according to CL chief executive, and soil and agribusiness consultant Rod Rush.”
“But in reality 75pc of carbon in and on the earth’s land mass is in the soil. We have a tremendous opportunity to utilise soil’s ability to absorb additional carbon through the right land management practices.”
“There is good evidence to suggest that the practice of cell grazing will facilitate soil carbon sequestration.”
“It is an added bonus of this managed pasture process under which livestock come on and off the pasture in a controlled fashion, with the pasture grazed for short periods, spelled while root reserves rebuild, regrow and are then grazed again.”
“Producers who have made good land use decisions in the past and those who choose to adopt these practices in the future will capitalise on that because soil carbon is poised to become a tradeable resource.”
“The good managers are running their farms in a manner that maximises root deposition in their soils and hence fixes much more soil carbon than is held in soils grazed traditionally.”
“Soil carbon can be measured by soil sampling and analysis and then traded as carbon credits,” he said.
“The bigger the active root matter of pasture, the more carbon is fixed.”
“The great thing is that cell grazing, unlike tree planting as a carbon-fixing option, does not lock up land and make it non-productive.”
“We are still verifying our processes, but CL plans to aggregate carbon, sequestered by groups of producers who commit to grazing management practices, that over the subsequent 10 years will sequester and maintain the resource.”
“For example, a 1pc increase in organic matter over a 10-year period may capture about 50 tonnes of CO2 that is worth about $1,000/ha gross before costs, at current retail prices.”
“There will be a proving period for each producer about how much CO2/hectare is being sequestered, with soils analysed in the first year of a commitment and then measured again in, for example, the 5th and 10th years to calculate any gains. ”
You can listen to McCosker advocate the scheme.
CL is the second carbon accreditation scheme to be launched in Australia over the last year – with Christine Jones launching Western Australia’s Australian Soil Carbon Accreditation Scheme (ASCAS) in March 2007.
Of course innovative graziers like Alan Lauder have been advocating carbon grazing incorporating saltbush as a philosophy for land management for over a decade but it’s McCosker who’s trying to break into the big international trading markets.
Industry commentary on rural carbon trading is available here and if you’re really keen rock up to the big carbon farming expo at Mudgee in November 2007. (IPA and denialists apply hard hats before entering these web sites)
So Queensland Country Life ran today with “CARBON: Why there’s real money in dirt”
OK are “dirty” greenhouse deals in dirt the way to go. It’s a long term commitment. Many decades. Does it add up? Are there side effects? Will global warming increase microbial activity and work against the sequestration? Can you realistically account for something you can’t see? How do emitters know what they’ve really got? Do you believe the sampling and science. Has Steve McIntyre audited the system personally? (Or has Hansen adjusted it?)
But it’s innovative. It’s not whinging. Don’t have to put up with touchy forestry types. It has positive land management benefits. It gets a new income stream into remote areas and extensive grazing. It’s free enterprise. And it does unify the city and bush. Needs good science input. It’s Australian high tech low tech hybrid !! Many things I’m passionate about. Oh yea – and it might help with CO2 sequestration too. What’s McCosker up to next – surely this isn’t just the limit – Aaron Edmonds must be out there somewhere.
What do you think: is there money in dirt or is it a dirty deal?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Farmers being paid not to till their fields smacks of Roosevelt’s new deal, but as long as the funds aren’t coming from tax dollars, no skin off my nose.
Rock on.
The global warming industry looks very lucrative -how do I get on the bandwagon? Meanwhile, Gore is alleged to be charging up to $25,000 per person for meet-and-greet in Australia:
Despite the cost, lunch in the 700-seat room at the Sydney Convention Centre was a sell-out, as is tomorrow’s event in Melbourne . VIP packages, which included a spot close to Mr Gore and a meet-and-greet with him, cost $25,000.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/paying-dearly-to-hear-gores-climate-story/2007/09/20/1189881602765.html
Paul: “how do I get on the bandwagon?
Switch jobs and learn about the carbon-soil cycle!
James – wrong end of the stick mate – this is about non-cropping land. Extensive grazing – pastoralism in our terms or “ranching” as you dudes would term it.
The farmers (more correctly graziers) do still use the land productively – it’s not some typical yank or Euro trick where the guvmint pays you to do nothing.
Basically some dirty northern hemisphere (NH) greenhouse polluting mongrel gets to offset his mortal emitting sin by offseting his filthy CO2 belching smokestack against increasing wholesome Aussie rangeland soil carbon reserves.
In any case Aussies don’t do poofy things like “till fields” – yuckie how Anglo NH – we plough paddocks mate. We have bigger machines than you have and bigger paddocks – takes days to get from one side to the other. We get your red ones and green ag machines and reengineer them so they don’t break.
I should point out that the insertion of “(climate realists)” in the lead was inserted as editorial policy, possibly as instructed by the Inhofe guidelines for editing climate change documents.
Planting trees purely for carbon sinks should be punishable by the law. We have never been more food insecure and just because the collective wisdon suggests you can’t grow the crops we’ve been trying to grow in marginal areas, doesn’t mean there are not any tree cropping systems out there that are drought tolerant, rely minimally on fossil fuel resources AND STILL PRODUCE STAPLE FOOD COMMODITIES even if in smaller amounts than conventional expectations. And you can still have your carbon credits if it gives you a warm and fussy feeling inside …
No doubt we have to hit a food price hyperinflation wall or a shortage on the streets of Sydney type of situation before people click food security is far more important that carbon accounting.
Aaron – but this post isn’t about cropping or forestry – it’s about soil carbon under grazing lands with an improved soil condition benefit (in theory). And there’s a huge area of grazed land out there – >80% of Queensland for starters.
Aaron though really if we wanted to turn the agricultural and horticultural resources switch to “on” in northern Australia – surely this is limited mainly by our collective national will and imagination.
I was in the supermarket yesterday – fruit and vege prices were up but there was still plenty available. What do you expect the average punter in the street to do about things directly – surely this is a supermarket and agribusiness supply issue.
I find the use of the term “denialist” quite offensive, as it was originally used to conflate AGW skeptics with Holocaust deniers. Now everyone, from the KRuddster down to anonymous posters, is throwing it around. Can’t you guys come up with something better?
While you’re talking about carbon sinks you’re not focussing on the important issues – increasing food security.
I’m not talking fruit and veg Luke. This is about staple food – grains and oilseeds. The stuff that you get around 90% of your caloric intake from. The non-negotiable part of your diet.
Global markets through pricing signals are telling all owners of land to produce grains and oilseeds because stocks are now at perilously low levels. Oil at $84/barrel and beyond simply speeds up the drawdown on these stocks and will likely limit production in fossil fuel dependent systems (ie 99.99999999% of today’s farming systems). There are already fertilizer and diesel shortages in some farming areas as we speak (fertilizer India – http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/Economy/Agriculture/Fertiliser_scarcity_may_nip_rabi_crop/articleshow/2384964.cms, diesel Midwest – http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296551,00.html).
My point is that all land in the future must be re-evaluated for its productive potential including goat and cattle denuded rangelands. If you focus on achieving more resiliant agricultural production into the Australian landscape, I guarantee you’ll create carbon sinks without having even focussed on it since resiliance will almost certainly entail a perennial crop.
If you eat it is not just a supermarket and agribusiness issue … you can have both carbon and food!
Weellll – it’s a bit of a problem isn’t it.
Why are we in this problem in Australia – could it be a lack of rainfall – dare one say “unprecedented” in our European experience.
Most rangelands are not suitable for anything but grazing. Indeed we are likely to see retreat from areas too marginal – climate risk makes for a bad long term investment.
And fairly average soils.
So yep – different subject and I suggest you blog on it – combination of spiralling input prices and poor weather conditions. If we had rain when we needed it everyone would laughing.
So how do you make it rain? Might our rainfall be changing? Want an informed system for making more investment decisions.
So why don’t we get out of agriculture in southern Australia then? Off to the Ord.
The issue with rangelands though is 150 years of episodic land degradattion, climate variation, and overstocking. Anything that can improve land management and generate more cash for graziers is surely worth considering?
Incidentally try tree planting in rangelands – soul destroying stuff – one bad year during establishment and you can lose the lot – so why not get into saltbush ? See my Alan Lauder comment above.
Most of our soils can take up to 250 tonnes of charcoal (pure carbon) and their productivity and moisture retention capacities will be substantially improved.
We also have a problem with thickenning or regrowth of woody vegetation in woody pastured landscapes on a scale of more than 100 million tonnes each year. We currently have no market for this problem wood because certain green morons have claimed that this is “native” (unplanted) forest that should be treated the same as climax old growth forest. So it cannot be used as biofuel.
This 100m tonnes would produce 60m tonnes of charcoal which would then remain as stable carbon in the substantially improved soil for the next 1000 years or more.
The only problem is that the climate cretins in the IPCC have deemed that all the carbon is released the moment the tree is cut. So even though our highly desirable soil enhancements will sequester carbon for the next millenium, there will not only be zero rewards under current principles, we will be actively penalised, and our children will be too, for the next 30 generations.
“Saving the Planet? Sustainable Production? For future generations?” What a load of $%#@*g crap.
“…the jarrah forest is burnt over regularly every three or four years.” Charles E. Lane-Poole, West Australian Conservator of Forests, 1921.
The jarrah forest is quite big. All that mild, beneficial burning must have sequestered an awful lot of carbon as soil charcoal. Several early settlers commented on the amount of charcoal in the soil. One complained about it getting into his socks. What a pity there weren’t any carbon credits in those days.
Due to potty fire exclusion advice from some academics, the jarrah forest is now burnt by lethal wildfires at 15 or 20 year intervals. There is some charcoal formation, but less than before. Much organic matter (i.e. contains carbon and hydrogen) disappears in noxious smoke. Is this ‘scientific’ forest management? Can the WA state government’s environmental credentials be taken seriously, especially on carbon and climate change? Certainly not by me.
Sandalwood are native to ranglelands and they do produce oil and protein rich kernels – making them a staple food commodity. The problem with rangelands is noone wants to intensively manage them and hence we are stuck with animal mouths.
A tree planting program in the rangelands would have to be an opportunistic operation (cyclonic interaction) though I agree fairly risky. It would also require earthworks to ‘hold up’ water. Decades of grazing means most water runs off. But given plummeting grain stocks, we will likely be forced to take such risks into the future. Incidently this sort of dryland crop is well suited to the Murray Darling catchment since the trees can survive without irrigation and will certainly benefit when it is available.
Much of the broadacre, dryland farming areas in Australia have adopted no-till or minimum-till practices. Mine is a mimimun till area. This has been partly in response to the rising price of fuel, and partly because sequestering organic carbon, instead of fallowing or burning crop residue, improves soil fertility and soil structure.
No-till and minimum-till practices normally require some sprays to control weeds prior to seeding. As a downside, the resulting increased organic matter in the soil increases the likelihood of crop root diseases.
To my knowledge, no measurements of the carbon sequestration value of these farming practices has been done. Given that at least half the matter of all plants is below ground, sequestering the root systems of annual crops like wheat would have to have value as carbon credits.
I have some experience with rangeland grazing, and I do not see that there would be that much increase in carbon sequestration by just carrying on as normal. In effect, sheep or cattle have replaced the indigenous grazers – kangaroos etc.
But I can see carbon sequestration increases from sustainable forestry. Old trees, no longer sequestering carbon, on being cut down, have their roots left in the ground. That is half the weight of the tree. Reestablishing young trees in their place would increas the rate of carbon sequestration in the area.
Luke, you can grow many species during a drought, most fail thru lack of maintenance
I put those who label others as denialist firmly in the deluded camp, deluded by their own aversion to reality. Happy to play with concepts, unhappy with the consequences.
Good point, Davey. Charcoal is formed by the combustion of wood with a minimum of oxygen. The conditions in a hot wildfire include a voracious appetite for oxygen and the end result is fine ash, not charcoal as all the carbon is released.
Once again, the greens, by opposing mild winter burns that are more likely to produce charcoal and release less CO2, are creating the conditions that are most condusive to wildfire. They maximise CO2 emissions and minimise carbon sequestration.
Pathetic. Save the planet from criminal green negligence.
Heh Luke’s trying to get my goat.
That’s amusing.
I’ve calculated a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000007Creduction in global warming due to soil carbon sequestration.
James what are you doing with your goat?
Paul – the post doesn’t say it’s a globally effective mitigation strategy. And your unstated implication is that it’s not worth doing. Well the issue here is that the proponents are asserting that you get the benefit for free by changing land management practice. (well grazing management practice – we’re not talking about cultivated agriculture).
What is interesting though about Australian agriculture is that soils in cropped lands have a very rapid decline in soil carbon after just 30 years of cultivation. Normal cultivation practices do lose a stack of carbon.
WIthout being too much an advocate of the soil carbon proposals I can think a lot of problematic issues with soil carbon storage:
(1) will global warming eventually “burn off” your carbon store as temperatures warm and microbes get more active (maybe add increased droughts in some areas too to reduce sink capacity)
(2) how do you sample meaningfully with considerable soil diversity in small areas. Will paddock variation confound detection of a “management effect” or give “false improvements”. A stats problem for someone.
(3) there’s really not mnay good soil carbon studies in Australia outside cropping systems (and not that many in cropping either)
(4) some interesting tricks with soils – you need to know bulk density to get the numbers right – we have strange soils like cracking clays which swell when wet, also the taking of a soil sample can confound bulk density measurements if not done well. Are the “samplers” up to it?
(5) what carbon analysis method will they use. There are different “pools” of soil carbon. Inert like charcoal and more volatile like organic matter. Walkley-Black methods and all that jazz. http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=SR01092
(6) Are soil sinks dependent on climate variability. Might a few El Nino years run down your sink. Or a few La Ninas build it up. Should a farmer/grazier get paid simply for better climate. How do you separate out the climate and management effects?
(7) how long do you have to keep the carbon there? Forever? Do you have to pay money back if the sink reduces?
I see the use of such schemes are transitory only offering some offsetting capability in a transition to a low carbon economy. A maybe a lost cost win win. However as a global long term strategy for controlling CO2 emissions??
A cynic might also add that perhaps better pastures have a lower albedo and be “warmer” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Albedo-e_hg.svg
How’d you do your calculation anyway?
Straw man thread, Luke.
Huh?
All those considerations are small beer, Luke, compared to the massive potential contribution of sound woodland and forest management that has been denied by ignorant green policies.
The sequestration of Carbon by thickenning is only a once-off event (and already half over) under the current rules that deem the emission to take place when a tree is cut down. If the emission is recorded as taking place when the charcoal breaks dowen in the soil then the woodland can continue in a (30 year?) cycle of growth (sequestration) and harvest-storage for the next millenium.
And that means, for Australia alone, 60 million tonnes of carbon per year times 1000 years or 60Gigatonnnes for the duration of the first charcoal storage.
Put another way, 60m tonnes carbon = 220m tonnes CO2 or 40% of current national emissions, worth $1.8 Billion a year, that will not be off-set because of green ignorance and negligence. And that is from the woodlands only. Double those numbers for the combined management of forests and woodlands.
And one small correction, Australian soils used to lose charcoal after cultivation but the story was never as bad as claimed. For a start, most cropping paddocks are not cultivated every year. Even sugar cane is worked under a three or four year ratoon system. Furthermore, we only ever cultivated less than 2% of our farmland and zero-till technology is now widespread.
And you can’t have it both ways. Either GW is going to produce dryer conditions and therefore less microbial activity to break down charcoal, or it is going to produce wetter conditions that increase microbial activity. Or are you now claiming all of the above as and when it suits you?
Helen: “Old trees, no longer sequestering carbon, on being cut down, have their roots left in the ground. That is half the weight of the tree. Reestablishing young trees in their place would increas the rate of carbon sequestration in the area”
Some 100 year old gum tree stumps on my place in Tas had to be taken apart with a D24 during the 1980’s.
Ancient giants that had fallen each took out a lump of earth the size of a decent family house so the dozer also had to smooth that lot too. Split post and wire fences remained in the bush where fires missed. Regrowth on neighboring properties went to the Tamar wood chip mill during the 1990’s.
Luckily that stringy bark grows in more than one state but most native species with a tap root system have up to 2/3rds of their stem bulk below soil level for much of their earlier life. However there is no way regrowth competes with oldgrowth for solid wood volumes.
Most of the old stumps on our place could still hide the Kingswood inside the buttress after many attempts by previous farmers to burn them out. Alternatively, camping between stumps was quite interesting as a result. Trouble was those fires had let the bull ant colonies right into the dry wood.
Howzat for myth busting?
Ian – the BIG issue here is that these guys have bypassed govt and the AGO and are dealing with people who are prepared to deal.
Nothing to stop yourself and colleagues forming a consortium and ringing up FEX if you choose http://www.fexclimate.com/Public/
If they’ll deal with you – you’re away and AGO free as I see it?? You tell me – you’re the self-made man and business guru.
(Safe Harbour statement: Not that that is a business recommendation from me, and the projections have been based on certain forward looking assumptions …. page of business legalese follows etc… caveat emptor}.
On your nitpick – warmer has been mooted to increase microbial activity.
Drier conditions will grow less plants and sequester less biomass. Forward projection issue.
I was actually trying to have a discussion actually and get some ecophysiological input from luminaries such as yourself.
Problem with trees as I see it – takes land out of production (perhaps), trees uses water – catchment hydrology impacts – Rob Vertessy etc, they can catch fire, and very touchy persons such as yourself which need to be dealt with in flame retardant suits.
The alleged benefit of the pasture system is that it’s a side effect from better grazing management.
BTW the carbon decline graphs on cropped land sequences are pretty compelling (IMO).
Reality though is we do not know a lot about soil carbon in this country.
Rundown in soil science research of course. Either retiring or not signing up to do boring stuff like that.
So private enterprise has snatched it and is off !
But yea agree – there’s plenty of wealth in them thar trees if you could legally realise it. On the thickening – given it’s fire – you should only get the increase in the rate of thickening from now on. (that’s assuming you’d agree to a baseline which you probably won’t)
Actually just thought of another nitpicky conundrum – you’d have to adjust for the plant CO2 fertilisation effect??
ANYWAY Ian – devastate us – get onto FEX and get the forestry sorted out !!
Luke: Back in the 60’s when I first started looking a eucalypts for land care and reclamation projects after agriculture, forestry and mining it was clear authorities everywhere had ignored all the fire resistant mallee types.
Gardeners too ignored our gum trees as a flowering species for drought proof specimens.
It took the likes of Stan Kelly to re-introduce the range of trees we once had over the heads of both forestry and Ag departments.
Sugar gums from SA were mentioned by various officials as alternatives to box from QLD, both were deemed ideal in quiet plantings for Victoria. Smooth bark lemon scented gums also from QLD seemed appropriate for urban parks because our cooler climate tended to stunt their individual growth. I could go on but I resell many familiar books on native plants first printed back in the 1970’s.
The public at large is quite keen today in my neck of the woods. In fact, the ACT population is eager for more info on everything environmental. Many w/e customers are in land care projects overseas or have their own blocks here. I’m just so glad we still have the genes.
A eucalypt is like a pyramid with its root base deep down. In shifting seedlings round the country we have already learned a lot. I appreciate good tips from beekeepers. I kept an old copy (1938) of “The Honey and Pollen Flora of New South Wales” by W A Goodacre, Senior Apiary Instructor because it shows Blackbutt and Tallow Wood forest as it was in b & w photos.
I have been curious for a long time about the natural habitat of “Broad Leafed & Smooth Barked Apple”. Angophora seems to mimic the eucalypt in both distribution and form and is noted for pollen, not honey.
Timber from the rest of the forest is not the only issue either. Most of these big buts contain a good deal of water. The mature forest then becomes its own reservoir and that’s most important to the whole soil ecology.
Ian Mott have you backed up your envelope lately? Got any references to share?
Some Big numbers
Science 11 June 2004:
Vol. 304. no. 5677, pp. 1623 – 1627
Soil Carbon Sequestration Impacts on Global Climate Change and Food Security
R. Lal
The carbon sink capacity of the world’s agricultural and degraded soils is 50 to 66% of the historic carbon loss of 42 to 78 gigatons of carbon. The rate of soil organic carbon sequestration with adoption of recommended technologies depends on soil texture and structure, rainfall, temperature, farming system, and soil management. Strategies to increase the soil carbon pool include soil restoration and woodland regeneration, no-till farming, cover crops, nutrient management, manuring and sludge application, improved grazing, water conservation and harvesting, efficient irrigation, agroforestry practices, and growing energy crops on spare lands. An increase of 1 ton of soil carbon pool of degraded cropland soils may increase crop yield by 20 to 40 kilograms per hectare (kg/ha) for wheat, 10 to 20 kg/ha for maize, and 0.5 to 1 kg/ha for cowpeas. As well as enhancing food security, carbon sequestration has the potential to offset fossilfuel emissions by 0.4 to 1.2 gigatons of carbon per year, or 5 to 15% of the global fossil-fuel emissions.
Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, The Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
I’m told an extensive fence line study between cropped and undisturbed sites in Central Queensland found a 40% reduction in soil carbon
Charcoal on the outside of logs seems to decrease (not abolish) fungal decay and termite munching. I think somebody at ANU did a PhD on this a few years ago. Reduction of decay will reduce CO2 emissions, and reduction of termite munching will decrease termite methane farting. Has anybody studied changes in decay and termite flatulence? What effect might these have on the atmosphere? Minor, or major? There’s a lot of it going on, y’know.