HOW many times have you heard it said, the science is settled, we will have catastrophic global warming unless we change our ways and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions?
While the “science might be settled” it does not seem to be well understood.
At least there has been a dramatic rise in key greenhouse gases in the past last two years, in particular methane, but temperatures have not gone up.
In fact, global temperatures are falling. That’s right – falling.
While Australian farmers have been told they should make a transition from cows to kangaroos to reduce their greenhouse gas emission, in particular emissions of methane, it is increasingly unclear that such a dramatic action, even if it was undertaken, would have any effect on global methane levels.
The amount of methane in Earth’s atmosphere shot up in 2007, bringing to an end a period of about a decade in which atmospheric levels of the potent greenhouse gas were essentially stable.
At least that’s according to a team of scientists led by Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn at the esteemed Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) with their findings about to be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Methane in the atmosphere comes from a variety of sources including cattle, rice paddies, the coal industry.
It is destroyed by reaction with the hydroxyl free radical (OH), often referred to as the atmosphere’s “cleanser.”
A surprising feature of the recent surge in atmospheric methane levels is that it occurred almost simultaneously at all measurement locations across the world.
The scientists say a rise in northern hemispheric emissions may be due to the warm conditions observed in Siberia throughout 2007, potentially leading to increased bacterial emissions from wetland areas. However, a potential cause for the increase in the southern hemisphere is less clear.
It was thought an explanation for the rise may lie, at least in part, with a drop in the concentrations of the methane-destroying OH.
Theoretical studies, however, indicated that if this had happened, the required global methane emissions rise would have been smaller and more strongly biased to the Northern Hemisphere, so this can’t really explain the simultaneous rise in methane levels that have occurred all around the world either.
Indeed while the science of climate change is according to some “settled”, there really is a lot we don’t understand.
Not even our Federal Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, can guarantee that a dramatic change in how Australian farmers go about their business would have any effect on global temperatures.
First published in The Land, on November 13, 2008.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
This whole debate is the biggest furphy since, well, Garnaut and himself, go Gundagai!
All livestock including dare I say it ourselves first gorge on forage comprising carbon derived from photosynthesis of atmospheric CO2, and then exhale some of it either in CO2 or CH4, partly depending on which end (I speak from surviving both a gastroscopy and a colonoscopy , i.e. both ends, last week). This process creates the carbohydrate on which our lives depend. Sans CO2, sans life, as Shakespeare would have said, but he didn’t need to, being both more intelligent and better informed than the Barry Brooks, Peter Singers, Geoff Russells and Ross Garnauts of this world. That means, pace Kyoto and Greenpeace, neither us nor our sheep, goats, and cattle can expire/exhale more CO2/CH4 than we have imbibed in the first place. Sadly, it is true that the whole scientific community that has sold itself to the IPCC knows but denies this truth. The same community knows that the core wood in all trees is already physiologically dead when logged, but not according to the Kyoto Protocol as crafted by Greenpeace and WWF, both of which would be nothing but for their lies. Wood products can be shown to last for millennia, but not according to Kyoto, Prince Charles, and his serially dishonest adviser, Lord Stern, who all assume that all carbon is oxidised instantaneously with logging.
It follows, dear Jen, that livestock (and us) are incapable of emitting more greenhouse gases than they/we have removed from the atmosphere. Try telling that to the ludicrous Ms Wong, but it is the ineluctible scientific – repeat, scientific- truth! (Were it not so, Ms Wong would have produced a new Law, that matter can be created from nothing, although she does exemplify that herself, a huge zero before the election a year ago)
Gee did you really need a gastroscopy and a colonoscopy to find out that you’re emitting crap from both ends.
I guess you know where all soil carbon from the land now in Class D condition has gone?
And would not a molecule of methane have greater warming potential than a molecule of CO2. Not for activist denialists like Timmy.
I guess you have a nice little ideotype ecosystem drawn on your wall with little girls patting tigers too.
“In fact, global temperatures are falling. That’s right – falling.”
Temps are going down? What?
What data are you using? Not UAH that’s for sure…
NT
Yes UAH http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah
Jennifer how do do you milk a Kangaroo?
NT, having milked cows by hand, I am in no hurry to get near the kick end of a roo.
Luke (Phd) riducule is an inadequate response from a scientist. It indicates ignorance hiding behind authority. I am sure you can be more informative and less abusive than that. Remember, this article was first published in The Land, a leading Agricultural weekly. Its readership is largely farmers.
Aside from the (perhaps temporary) inconvenience of atmospheric methane levels rising, while atmospheric temperatures have fallen, I, as a farmer (and no doubt other farmers) would be interested in the following:
As I understand it, methane is a by product of digestion of plant residue, mainly cellulose. The three big consumers are bacteria, termites and other animals.
1 What is the estimated percentage of atmospheric methane contribution by each group?
2 Of the animals, what is the estmated percentage contribution of domesticated ruminants?
3 A clear description of the methane cycle please, using basic chemistry.
4 What percentage of our atmosphere (ppm) is methane?
If non abusive explanations to the above are above your pay grade, then please leave the expanations to others.
Helen Mahar
Your questions cannot be answered the way you want them (i.e. simply).
The Methane that has recently ‘appeared’ seems to have come from decaying organic matter in what was permafrost and from beneath near-offshore areas.
Methane is produced by anaerobic bacteria, it requires reducing conditions (a negative Eh) and an abundant source of organic matter.
There is no ‘Methane cycle’ per se. It oxidises in the atmosphere fairly quickly to CO2 and H2O.
Methane is measured in ppb (parts per billion), so there isn’t very much (thankfully).
“I guess you know where all soil carbon from the land now in Class D condition has gone?”
This is one feedback you cannot have. Sorry.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/11/17/2421790.htm
Thanks, NT.
Going by the first rule of toxicology – The poison is in the dose – methane in the atmosphere is so minute as to be statistically insignificant re temperature effect. And we have had this withchhunting kerfuffle against domisticated ruminants cooking the planet? Bollocks. And the witch-huners want us to pay methane/carbon taxes for priviledge of feeding them?
So methane oxidises quickly to CO2 and H2O. Gets us back to the real issue – CO2 levels rising lately while temperatures falling.
Every one of the billions of termite mounds dotting most of our landscape is a small methane generator. Much, probably most, of the grass eaten by cattle would otherwise be consumed by termites and result in methane generation. The net increase in methane from cattle would be very small if any.
“Amused” – no mate – that soil carbon resource is now gone – washed down the creek with the top soil – doesn’t exist anymore.
Helen – methane production from ruminants is well known and substantially researched. The system we have of replacing our natural systems with millions of cattle and sheep has produced a constant flux of methane with a much higher warming potential than CO2. That flux is ongoing regardless of any atmospheric decomposition. Termites are irrelevant – an important number overall but in net change terms – part of the background.
This blog loves to quote AGO as source for greenhouse statistics so are we now saying that they’ve done their maths incorrectly?
On a similar issue there is a major program in the NT by ConocoPhillips, the NT government and local aboriginal associations to reduce the intensity of savanna fires. CO2 production from fires is not counted in this as in this part Curtin’s mass balance argument holds. What’s burnt is again sequestered by new growth. However the methane and nitrous oxide production from fewer hot fires is much reduced and that’s a major benefit.
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/PurdonSavannaManagement17August07/$File/Purdon%20Savanna%20Management%2017%20August%2007.pdf
Also positive impacts on biodiversity, cultural sites and aboriginal employment and development. A hard nosed ConocoPhillips is putting in $1M per annum for 17 years on greenhouse mitigation by fire management.
And there is considerable research on feed quality and novel microbial methods of reducing methane production.
However – understand what I’m saying Helen – personally I am not saying to go after the grazing industries – I am not saying we all eat kangaroos – indeed Australia’s agricultural industries are ill positioned to take the hit of a carbon tax. – but the net increase in contribution of greenhouse gas warming potential from production of domestic animals is considerable. THE major part of Australia’s agricultural industries.
However trying to to bulldust your way out by ridiculing the issue and laying on the rhetoric about witchhunters doesn’t wash. And for heavens sake don’t take Timmy Curtin with to negotiate – they’ll have him for brekky.
The problem with your little mantra, Luke, is that here we are in 2008 with a global mean temperature that is essentially no different to the global mean temperature of 1979. So any warming that might have been observed over the past 29 years has dissipated. It is really quite simple. The warmth that was there is not there now. It is an “ex-warmth”. It did not go away as a result of any reduction in human GHG emissions so it can only be a result of natural variation.
More importantly, almost exactly 50% of all the increase in atmospheric CO2 has taken place since 1979. That is 49ppm of a total increase of 103ppm (@ Mauna Loa) and what do the climate mafia have to show for it? Absolutely zero temperature change over three decades. And absolutely zero warming after 257Gt of additional CO2.
And spare us the predictable guff about moving averages still trending up. The record of fact demonstrates that the global measure of retained warmth has dropped. Ergo, the amount of retained heat is not what it was. That is what happens when a temperature declines. Get used to it.
It also follows that once the past heat has gone, it cannot contribute to a subsequent accumulation. Heat cannot take stress leave. It cannot decide that it is all a bit much and go on a prozac holiday, to return to duty at a later date. So any subsequent warming will be a consequence of contributive factors from here on. No sign of any “runaway warming” any time soon.
And all this non-warming is taking place in a year with a large but still as yet unstated increase in a GHG, methane, that is supposedly 21 times more potent than CO2. So not only have the primary drivers not worked as the climate muddlers claim they should. The feedbacks have all come back to a big zippo as well.
Must be time for you to curl up under the desk and take comfort from “Mr thumb” in the foetal position.
Thanks Luke. Actually the FAO’s report on Livestock’s (alleged) Long Shadow shows in its Tables 3.6 and 3.7 that total livestock emissions of CO2 are 3.16 GtC p.a., and of CH4 85.6 million tonnes, for a ratio of CO2:CH4 of 37:1. This explains why Brook-Singer-Russell in their influential Submission (2008) to the Garnaut Review raised the IPCC’s global warming potential ratio for CH4:CO2 from 21:1 to 72:1, an assertion yet to appear in a peer-reviewed paper but accepted by Garnaut in his decision to appease Brook & co by eliminating sheep and cattle raising through their inclusion in his ETS without crediting them for the carbon they absorb and store.
Yes Walter, and down south where termites do not build mounds (to escape monsoon flooding?) they are still pretty active, especially in the lower rainfall areas suitable for broadacre grazing / cropping. Busy little sods.
The type of information I would like – by how much does methane produced by grazing of domestic ruminants exceed methane produced by termites on similar/identical landscapes. Have any field trials been done – to assess the obviously existing computer models? The logical question to follow: is the amount of excess, if any, significant enough to matter?
Luke, I did not like your abuse of a contributor, but my questions were related to the original article. As for my loss of objectivity re ‘witch hunters’, that was not my normal style. But do not underestimate the cynicism and anger within rural communities at those who do not hesitate to jump onto any excuse to typecast, demonise and disparage farmers. We have had decades of this Luke, including dished out to our kids in schools. While you may exempt yourself from the type, they exist, and are very vocal. Australia is selective regarding which minorities it is safe to disparage.
Now, have any field trials been done to check the computer models re comparative methane emissions? Would like to read them.
Helen Mahar
Why do think a small amount of methane can’t affect the climate?
Perhaps you should read about the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum.
Methane is far more potent than CO2 and has resulted in substantial climate change.
If you want to learn about this, I would suggest trying anywhere else but here. If you have a university nearby, contact the staff in the Faculty of Agriculture. Or perhaps email them if they are not very close. Contrary to what people say around here most scientists will discuss there work and are quote available. The information thrown around here is typically very low quality and is contaminated with political spin.
Helen – well I don’t like the ongoing abuse by contrarians either. And I’m not going around demonising farmers either. We’re not talking computer models – it’s observed emissions from real animals.
A major review http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/72/issue/4052.htm
In fact reducing methane emissions may yield liveweight gains in domestic stock. A positive benefit.
Luke sidesteps, again. So perhaps he could advise us on the NET FLUX in methane from grazing vs ungrazed landscapes, particularly with respect to ungrazed landscapes in the absence of firestick management. Lets have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Surely this is all hypothetical as no one so far has developed a farming method for Roos. I know someone at a Brisbane Uni tried but I never that heard he was successful.
Luke when have I ever abused you? I see however that you have not responded to my last. Methane may be 21 or even 72 times more powerful than CO2, but the absolute atmos. quantities are small, at only 1.77 ppm (less than 0.5% of the CO2 level) and its atmos level has not been growing very much since 1990 despite the considerable increase in livestock numbers since then. In addition the calculation of relative radiative forcing of CH4 is itself murky, as shown by the tripling achieved by Brook &co just like that. But so what anyway, with Rudd’s war on employment across the whole economy, not just the graziers, this argument is of academic interest only.
Methane; the bogeyman and obstensible author of such events as the PETM, which incidentally didn’t have the highest temperatures; the Holocene Optimum which followed did and saw the most prolithic expansion of life on the planet; the mass extinction which followed the HO, at around 36 mya, called the “Great Cut” featured rapidly droping temperatures and a greater rate of extinction than the PETM; still CH4 has the rep, which is why Siberian Peat is whispered in hushed tones; CH4 is supposed to be a much more powerful GHG than CO2 because it has about 20 combinations of Hydrogen which can vibrate; but if more than one combination of Hydrogen vibration occurs wouldn’t the quatum state of the molecule be raised to a level where it ceases to be sensitive to SU, upward IR, thus creating very quickly a saturated state?
Comment from: Luke November 18th, 2008 at 9:54 am
“Amused” – no mate – that soil carbon resource is now gone – washed down the creek with the top soil – doesn’t exist anymore.
Where to Luke? Look up ‘terra preta’ the Amazonian soils of a civilization over 500 years ago that still give yields up to 80% greater than other local soils because of their high carbon content.
I’m doing my own little experiment with charcoal from a charcoal oven that converts wood trash to hard carbon, in my vegetable patch, looking promising so far!
One reason I am avoiding any input to the PETM event is the problem of geological dating that has been dealt a serious body blow with the discovery that radiogenic dating is faulty, putting a euphemistic slant to it.
‘Washed down the creek with the topsoil-doesn’t exist anymore’.
Well looking at soil layers or stratas in exposed creek banks, for instance, tells of massive erosion events long before european settlement in this country.
In fact modern agriculture has arrested erosion with thicker improved pastures which return more organic matter to the soil through the beneficial grazing of cattle and sheep. Water retention is greater and there are certainly more trees today, in areas observed by Surveyor Mitchell in the 1830’s.
Before european settlement, thousands of years of aborigional use of fire probably contributed to some of those massive erosion events. Also before civilisation advanced, whole continents would burn during drought years from lightning strikes, with no one to put them out.. Until heavy rain came….And then massive erosion!
It’s all there to see in the creek bank… But then we cant complain, because that is where some of our best soils have come from.
Hello Sidney Roynolds,
Interesting observations – where are you, geographically wise; sheep country?
What baloney Sid – soil carbon rundown is well documented. Soil loss and therefore soil carbon loss is well documented across northern Australia. As for erosion and aboriginal burning – nope not with small patch mosaics.
The whole history of European land degradation from interactions of overgrazing and domestic stock are well documented. Take the Gascoyne in WA as one example – no more A horizon ! Down to the B …. (now add in NE Qld , Central Australia, SW Queensland, NSW Western Division etc etc )
As for cropping land – soil carbon rundown starts the day after land clearing.
“modern agriculture has arrested erosion with thicker improved pastures which return more organic matter to the soil through the beneficial grazing of cattle and sheep” – how flippin laughable when most of the grazing is on extensive native grassland systems.
So dear readers – this is what we call “denial” – not even on the same page.
Cohenite,
“the mass extinction which followed the HO, at around 36 mya, called the “Great Cut” featured rapidly droping temperatures and a greater rate of extinction than the PETM; still CH4 has the rep, which is why Siberian Peat is whispered in hushed tones; CH4 is supposed to be a much more powerful GHG than CO2 because it has about 20 combinations of Hydrogen which can vibrate; but if more than one combination of Hydrogen vibration occurs wouldn’t the quatum state of the molecule be raised to a level where it ceases to be sensitive to SU, upward IR, thus creating very quickly a saturated state?”
Did you just make all of this up?
Here is a geological time scale:
http://www.stratigraphy.org/cheu.pdf
You will note when the Paleocene, Eocene and Holocene were. You great Cut was at the end of the Eocene. Which was the start of the glaciations that left Antarctica under ice.
So if you were interested in science at all you would ask, what caused the Eocene ‘Great Cut”? What caused the sudden drop in temp??
The Holocene optimum happened a few thousand years ago.
“but if more than one combination of Hydrogen vibration occurs wouldn’t the quatum state of the molecule be raised to a level where it ceases to be sensitive to SU, upward IR, thus creating very quickly a saturated state?””
How can the quantum state of a particular molecule mean that the gas is ‘saturated’ quickly?
Sorry, I meant Eocene Optimum. Saturated means the molecule is no longer receptive to a wavelength or wavelengths; with a ‘super greenhouse gas’ like methane, because it has more vibrational options nominally means it is receptive to a greater wavelength spread; but once one of the vibrational options has been used the molecule is no longer receptive to any wavelength.
So tell me wise one, what did cause the Eocene Cut? CO2 levels were still much higher than today remember.
Cohenite, if a molecule has a greater wavelength spread, doesn’t that mean it takes longer for it to be saturated? I thought the reason CO2 was apparently saturated was because all the wavelengths it could absorb were filled. Having more available wavelengths (especially if they’re in regions not covered by other gases) would mean it would take longer to ‘saturate’.
As to the Eocence cut. It was probably due to cooling, that triggered the start of glaciation in Antartica.
From Wikipedia
“This was a time of major climatic change, especially cooling, not obviously linked with any single major impact or any major volcanic event. One cause of the extinction event is speculated to be volcanic activity. Another speculation is that the extinctions are related to several meteorite impacts that occurred about this time. One such event happened near present-day Chesapeake Bay, and another in Central Siberia, scattering debris perhaps as far as Europe. The leading scientific theory on climate cooling at this time is decrease in atmospheric CO2, which slowy declined in the mid to late Eocene and possibly reached some threshold approximately 34 million years ago.
This boundary is closely linked with the Oligocene Oi-1 event, an oxygen isotope excursion that marks the beginning of ice sheet coverage on Antarctica.”
Despite the use of the word ‘cooling’ it was still much warmer than today.
Wikipedia as a source of good information on anything climate change considering Connelly’s deft hand it editing?
Reading NT’s extract tells me they don’t know.
It is then amazing how much waffle could be uttered not knowing anything. Geological waffle to boot.
Hello Louis,
Central Tablelands, NSW. 520 to 600 meters, twenty six inch av. annual rainfall, mainly breeding and fattening cattle on a mix of improved and natural pastures.
And what a weak rant from Luke; maybe he is happy to live on roo shanks from now on.
Louis it is interesting what you say about radiogenic dating being faulty. I don’t know whether it’s possible to date soil profiles, in a river bank for instance. But I do know that one only has to observe these soil profiles, and such things as gullies on a hillside or mountain side, which a long time before european civilisation, must have been open raw eroded channels but now are gentler well grassed waterways,— to know that there were far more savage erosion events before european settlement, than since.
One wonders how much soil carbon was lost in these major events… With no white fella to blame.
Luke: ““Amused” – no mate – that soil carbon resource is now gone – washed down the creek with the top soil – doesn’t exist anymore.”
To which we wonder how the soil profile was formed in the first place. As a once only thing? Closet Creationist are we Luke, or like SJT, you know SFA about the topic.
Hello Sidney
Oh right, I was basing my experience from the little data from Wooleen in the Gascoyne/Murchison district in WA. Pollocks, (who own Wooleen) have destocked the sheep and put cattle on instead.
Hugh Pringle, a geomorphologist, put the idea that, in WA at least, there was a once off erosion event in the Murchison region 150 years ago when we put sheep in the area. Pastoralists then made watering holes along the major drainages and the sheep trashed them. Result was a once off erosion which causes the soil profile to laterally move a couple of hundred metres downslope. Now it is stable but the remnant landscape is misinterpreted.
Luke, being a computer jockey, has no experience of physical reality of this, I venture.
As for Pringle’s interpretation of the recent landscape evolution from the introduction of cloven hoofed animals, confirmation exists in heavy mineral distribution from diamond sampling in the Murchison.
As for your observations concerning soil profiles, you are onto something.
The problem with Luke’s sleazy departmental deception on soil loss in Australia is that so many of our rivers that drain agricultural land have Dams and impoundments on them that, if soil loss is anywhere near as bad as they claim, should have silted up long ago.
Indeed, The barrages have been in place at the mouth of the Murray for more than half a century and the depth of Lake Alexandrina has remained in the order of 3 metres during all this time. So where is all this soil being lost too?
The MDB drains an area of 100 million hectares so even if just one tonne of soil is lost each year, occupying a volume of 0.5m3 then some 50 million m3 should be laid down on the bottom of Lake Alexandrina each year. Divide that 50 million m3 by the 86,000ha of the lake and we get 581m3/ha of lake bottom or a 58mm layer of annual deposition. Multiply that by the 55 odd years of the barrage and we get a depth of 3.2 metres.
That is, Lake Alexandrina should be full to the brim with silt.
Do the same maths for the Beardmore Dam on the Condamine and it should be completely full of silt, as should every other storage in the system. But in fact, the “official line” is that soil loss of more than 10 tonnes/ha is very common in the basin. And poor old Luke has suggested that entire “A” horizons have gone. So lets take alook at this end of the deception.
Ten tonnes of soil is about 5m3 in volume. So divide this by the 10,000m2 in a hectare and we get a claimed annual loss of soil depth of, (wait for it) 0.5 of a millimetre. A one tonne annual loss would be only 0.05 of a millimetre each year. So even after 100 years of continuous cropping, a ten tonne annual soil loss will only lower the soil horizon by 50mm. Yet, most of our cropped soils are on deep aluvial flood plains with soil depth in excess of 100 metres.
With a one tonne annual soil loss the depth will drop by only 5mm over a century.
But even a one tonne/ha average annual soil loss is completely inconsistent with the recorded silt deposition rates in our key storage structures. Even a lowly 0.1 tonne/ha is not supported by the evidence of deposition, and that takes us back to only 0.5mm of lost depth in the paddock after a century of claimed degradation.
Of course, the missing element in this equation is the volume of deposition on land downstream. But this is likely to also be crop land on flood plains and they will actually be increasing in soil depth. Indeed, evidence of past fence lines being found completely covered by silt deposition are not unusual on down stream crop land.
As usual, the “official line” from the so-called “custodians” of the landscape just does not reconcile with the key evidence.
What a load of drivel by our usual industry apologist with quickie back o’ the envelope. Loss of top soil is a well considered problem. Your knowledge of soil movement is landscapes is a giggle. I’m stunned – this is weak even by your standards.
So you think the soil must go right through a whole system from top of the catchment to the bottom.
And I love the shell game trick – oh look the soil has moved from there to here. But I wonder what “there” now looks like.
Google deposition ratio and particle size distribution and get back to us.
The Gascoyne being a good example. Do some research on the 50% reduction productivity in the 1930s. Or perhaps you’d like a few thousand photographs of the rest of Australia? Pretty hard to deny when you’re down to the B horizon mate.
Some lovely fenceline contrasts too. Flogging shows….
Of course you probably enjoy transferring your soil to your neighbours. Why visit the outback when you can sit on the beach and watch it wash past.
Back to the cows , methane, and the questions I asked. NT told me that atmospheric methane was so minute as to be measured in PPB. No thanks to NT. Tim told me that atmospheric methane was measured at 1.77 ppm, less than 0.5 % of atmospheric carbon – with a heat factor estimated about 21 times that of carbon. Thanks Tim.
NT provided a link that referred to a previous era when both temperature and methane levels were high. Termites were probably around then, but I am not sure about cows. Luke sent me to a heap of research papers about measuring methane production in cows and how to possibly reduce it. (What ARE they doing to those poor cows?).
Then further searches revealed an estimate for termites being responsible for about 20% of atmospheric methane. Found no estimates of % ofdomestic ruminant contribution to atmospheric methane, nor any assessment of amount domestic ruminants are displacing termite methane production So, until told differently, I conclude any displacement factor is conveniently being ignored in the calculations for carbon debits to be attributed to domestic ruminants. I smell cooked books.
Given that Australia is currently emitting about 29% carbon above the 1990 target, that the Australian Government is counting on carbon credits from the cessation of clearing to balance the books to date for all Australians (credits forcibly extracted from farmers), that farmer’s power usage will come under a cap and trade system, as will questionable methane estimates, I conclude that Australian farmers are being set up to carry a hugely disproportionate cost for Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto agreement.
That septic set up is a good incentive for farmers to turn sceptic.
Helen
So sorry for failing you in your quest for information. I did suggest you contact the agriculture dept of your nearest university, but I guess you didn’t.
Anyway, perhaps you could start with Wikipedia. I know a lot of people round here are edgy about Wikipedia, but generally it’ll get you started.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane
Or just go to Wikipedia and search on methane, it has answers to pretty much all your questions.
“Found no estimates of % ofdomestic ruminant contribution to atmospheric methane, nor any assessment of amount domestic ruminants are displacing termite methane production So, until told differently, I conclude any displacement factor is conveniently being ignored in the calculations for carbon debits to be attributed to domestic ruminants. I smell cooked books.”
Apparently ruminants are about 115 Tg/a whereas termites are 20Tg/a. Ruminants seem to be the second biggest single source.
I stress though, contact a university, don’t rely on the info you get here… It’ll be poor quality.
I don’t know if Termites were around in the Paleocene, but trees (as in the flowering kind we have in Australia) didn’t evolve into big things until sometime after the Cretaceous. So there may have been termites around. The methane in the Paleocene couldn’t have come from a biological origin, it was either from clathrates, a big volcanic event or from a large comet. Most likely clathrates.
“I conclude that Australian farmers are being set up to carry a hugely disproportionate cost for Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto agreement.
That septic set up is a good incentive for farmers to turn sceptic.”
I think you are missing what could be a gold mine. If anyone is set to take advantage of carbon credits, it’s farmers. Perrenial pastures, biofuels, tree farms… All will be advantaged.
People worst hit will be the coal and gas industries.
I am pleased to note that Luke at last accepts my data on livestock emissions, but not as yet NT. Why do so many including all involved in the Garnaut report have such difficulty with gross and net concepts? Livestock’s gross emissions of CO2 and CH4 may seem big but are at most net zero and are in fact net negative once you do full carbon accounting taking into account total numbers (a concept too far for the DCC formerly AGO). Similarly Garnaut like Stern formally admits that there are uptakes and that emissions need only be reduced to that level, but to create maximum dislocation in furtherance of the Rudd-Wong war on employment he then wants global emissions to fall to less than 20% of current uptakes, on the specious and spurious grounds that all sinks are already saturated, so that any new tree planting etc must fail because of said saturation (see Canadell et al passim). But then Garnaut tells us that actually new forests can sequester carbon. This proves he has never read a word of his own report, put together as it was by a team of hired shonks, since that passage contradicts his own Fig.2.7. BTW, his estimate of CO2 reaching 1000 ppm by 2100 derives from the ultimate and chief shonk, Tom Wigley, who deftly doubled the actual rate of growth of atmospheric CO2 since 1958 of less than 0.5% pa. to 1% p.a. from now until 2100, which neatly produces 1000 ppm from today’s 385, a figure duly endorsed as gospel by the gullible Garnaut-Wong mobs. Never has there been a Report like Garnaut’s so demonstrably lacking in any due diligence with its vapid acceptance of any and all rubbish spouted by the Wigleys and Canadells and Karolys that are spreading across this pleasant land like the worst weeds. NT, I see you implicitly left out graziers and dairy farmers from your listing of “all” beneficiaries of ETS. What would the pastures be for in the absence of the livestock that the ETS is designed to eliminate?
Tim, you must have me confused with someone else. I have never advocated the removal of livestock.
Helen Mahar asked some questions, which I attempted to answer. I also recommended she actually talk to people doing research.
“I see you implicitly left out graziers and dairy farmers from your listing of “all” beneficiaries of ETS. ”
I didn’t attempt to list all, that is something in your head. I simply pointed out there will be many ways for farmers to take advantage of the ETS.
The ETS is going to happen, don’t you think time would be better spent attempting to work out how to get farmers to profit from it rather than moaning.
Hi NT, we may be at cross purposes, but we are talking about the Garnaut ETS which is aimed at ending livestock raising in Australia and worldwide, in favour of kangaroos. See The Australian, 1st October 2008, “Eat Kangaroo to help combat climate change”: “[Garnaut cites researchers who] conclude that by 2020, beef cattle and sheep numbers in the rangelands could be reduced by seven million and 36 million respectively, and that this would create the opportunity for an increase in kangaroo numbers from 34 million today to 240million by 2020”. The Report did not mention the impact of these reductions on Australia’s exports of beef (which account for two-thirds of total production), wool, and sheep. The same applies to all others covered by the ETS. They can only profit by themselves developing energy sources that emit less than grid electricity or ‘fossil” fuels, as that is the only way to earn by selling un-needed permits. In reality most EITE firms (ie either exporting or exposed to imports) will be driven out of business by the de facto carbon tax – which is what ETS really is – since that is likely to settle at $45 per tonne, which for the industries listed in the Appendix to the Green Paper, amounts to an effective additional profits tax of 100% for all whose emissions amount to 30% or more per $1 million of gross sales (since most firms are lucky if they achieve gross margins of 30% of sales). Sadly, since the Australian public service and Reserve Bank became branches of the ALP some 25 years ago, none of them know the difference between sales and profits, as shown so brilliantly by the Green Paper and Garnaut Report (he is a lifelong affiliate of the ALP).
NT, I should amend my penultimate sentence, it is activities whose emissions in tonnes per $1 million are more than 6,670 who incur an ETS tax of 30% of revenue, so in effect 100% of gross margin if that is 30%. This applies to aluminium and beef cattle. For other sectors, such as cement, sheep, and dairy cattle, the ETS doubles their current corporate tax to all-in 60%. For all whose emissions exceed 1500 tonnes per $1 million of sales, the all-in tax rate becomes over 50% on gross margins of 30% or more. As New Zealand has discovered most tree planting is disallowed under Kyoto. Rio Tinto, one of Australia’s top ten companies, had operating profit at 32% of gross sales of US$30 billion in six months to end June 2008. Aluminium accounted for 40% of gross sales and would be liable to ETS of A$4 billion (at the near parity USD/A$ rate at that time), or 40% of its total operating profit, without taking into account the emissions of its other operations. When I speak of the Rudd war on employment I am not joking.
Tim, excuse me while I pick my jaw up from the floor. There, now, that’s better. Take a deep breath …
Garnaut may be an economist, but does he understand anything whatsoever about basic accounting/bookkeeping?
A very simple explanation of terms for readers who have never had to run a business …
Gross margin is revenue (gross sales) less actual costs of production. Both sales and costs of production vary according to how many widgets are made, acres cropped, livestock run etc, and how much product is sold at what price.
Then the fixed costs and overheads are deducted like Council rates, govt charges, office, advertising, accountancy, depreciation, Insurance, etc, etc, to get net profit.
With the financial crisis and sales dropping, many businesses are already struggling to make any net profit. These businesses have to cut costs to survive – eg dismissing employees.
The ATO goes after net profit. You are telling us that an ETS would go after gross sales??? That WILL close down businesses – and jobs, wholesale. And fast. Hellishing fast.
Helen: I know it beggars belief, but the Garnaut ETS requires emitters to purchase permits for 100% of their CO2 emissions. For Rio’s aluminium operations, the full year’s cost would be up to US$8 billion (depending on the exchange rate) over a full year, or 66% of its Al. gross sales revenue, i.e. before taking into account operating costs. As aluminium is laregely exported, Rio cannot pass on permit costs to its customers escept in the EU, nor to its local customers as they can buy from China or Japan. The Garnaut report gives no indication that this would be tax deductible, and I think we can assume not, since that would dilute the intention, which is indeed, as Garnaut specifically admits, to drive all aluminium production here offshore (to Kinshasa is the great man’s suggestion). Now your business probably does not emit as much per dollar of gross sales as Rio’s Al., but the principle is the same, the costs of ETS permits are a tax like council rates except that evidently they are not a tax deductible expense. You can avoid them by passing on the cost to your buyers, by not buying any energy, or by generating your own solar and wind power, since for many years to come most grid power and fuel will still be carbon emitting, or by closing down. You sound surprised, evidently you are not aware Ms Wong and all the green NGOs want you to close down unless you decarbonise and soon. And please do not mention net profit again, at least not in front of Luke, NT, and the children, as that is climate porn.