I have changed my mind about participating in the carbon credit program and I have resolved to give the money I received to St Jude’s Children’s Hospital.
Here is why.
Recently I sat in the fire hall with a few dozen farmers. We had been invited to hear how we can get paid for carbon credits.
The speaker explained how their satellites can measure the carbon in our land individually and how much money we could get then asked for questions.
I asked “what is the source of this money”?
The presenter said it comes from big companies that pollute.
I asked “where do they get this money”? He had no answer.
So I answered for him, asking, “Won’t it come from everyone who pays their power bill”? He then agreed and said “that could be”.
I then said isn’t this about the theory of manmade global warming? He said, “We are not going to talk about that”. Here they are on the prairie soliciting land for carbon credits tempting us with free money.
I believe that agreeing to take their money means you agree with taxing cattle gas also, because methane is a greenhouse gas 20 times more powerful than carbon. I believe taking this money without considering its source makes us no better than the bankers who lent money to people, knowing they could not pay it back. Collecting their fees then selling the bad loans in bundles to someone else. They did not care where the money came from either.
Let’s be clear.
Carbon is not a new commodity! No new wealth is being created here! Is this the way we want to make a living? Let me ask you, what if their satellites determine that your land has lost carbon? You will get a bill, not a check, right? If you make a tillage-pass you will get a bill for emitting carbon, is this not correct?
It is also a fact that this income will, in short order, get built into your land cost. You will keep very little and be left with the burden of another bureaucratic program.
Let’s be honest, we feel compelled to take this money because of the need to be competitive, however we also need to hold true to our values and lead by example that means placing our principals ahead of money.
No good citizen is opposed to using the earth’s resources wisely. However, wisdom means a person who has both intelligence and humility. In my view many of the proponents of manmade global warming have the first and lack the second. We are able to exercise our freedom in this country because we have abundant, reliable and affordable power. It is ironic that we sat in front of the flag in that fire hall and considered trading our liberty for money.
I’ll leave you with a quote from Roy Disney: “Decision making becomes easier when your values are clear to you.
*********************
Notes
This short personal essay from “farmer Steve” in North Dakota is republished from Anthony Watt’s Blog, WUWT. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/10/a-farmers-view-on-carbon-credits/
Farmers Union Carbon Credit Program
http://carboncredit.ndfu.org/
North Dakota Carbon Credit Program Pays Off Big http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/5803-1
No equivalent programs currently exist in Australia.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
No equivalent programs currently exist in Australia.
are you sure Jennifer?
http://www.carbonfarmersofaustralia.com.au/Carbon%20Farmers%20Of%20Australia/HOME.html
http://www.grf.org.au/downloads/Carbon_Trading.cj.pdf
Intersting links Janama. Couple of posts proposing trading in complicated financial (and risky) financial derivatives based on sequestering carbon in the soil. Seeing what complicated financial derivatives have already done for us, excuse me if I give these a miss. The businesses flogging the, er, product will make the most profit.
And like the North Dokata Farmer, I would not feel comfortable making money out of the poor sods who will mostly fund this whole ETS tax – the battlers with sky rocketing power and fuel bills, and jobs disappearing overseas.
However, the second post above opens with the sentence “Australia has the highest per capita rate of greenhouse gas emissions in the world.” Just what is Australia’s per captia rate of greenhouse emissions? Luke should be able to answer that.
And while we are about it, the carbon sequestered by Australian native vegetation has been deemed to be Commonwealth property, to be offset against the greenhouse gas emmissions of all Australians. So just what is the per capita sequester rate of Australian greenhouse gas emissions via natve vegetation? Luke should be able to answer that too.
Yes Helen, you’re right! Again! What intrigues me is, who will get saddled with the methane belching termites that have every intention of moving on this same native vegetation.
And further, how can one in all truthfullness guarantee that tree growth sequestered carbon will be there in 100 years or will the little belchers move in, in say 15 years. Also not forgetting our recent bushfire experiences and the subsequent releasing of that carbon monster. Sheeesh….
“Oh, here you go Mr. Carbon Trader, I don’t mind giving your money back , plus interest compounded and court costs no worries, sorry about that. Bankruptcy is good for soul, besides I did it for Kevin” said some future poor silly sod.
Thanks, WJP. Some things are easy to forsee.
However, I would like the figures I have asked for, namely our per capita greenhouse gas emission rate, and our per capita sequestration rate via native vegetation. I have an innovative soil carbon proposal to float.
Garnaut review says: “Australia’s per capita greenhouse gas emissions are the highest of any OECD country and are among the highest in the world. In 2006 our per capita emissions (including emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry) were 28.1 tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) per person (DCC 2008d). Only five countries in the world rank higher—Bahrain, Bolivia, Brunei, Kuwait and Qatar. Australia’s per capita emissions are nearly twice the OECD average and more than four times the world average”
I’m a bit stunned about Bolivia !
WJP – although cows belch methane from their rumen (contrary to popular mocking and fart jokes) – I think termites do fart the methane from their hindgut and use different microbes to ruminants? BTW methane itself is odourless.
As for sequestering in vegetation – well you need to be careful in the maths. For example what burns will regrow. However hot late season fires in the Kimberley, NT Top End, Cape York and the Gulf have shown to be higher emitters of methane and nitrous oxide than cooler early season fires. Both emit CO2 but new vegetation absorbs the CO2 back eventually.
Bil Burrows would tell us that woodland thickening in native vegetation from Central Queensland through the Mulga zone and into the NSW Western Division (a product of overgrazing and lack of fire) might sequester 100 Mt per annum. However this is considered to be an ongoing process incidental to any conscious attempt to reduce emissions (controversially).
So half of Australia burns too hot and too often. And half of Australia doesn’t burn frequently enough.
Atmospheric CO2 fertilisation is probably doing something to our native forests. Hard to measure.
But soil carbon runs down after clearing and continuous cropping. Much however would now be on the flatter part of the exponential decline curve.
Droughts may increase emissions – although I’m not sure actually.
Major reservoirs and dams probably produce heaps of methane. Unaccounted.
However if you want to get into biosink competition – other nations although have big forest sinks – USA, Canada
If you get into these comparison exercises you need to add up everything. Plus and minus. Not just what suits you.
So be careful what you wish for.
The Europeans are deeply suspicious of biosinks as a “get out of jail” card for countries like Australia. A fiddle they think. A swiftie. So this makes for contorted negotiations.
HOWEVER ! – there are many good reasons for improve your soil carbon which are lost in the greenhouse debate – for soil health – better water infiltration, better soil structure, and better cation exchange capacity. Myself I’m “luke-warm” (hahahaha) on soil carbon – and would advocate soil health as a better way to go.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water on this issue.
There are also good reasons to reduce loss of nitrogen fertilisers in atmospheric nitrous oxide (300x CO2 potency) too. Fertiliser costs MONEY !
The money would have been better spent contributing to a politician who is dead set against the global warming con job.
Would have been a more principled stand too.
Mr. Farmer is still laboring under the impression that the climate changers are just wrong. He thinks they are trying to impose an oopsy on the rest of us.
They aren’t wrong, they know the truth of things as well as we do. They are just evil.
Well the point is not the charcoal added to the soil.
The soil they discovered in the Amazon grew. A collector who took 2 ft(600mm) leaving 6″ (.150mm) knew that in 10 years he could get another 2 ft of soil.
The soil grew.
so baffle me with charcoal but where are the bacteria involved in this?? worth a fortune.
Yes James – go crazy – go and fire your semi-auto into the air screaming “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPnJX_S3vmU&feature=PlayList&p=B750DD40A08C0C33&index=0&playnext=1
Redneck !
Yes Luke,
And you continue pushing a fraud, stabbing the entire human population in the back, in order to line your pocket.
No fraud sepo.
And it’s actually you – the gaz guzzling resource consuming environmental rapist who’s the problem. Anyway mate – Obama’s in – you and you redneck swill are now outvoted – so get back in line. We know who’s been lining their pockets. No thanks for taking down the world economy and the trillions wasted in Iraq scumbag. They’re gonna carbon tax the daylights out of you and you’re just sit there and squeal like a pig boy.
to Luke perpetrating the fraud on the most people makes you the winner.
An eternity of using an alias for fear of deserved retribution.
Aping the philosophy of people who would would feel right at home in a dictator’s cabinet.
Screwing over everybody you know and ever hope to know, in order to keep your scummy job.
Phone sex operators have more scruples.
You call that winning, pal? I feel sorry for you.
A Modest Proposal
My Carbon Trading Proposal is not about organic soil carbon. It’s about INORGANIC soil carbon. .So stop squabbling you lot and listen up.
Warwick Hughes at http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=212 is calling for a lead to an early 1990’s paper by R M Gifford, that Australian carbon emissions were absorbed by our land area.
Of the responses, (including one to Gifford et al’s paper) was a link to http://www.celsias.com/are-desert-hidden-carbon-sinks which reports recent research on desert soils absorbing atmospheric Co2. On a ‘green’ site, too!
Findings from the Mojave Desert, Nebraska really made me sit up. Co2 absorption of 100gms/sqm – 1 kg/10 sq m – that’s 1 tonne/ha! Now I have those high ph sandy calcareous soils, and I have always wondered why it is so darned hard to increase the organic carbon ratio in these and decrease the inorganic ratio. It seems atmospheric Co2 gets in under the surface and breeds the inorganic bloody stuff. Makes sense.
Given that Australia’s Co2 emissions rate is 18 t/ha per year, I conservatively estimate I have been sequestering the emissions of about 450 fellow Aussies per year. One of my neighbors is providing the same service for about 2,000 fellow Aussies. That’s not counting the organic carbon contribution of the native vegetation on 80%+ of both of our properties. How much of these low rainfall and desert soils has Australia got? Heaps.
My Proposal is that, to prevent financial shonks exploiting this opportunity, that the Govt deem all atmospheric Co2 absorbed by our desert and low rainfall soils be Commonwealth Property, (just like for native vegetation Co2 sequestration) to offset against the per capita Co2 emissions of all Australians. The surplus credits and it would be HUGE, could be traded in the international market, again for the benefit of all Aussies. Should be a great vote catcher.
Of course, employees of Climate Change Depts etc, with important titles like “Scientific Adviser”, may need to reword their job descriptions to justify their pay. But with their obvious education, that should not be too hard.
I do not want anything for my patriotic, Modest Proposal, but a medal would be nice
Countries with significant natural gas and oil production have high greenhouse emissions, especially exporters and places that flare the gas from oil wells.
CO2 is a fertilizer. It is not a problem that needs fixing. And even if it were a problem then our territorial oceans absorb about 60% of our emissions. Our mate, Steve, in North Dakota is right. If one does any sort of business with shonks and spivs there is only one certainty. You WILL get ripped off. If you sleep with the dogs and you must put up with the fleas.
But a more apt metaphor is that of the parasite. They cannot function without a host and they will not depart until the host is dead. The fact that they are targeting some other host first does not alter the certainty that they will eventually come for you too.
Caveat emptor.