Agmates Editor Steve Truman writes:
Forget all the arguments about global warming being real or not. It’s too late for that.
What is real is that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is hell bent on introducing an Emissions Trading Scheme to prove to the world what a good global citizen Australia is, regardless of the consequences to our economy.
What the main stream media have missed in the flood of coverage is the potential devastation to rural Australia the emission trading scheme will be.
Agriculture will not be a ‘covered’ industry, you can back that in.
That is of little consequence. What it does mean is that an emission trading scheme will dramatically increase the cost of every farm input. Farmers unlike power stations and fuel refiners have zero ability to pass those costs on.
AgForce President Peter Kenny (pictured) tells us that the modeling AgForce has done has shown that farm input costs will increase by 15-40% depending on the industry.
Livestock producers are at the lower end of the scale with grain croppers and intensive industries at the high end.
This coming on top of a record year of AgFlation will be the death knell for many smaller farmers.
New South Wales Farmers Federation President Jock Laurie (pictured) recently told us that they believe AgFlation based on the 4 major farm inputs - chemical, fertiliser, diesel and interest rates is running somewhere between 60 and 80%.
Jock said that they were waiting on modelling to be completed to come up with the final figure.
It is up to the National Farmers Federation as the peak farmer lobby to put farmers case before PM Rudd and his team. If they are not able to secure some relief for farmers from the burden of the emissions trading scheme we will see the greatest upheaval in rural Australia in our history.
Family farms will be sold into large corporate farming ventures. Corporates with massive dollars behind them will be able to survive as they can operate under the efficiencies of sheer size & scale.
Corporate farming operations however do little or nothing for rural communities many of which will shrivel and eventually die under such a scenario. When a corporate operates a farming enterprise that was once operated by say 10 smaller family farms they do it with a skeleton permanent work force supplemented by ‘fly in’ contractors.
Infrastructure and services such as schools, hospitals, doctors, chemists and service businesses in these small communities depend on farming families. Without them these communities have no future.
So forget worrying about the 3 million people who may lose their jobs in the Energy sector, and power stations closing down. Those industries can pass their cost of emission permits onto consumers.
Be worried, very worried about yourselves and the 1,000’s of other family farms that simply will not be viable as the manufacturers of every farm input, steel, timber, rubber, water, electricity, machinery, chemical, fertilizer, diesel, power etc pass those costs onto farmers who have no ability to pass them onto their customers.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
Update 11am - 7th July 2008
Victorian Agmate Jenny Bird has sent us this from todays Border Mail.
…………………………………………………………………………
Have Your say!
Related Posts
- ABARE Chiefs Warn Australian Agriculture is Doomed Under Emissions Trading Scheme
- Farmers Must Know Massive Cost Impost of The Emissions Trading Scheme
- Kevin Rudd Should take the Emissions Trading Scheme to the Next Federal Election.
- Ian Plimer - “Emissions Trading Scheme - Why Bother?”
- Professor Bob Carter Labels Emissions Trading Scheme as Economic Vandalism
Tags: AgForce, Jock Laurie, NFF, Peter Kenny
Dear Sir/Madam,
Neither the Queensland nor Fe’ral governments are concerned about either vehicle pollution or cutting down on fuel consumption. I have a letter from the Qld Minister for the Environment and the Fe’ral Minister for the Environment, of the time (Senator Ian Campbell & Desley Boyle respectively) wherein they advise they are not interested in our fuel saving technology which, as I demonstrated to them cut down the hydro carbons in the exhaust gas emissions of two cars as shown below
CO = Carbon Monoxide
HC = Hydrocarbons
LAMBDA = The ‘T’ tilted over at an angle to the right – is the fuel/air ratio. (Should equal 1 in a perfect engine.)
CO2 = Carbon Dioxide
NO = NOx (Nitrogen Oxide – the “smog” you see in pollution)
O2 = (unburned) Oxygen
Mitsubishi Lancer 1999 model 30,000 kms.
CO reduced by 94.80%
HC reduced by 97.05%
Nox reduced by 53.79%
O2 reduced by 66.21%
Nissan Bluebird SSS series -2- 244,000 kms.
CO reduced by 78.13%
HC reduced by 77.04%
Nox reduced by 48.42%
O2 reduced by 48.04%
The following is the result of a LEON Fuel Saver test on a Freightliner 80 car carrier with a 245 HP Turbo Cummins and 1.2 million kilometres on the odometer.
Fuel consumption went from 34.01 litres per 100 kms to 18.34 litres.
46.07% decrease in fuel burn
85% increase in distance for fuel burn
The owner saved $580 worth of fuel from Thursday through to Sunday on his trip to southern NSW and back to Caboolture, over 2,100 kms.
The owner tells me he came the back way from Dubbo through Goondiwindi and did not go into the low box on any of the hills.
These are but a few examples of our technology and is the reason why we do not believe the governments.
Watch for our ad in the next Owner Driver and we will be placing ads in Agmates.
Cheers,
Leonard Clampett
The Machinery Doctor
While I don’t agree that there should be a Carbon Trading Scheme because the science to account for both carbon, and the proof that carbon dioxide is the cause of climate change is inconclusive at best.
There is one fact that will determine whether the whole process is a sham to collect extra tax or not.
What’s that you say?
Well if the Carbon Trading Scheme, we have to have; does not account for carbon that can be sequestered in the farmers soils and woody weeds is not included to offset the carbon (fuel) used by the farmer and/or produced by his livestock then the scheme will be confirmed to be what it really is, another tax.
If the farm organisations are worth their membership fees it will be up to them to ensure there is a full and accurate benefit and cost to each and every farmer. Farmers have carried the cost for Australia’s Kyoto achievements to date with no recompense.
G’day John,
There will be no accounting for farm carbon sequestration (except for forests). Thats the point of the article.
Agriculture will not be a ‘covered’ industry. All Ag gets is the increased input costs from all industries that are ‘covered’ as they pass on those costs to farmers. And thats the killer.
Thanks Steve,
Therefore, without a proper accounting system for farmers, the trading scheme is just a tax on what could just be a myth!!!
I have a question. We have been told that at a large NSW cattle selling centre a $45.00 levy per beast sold was going to be introduced to cover the gases emitted from cattle, and would cover all of Australia. Is this true and correct?
G’day Rhonda,
If Agriculture was a ‘covered’ industry this would be true. We actually wrote about this way back in March 2007 in the original Agmates Blog. Click here to read.
The figure quoted in that article by Mal Peters - former President of the NSW Farmers Federation was $50 per head.
But as Ag won’t be covered in the ETS initially it won’t be.
But just to see how you are going to fare under an ETS take your last years profit and loss and ad 15-40% (depending on industry) to your costs and see how you went. It’s that simple and I don’t know many if any farmers or small business people who will be able to turn a profit under that scenario - do you?
Hi Steve,
It`s time to dig in. All farmers/small businesses must pull together to fight the CARBON TAX.This so called CARBON TAX has been brought in by the MULTI-NATIONAL FINANCIAL CONGLOMERATE (OLIGARCHY).
This OLIGARCHY just got rid of our single desk and now they want us to pay more,we the serfs pay more…Fellow serfs you may think you are paying too much tax now,WHEN this CARBON TAX comes in your tax bill will be ten fold!.
The RUDD GOVERNMENT`S GARNAUT`S REPORT is a joke and fellow farmers we must treat it with contempt.
The so called expert on climate change and weather our Professor GARNAUT is an ECONOMIST….
My kelpie knows more about the climate and weather than this bloke!.
Linden Baker.
G’day Linden,
You are right on the money. A great example is a small article in todays Australian.Climatologist Stewart Franks an expert in hydro-climatic variability at the Uni of Newcastle in NSW had this to say.
Mind you he is described as a Climate Change Sceptic-
“The whole idea that you can say that by 2030 or 2040 rainfall will be a certain percentage less is a complete nonsense (Agmates said the same thing here - Idiot Wind)….. Australia’s current drought had nothing to do with increased carbon emissions, but was instead caused by natural rainfall events.”
“we have these incredibly dry periods that can last for decades and then we have these similar decades that are wetter than average”
“He rejects predictions that the Great barrier Reef would be destroyed and rainfall patterns altered without immediate moves to cut carbon emissions…. scenarios set out by Ross Garnaut were simply wrong”
As you point out Lindon - what would Garnaut know. After all he’s not only just an Economist but the very same Economist who 20 years ago was responsible for our free trade policies that have removed every scrap of protection for our agricultural & manufacturing industries.
And of course what would Stewart Franks know - he’s just a climate scientist who like every farmer and clear thinker in Australia can actually look out the window and see for themselves that Garnaut’s “Chicken little” the sky is falling predictions are just rubbish.
My input:
Sure, there’s a lot of political spin around this (like most things), but really, we’ve been pushing our resources too far and too cheaply for too long, be it fuel, minerals, water, soil - though ‘carbon tax’ or ‘offsets’ as currently pitched may not be the best offer, placing a value on our life-resources, instead of lumps of gold in some reserve bank coffers, is a required change.
Obviously going to be a big and hard change too.
Regarding the costs to farmers - it may just benefit and encourage the ‘forward thinkers’ - if one has planned their property with suitable riparian zones, runoff mitigation zones, etc, then wow, they already have areas for ‘forest’ to claim ‘carbon credits’ on, so then the increased cost of their chemical fertiliser can be balanced against selling their ‘carbon credits’ back to the fertiliser company…just need to think outside the box… or, maybe, reduce synthetic fertilisers and start looking at different approaches to our farming in Australia, being a drought/drought/flood/drought sort of climate.
Definitely agree, if carbon trading is a goer, soil carbon etc associated with agriculture should be counted - it encourages better farm practices anyway!
Also heard on radio recently - been bugger all ‘inflation’ in primary products (i.e. food) over last couple decades, now with added pressures (drought, fuel, etc), it’s doing some catch up. Fact is, farmers can pass on costs to consumer, especially when their local shop is empty of food!
Hitch here is the ‘big’ companies (supermarket chains) between producer and consumer - takes a strong primary production lobby to negotiate well through those mob!
Anyhow, not really trying to give a cure-all, just my two bob’s worth..
G’day Shane,
Thanks mate for your input. Nice to see someone can see some positives in all of this.
If the farming community does not have hope, it has nothing.
You have touched on a broad range of issues. A very big one is food inflation. Farmers have a real battle here. As a country our farmers produce roughly 3 times what we consume. 70% of food sold domestically at retail is done so by Coles & Woolworths.
With over production (3 x what we consume) and the supermarket duopoly, individual farmers are in a very weak negotiating position with the 2 big supermarkets.
Bear in mind that it is in every political parties interest to keep food prices to the general public as low as possible.
So while they may bluff & bluster (and hold Senate inquires into grocery prices) about what these multi-nationals pay farmers for their produce they are disinclined to actually do anything about it.
Once again - thank you for your positive input - It’s always good to keep some balance in these issues. and I hope you will continue to contribute to these discussions.
Professor Ross Garnaut, who is largely responsible for the huge flare-up in climate change hysteria we’re currently witnessing appears to be a hypocrite of immense proportions!
He is the Chairman of the Lihir Gold mine in Papua New Guinea which is spewing cyanide and other waste products from the mine into the ocean. Google the words ‘ross garnaut’, ‘lihir gold mine’ ‘Ok Tedi Mine’ (of which we believe he was and may still be) a director and of which BHP was compelled to divest itself due to it’s serious pollution of the environment.
And to make you feel even better about all this, the Herald Sun alleges that the honorable professor was paid $225,000 last year for his work as chairman of the Lihir Gold mine. We suppose it could be worse. He could have been paid millions, couldn’t he?
G’day Val,
Brilliant. - I have added in links to your comment for other readers to check it out themselves.
The first one is to a Sydney Morning Herald article confirming what you are saying is correct, the second one is to the Lihir web site showing Garnaut as an independent director.
He’s an interesting one about our noble professor that you and others might find interesting.
Val - Keep up the good work.
Update - I mention it above but here it is confirmed from a piece in the Herald Sun.
The Australian National University academic (Garnaut) - credited with having engineered trade liberalisation in the 1980s, and who also chairs Lihir Gold and is a director of Ok Tedi Mining Limited