Agmates

The Australian Governments proposed Emissions Trading Scheme is the greatest threat to viability of farming since we removed all trade protection from our Agricultural exports.

South Australian farmer John Michelmore writes:

.

” I just calculated the typical carbon tax on a cow per annum. If this goes ahead and farmers can’t off-set their land use changes it could be the end of the beef industry in Australia.

We won’t be able to compete with any overseas country that doesn’t have a carbon control program.

Methane production per cow per day is 350 grams. Say methane is 20 times worse than carbon dioxide. That makes an equivalent carbon dioxide emission of 7kg per day.

At $40 per tonne CO2 carbon levy that’s $102 per cow per year. Even at $15 per tonne that’s $38 per year.

If a cow lives for say 10 years that’s somewhere between $380 and $1020 per head. If you sell your steers at 9 months thats up to $76.50 each. You can see why agriculture has been left out at this stage.“

.

……………………………………………………………………….
Have your Say! What madness is at work when governments are trying to develop the technology to tax farmers on their animals flatulence?

South Australian Farmer John Michelmore (pictured) writes:

The impact of methane on global warming and the sources of methane have now attracted the general medias attention.

Cattle have been singled as responsible for a large proportion of methane emissions world wide, and now results in the call for a reduction in the worlds cattle herd.

It appears probable that emissions permits (taxation) are under consideration for Australian livestock producing methane in their digestive tracts.

This series of articles on methane attempts to explain the science behind methane in the atmosphere and whether a tax on methane emissions in Australia will have any impact on global warming.

It is imperative that Australians understand global warming and the potential risks to our economy from an ill conceived emissions trading scheme based on inconclusive science and unlikely to be adopted by other major methane emitters.

Australia’s methane emissions barely rate as a percentage of global emissions. Therefore reducing Australia’s methane emissions will have insignificant impact on our climate unless the major emitters also reduce methane emissions; assuming we can actually control atmospheric methane.

Can we as Australian’s afford to be the first to set an example and take the economic consequences of an emissions trading scheme probably not adopted by the major methane producers; India, China, Europe, Africa and the United States?

We still haven’t learnt from our Free Trade experiences of the past, where our manufacturing industries have been decimated by free trade that no other country adopted. How are China, Africa and India expected to control their methane emissions when farmers are at most subsistence, and have little choice about their food production methods?

Methane is produced and consumed by a number of pathways in the world environment. Production occurs naturally from a number of sources and also results from human activities (called anthropogenic methane).

The overriding question is whether an economic accounting system is valid for methane, and what actual level of methane production can be related to human activities.

The current level of methane in the atmosphere (1750 parts per billion) accounts for about 20% of the “heating factor” created by the gases that could result in global warming. There has been an increase in methane in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution from a peak historical level of about 750 parts per billion.

There is no doubt the incidence of solar radiation on the earth, and the resultant increase in temperature can drive both carbon dioxide and methane level increases in the atmosphere. However the reverse also applies and no theory really adequately explains current levels of methane and carbon dioxide levels because of the complex scientific issues involved.

There are numerous feed back loops that impact methane levels.

The question is whether the human race can control what is happening to our environment?

The overriding question is: - Does the Australian Government expect that we can influence the major human induced methane emissions in other countries by example, and in the process push the Australian economy further into recession?

Maybe Dr Brendan Nelson was correct in his idea to move in line with major green house gas emitters.

………………………………………………………………………….

Have Your say!

South Australian farmer John Michelmore writes:

It is blatantly obvious to many that carbon is not a pollutant, but an integral part of the environment.

Again the government has the cart before the horse. They sign to Kyoto protocol and embark on the introduction of a carbon trading scheme.

They then spend money on a community education scheme (9 million dollars by October) knowing that the majority of the population hasn’t a clue about the long term impact on Australia, when our competitors USA, China, Indonesia etc etc etc may well not introduce this tax burden to their economies.

The government also knows that there are serious questions in relation to the science behind the IPCC reports and the Guano Report (sorry for the spelling error). The reports are in the mainstream media almost daily if one cares to look.

For example David Evens who was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005 says of himself:

“I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.”

In this tremendous article in last Fridays Australian Newspaper David says:

It was great. We were working to save the planet. But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

“There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.”

An education scheme for the general public would include this, wouldn’t it?? Education is done as part of a decision making process, not after the fact.

Based on the governments ads I’ve seen, this is not education, its propaganda in its worst form.

Education is when the public is given both sides of the story and allowed to decide for themselves on whether man made carbon dioxide emissions are impacting the world climate.

Education is not, calling carbon a pollutant and blaming the poor state of the River Murray on climate change induced by our carbon dioxide emissions. The state of the River Murray is only a function of poor government in Australia, nothing else.

Australia adopting a carbon trading scheme will have NO impact on global climates because we as a population are insignificant in the world.

I only hope that the general public can see through the propaganda.

Sure I agree we need to look after the planet for our descendants; but economic suicide for Australia isn’t going to be at all helpful to our kids.

I just can’t believe that our government believe that Australia’s adoption of a carbon trading scheme will make any difference to what other sovereign countries do. In the meantime Australia and its population will go broke.

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Have Your say! Have you seen the Ads. I was offended the very first time. What do you think?

South Australian Farmer John Michelmore writes:

With the bushfires continuing to rage out of control on Kangaroo Island there will be the inevitable questions in relation to the management of native vegetation in South Australia.To date 17% of Kangaroo Island has been consumed by bush fire since the fires started over a week ago.

South Australiam Farmer John Michelmore writes

As the Federal Election nears, I’m still a swinging voter. I know the reason why, the election campaigns are full of broad brush promises that I no longer really believe; and our choice between voting Labour or the Coalition is no valid choice at all.I thought to myself toady, it’s like voting for either Coles or Woolworths. Many would call two majors competition; I’m afraid this couldn’t be further from the truth. The democratic system in Australia has been gradually corrupted over the years, in particular by the government bureaucrats and elected politicians.