CEO of the QLD Farmers Federation John Cherry [pictured] writes:
The Australian Farm Institute has done farmers a huge favour pointing out the massive cost that an Emissions Trading Scheme could impose on farming.
While that cost will be biggest for livestock producers if methane is included from 2015, all farmers will cop it on the inputs like fertiliser, diesel and freight from 2010 (although a rebate on on-farm fuel use will be offered for the first three years).
Queensland Farmers Federation has been arguing that the Government needs to look at more cost effective alternatives, such as uptake of better farm practices on soil, water, feedstock, nutrients and vegetation. A lot of this is not counted under the Kyoto protocol’s accounting rules, making emissions trading even more troublesome for farmers.
While the Government has acknowledged that farming faces particular challenges and will not be included fully in the ETS in 2010, it has not offered full compensation for the cost impost then (even though the ETS will make us less competitive in export markets).
Nor, has it been prepared to seriously consider alternative approaches for the future.
Incidentally, your article was heavily critical of the National Farmers’ Federation’s stance on the ETS. I think this is a bit unfair.
QFF is not a member of the NFF, but we are very supportive of the huge amount of work NFF has put into its
comprehensive 47-page submission on the Government’s emissions trading green paper delivered last week.
That submission covers all the big issues in an informed technical way building up a compelling case for a better approach.
Clearly though, farmers have a long way to go to persuade Canberra that emissions trading might not be the best thing since sliced bread for our sector.
As the Farm Institute’s research and similar work done in New Zealand shows, failure to get this policy right could be devastating for the profitability of our sector.
And that would be on top of what ABARE tells us will be the very substantial cost of adapting to climate change and increased climate variability for our sector.
John Cherry
CEO Queensland Farmers Federation.
.
Have Your say!
.
September 19, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Do you have any references/stats on that Ted?
NOt being picky… it is just I heard recently that grass fed/free range cows are actually much greater methane producers than are their grain fed counterparts… I’m a bit thin on details though… I only recall it as I had assumed the other way round.
September 19, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I find it a great disappointment in the global warming idea and specifically the ” how bad livestock are for the atmosphere “ debate is that there seems to be no one highlighting the vast differences between intensive, ( lot fed ) livestock industries and open or free range non highinput livestock methods.
Forget about the methane. Think about all of the oil based inputs that are used to produce, cart, process, provide and then clean up afterwards, the ” food “ for confinement livestock.
And the sad part is that at the present the free range livestock producers depend on the ” confinement livestock industry “ becasue the way the food production system that supports the great majority of the population of the western world is structured.
Methane is viewed as very bad. The fact is that Methane is a by product of industrial livestock production. Animals, billions of them, have been farting for millions of years, before feed lotting began and it was not a problem then.
The difference between industrial and open range livestock needs to be understood so that environmentally friendly producers are rewarded for their low / positive impacts in regards to global warming.
And by the way, as much as so many in the big end of town, politics and the media keep bagging farming as a small part of the economy, lets try living with out the food that farmers produce for a few days.
By the same token, lets see how well farmers do if the markets for their produce shrink or stop.
Ted Sullivan, Noosa West. Queensland.