News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Getting agriculture off the climate menu 

Getting agriculture off the climate menu

15 Oct, 2009 03:00 AM
"If you're not at the table, you're on the menu," says western Victoria grazier and chairman of The Climate Institute, Mark Wootton.

Concern that agriculture is failing to be a constructive player at the emissions trading table has prompted The Climate Institute to develop a discussion paper on how the farm sector might engage with the CPRS, in the hope that it will jolt a useful discussion.

Mr Wootton acknowledges that some of the paper's suggestions will be confronting, but said when viewed long-term, "carbon sense is good sense".

Agriculture needs to put itself into a creative mindset to address the challenges ahead, he believes.

He confesses to disappointment that national politics and some farm lobby organisations have dragged farmers into a negative outlook that has delivered nothing constructive.

Mr Wootton is focused on emissions trading because he believes his grazing operation depends upon a good outcome for agriculture.

His property, 4850 hectare Jigsaw Farms near Hamilton, carries 60-70,000 DSE in the form of about 1350 cows, 9500 Merino ewes and 7000 crossbred ewes, plus 400 ha of cropping.

About 23 per cent of the property is planted to agroforestry, a carbon-sequestering resource that he says on current accounting now gives him an 8000 tonne per year carbon surplus in his emissions profile.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
If his calculations are correct, which we can't be sure of, then it looks as though he will be in front financially. However, there is a large percentage of Qld that can't show those sorts of benefits as the Beattie/Blight govt has stolen the timber from the land owners.

These areas of timbered land are just sitting there, unproductive to the land owner, presumably for the Blight govt to offset all the coal exports needed to keep a shakey state economy afloat.

Posted by R, 16/10/2009 9:31:37 AM
Mr Wootton's photo shows him to be relatively young therefore impressionable. It appears he believes all the falsehoods associated with the whole global warming charade. It becomes a religion to them.
Posted by Len, 16/10/2009 10:18:54 AM
There is no such thing as a "useful discussion" to be had with the Climate Institute. This organisation has had no reluctance in promoting some seriously negligent science.

And Wootton, as part of the now thoroughly discredited plantation sector, has been quite willing to gain maximum benefit from policies that actively discriminated against native forest owners.

The IPCC carbon accounting standards have been designed to maximise the disadvantage suffered by the much larger population of farmers with native forest. And this relatively small coven of plantation growers have gone out of their way to promote any policy that denies markets and distorts public perceptions of wood products from the superior native forest habitats.

So until Wootton and his mates clean up their act, and can show us some deep and fundamental reforms of IPCC carbon accounting standards, then Australian farmers should have nothing at all to discuss with them.

Posted by Ian Mott, 16/10/2009 10:21:15 AM
Don't know why agriculture could /should be penalised above more more carbon producing industries. However, it is good to see someone doing something more than just sticking their head in the sand (or somewhere else) and trying to mediate with the other groups and not let the pollies just listen to the radical greenies.
Posted by Farmer Dave, 16/10/2009 10:37:43 AM
Who are the Climate Institute? Clearly they have not done the level of work required to properly assess the impact of their proposals across a very highly diversified group, all primary producers across Australia.

The NFF Climate Change Working Group and the technical groups that work underneath them, represent all sectors and have been actively working through the difficulties since 2007, as well as dealing directly with Government. The NFF CCWG also deals with state based organisations, commodity groups and industry research groups along with the International Federation of Agricultural Producers.

The NFF CCWG has not had - to my knowledge - any contact with the Climate Institute.

I can only conclude that they have no interest in the opinions of the vast bulk of primary producers - instead spouting their own narrow philosophy leading to one outcome - a massive cut in production from the sector, if covered by the Government's CPRS.

Posted by phil_oc, 16/10/2009 11:51:47 AM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Climate Institute chairman Mark Wootton.
Climate Institute chairman Mark Wootton.
Related Coverage
MULTIMEDIA
12 October, 2009
13 October, 2009
14 October, 2009
POLL
Q: For which levy rate will you vote at this year's WoolPoll?

0%
(43%)

1%
(9.9%)

2%
(32.2%)

2.5%
(4.5%)

3%
(10.5%)

Total Votes: 314
Poll Date: 11 October, 2009

Most popular articles

Advertisement



The Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...