Key Facts:
Farmers are carrying the burden of increased fires, droughts and insurance costs caused by industrial emissions from coal and gas: New report.
Agriculture is also being asked to clean up the mess by providing the carbon offsets to counter coal and gas pollution, when policy should be driving real industrial emissions reductions at the source rather than driving carbon offsets on farm land.
Farm emissions have dropped significantly but coal and gas emissions have not reduced, because “least cost abatement” means big polluters choose to buy carbon offsets planted on farm land instead of polluting less.
Farmers are being asked to clean up the industrial emissions of coal and gas companies whilst also absorbing the burden of the increased fires, droughts and insurance costs created by them, a new report has found.
Farmers for Climate Action contracted experienced carbon and agriculture consultant, Regional Policy Solutions’ Oscar Pearse, to examine current policies around emissions reduction and the effect on agriculture, as new science shows climate deteriorating at pace. Prominent farmers from around the country have already signalled agreement with the key findings of the report.
Key report findings include:
- Coal, gas and oil buy most of Australia’s carbon credits but have not reduced pollution on their own sites
- Farmers are already paying for climate change driven by industrial emissions: ABARES estimates typical farm profit is down by nearly $30,000/yr or $550/wk per farmer
- Selling carbon credits as offsets is an opportunity for income diversification for farmers, but industrial pollution should be cut at the source and offsets sought only in very difficult circumstances
- For decades farmers have provided a carbon offset service that if sold as carbon credits would be worth $1.2 billion a year, but are not recognised or paid for it
- Report quote: “Farmers have no interest in a weaker national emissions reduction task. They have a direct economic interest in making it work.”
- Report quote: “Australia can have stronger industrial climate policy, viable high-integrity farm carbon markets and protection of productive agricultural capacity at the same time.”
- Carbon offsets are already the largest proportion of Australia’s emissions “reduction” but if carbon offsets are not well planned and integrated into food and fibre production, Australia risks losing productive agricultural land.
- Agricultural land use is already the key factor reducing Australia’s net emissions.
Key report recommendations include:
- Recognise the vital contribution made by agriculture to Australia’s net emissions reduction
- Use policies to drive real industrial emissions reduction at the source, rather than relying on carbon offsets on farm land
- Look to end the exceptions in carbon policy for coal-fired electricity, which is currently able to duck accountability
- Protect essential food-producing land, and link land, carbon and nature policy (which could ensure nature gets maximum benefit from trees planted to absorb carbon).
Report author Oscar Pearse: “The data and projections show the long-term threat to agricultural land if large polluters are not restricted from passing their emissions reductions onto farmers,” Mr Pearse said.
“The industrial polluters will always prefer to pay for food-producing land to be planted to carbon plantings, instead of reducing their pollution at the source. What’s best for Australia is to maturely fix the Safeguard mechanism, drop least-cost abatement principles, and consider the wider picture.”
Mal Peters OAM, former NSW Farmers President, former Director at NFF, Australian Farm Institute and Regional Australia Institute respectively: “Twenty-two years ago,
I said farmers were carrying the environmental load for the whole country without getting the recognition for it. Today, Australian agriculture is quietly providing a service worth over $1.2 billion a year to industrial polluters like coal and gas. Regional Australia is still effectively
subsidising big industry. It’s time our land and communities weren’t treated as a cheap shortcut for heavy industry.”
Mitchell Clapham, former NSW Farmers Conservation Resource Management Chair and former NFF policy committee member: “As an industry, we’ve still stepped up with a commitment to net zero by 2050. On top of that, we are letting heavy industries use farmland for set-asides as an easy out, rather than addressing emissions at the source. We need agricultural bodies to get clear on what’s happening here. Instead of singling out progressive farmers who choose to produce renewable energy as a practical income stream, we need to focus on holding big polluters accountable.”
Farmers for Climate Action CEO Verity Morgan-Schmidt: “We can’t lose food-producing land to save coal and gas polluters a few dollars. Farmers see the opportunity in carbon offset income, and also know we need to consider how to protect food-producing land very carefully. The Australian Carbon Credit Review recognised for the first time that the cheapest offsets are not necessarily best for our nation.”
Former NFF President David Jochinke: “This report articulates a compelling case for fairer climate policy that properly rewards Australian farmers for their essential role in supporting national decarbonisation.”
The report can be found at https://farmersforclimateaction.org.au/our-vision-and-plan/reports.
