About Carbon Trading & ETS
Use the links below to access fact sheets about Agriculture and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme:
- Agriculture and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme
- Agriculture and the voluntary carbon market
- Forward work program to determine appropriate carbon pollution mitigation policies for agriculture
These can be found on the agriculture section of the Department of Climate Change website.
In addition, information on the Australia’s Farming Future (AFF) initiative can be located on the climate change section of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry website:
- Australia’s Farming Future - the Australian Government’s climate change initiative for primary industries. It provides funding over four years to help primary producers adapt and respond to climate change.
- Australia’s Farming Future Climate Change Research Program – is funding research projects and on-farm demonstrations to help prepare Australia’s primary industries for climate change and build the resilience of our agricultural sector into the future.
Click on the link below to read CANEGROWERS submission on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and its impact on the sugarcane and agricultural sector.
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (330KB)In its submission, CANEGROWERS:
- Supports the exclusion of agriculture until 2015, with a review in 2013.
- Notes that, if cropping on agricultural soils was regarded as a separate category of emissions, it would likely be considered too small and too difficult an emitter to include in the scheme.
- Will participate in good faith in the process of development of options for the coverage of cropping under the CPRS.
- Calls for ongoing industry consultation, properly funded and resourced and inclusive of all agriculture, including the cropping sector.
- Demonstrates from experience in the sugar industry that direct measurement of N2O and other greenhouse gasses in field is not feasible.
- Notes that estimation of emissions will be required, whether or not agriculture is covered or uncovered.
- Has carried out a comprehensive analysis of a number of options for the point of obligation for GHG emissions in cropping industries. This is to be provided as a separate submission and based on the familiar principles of equity and efficiency of the policy tool.
- Indicates that it cannot, with its current state of knowledge, make a decision on where the point of obligation should be, or indeed, if coverage under the CPRS is the most equitable and efficient way to reduce emissions in the cropping sector.
- Notes that fuel (including the fuel component of harvest contracts) comprises approximately 24% of average cane growing costs. It supports the proposal to rebate the excise on fuel by the cost of permits and to provide the equivalent amount of the excise reduction on fuels used off-road for a three year period prior to review.
- Emphasises the importance of this rebate being applied efficiently, as there is a risk that the price paid for permits (and therefore passed on in the fuel price) may not match the amount rebated if the price of permits varies over time.
- Questions the recommendation to offset the fuel costs for heavy vehicle road users for only one year from the commencement of the scheme prior to review, and not the three years offered to other major transport fuel user groups.
- Suggests that biofuels also receive a rebate equal to the excise reduction in order to provide appropriate encouragement for their adoption.
- Suggests that, when the initial three year period of excise reduction is finished, the government should explore reducing the excise at times when oil prices are high, but requiring permits to cover the CO2 emissions, while leaving the excise at current levels when oil prices fall.
- Requires that sugar production, as a major export earner for Australia, must have assurances that our export competitiveness will not be placed at risk as a result of the implementation of the CPRS.
- Notes that, even if agriculture is not covered under the scheme, it will still be subject to cost effects as a result of cost impositions upstream.
- Provides preliminary figures that indicate an increase in average cane growing costs of 15¢/T cane for electricity (which impacts very unevenly across regions as some have more reliance on electricity for pumping irrigation water than others) and 10¢/T cane for the carbon embodied in fertiliser use (ignoring the contribution from denitrification).
- Suggests that these increases will impact on international competitiveness.
- Calls for an extension of the fuel rebate scheme to electricity and water and fertiliser.
- Calls for ongoing research in the area of climate change but stresses the need to ensure that research into greenhouse related issues does not “crowd out” necessary research into productivity of agriculture.
CANEGROWERS proposes that a full review of the economic, environmental and social impact of diversion of significant areas of agricultural land into forestry be required before access is available to permits for forestry on agricultural land.