Farmers are bearing the brunt of increased fires, droughts, and insurance costs stemming from industrial emissions from coal and gas operations, according to a new report. The agriculture sector is also being tasked with cleaning up this pollution by providing carbon offsets to counteract coal and gas emissions. However, policy should prioritize reducing industrial emissions at their source rather than relying on carbon offsets generated on farmland.
While farm emissions have seen a significant decrease, emissions from coal and gas have not been reduced. This is because the "least cost abatement" principle allows major polluters to purchase carbon offsets planted on farmland as an alternative to reducing their own pollution.
Farmers for Climate Action commissioned Oscar Pearse, an experienced carbon and agriculture consultant from Regional Policy Solutions, to analyze current emissions reduction policies and their impact on agriculture, especially as new scientific data indicates a rapidly deteriorating climate. Prominent farmers nationwide have already expressed their agreement with the report's main conclusions.
Key report findings include:
- Coal, gas, and oil companies account for the majority of Australia's carbon credits but have not reduced pollution at their own facilities.
- Farmers are already financially impacted by climate change driven by industrial emissions; ABARES estimates that typical farm profits have decreased by nearly $30,000 per year, or $550 per week per farmer.
- While selling carbon credits as offsets presents an opportunity for farmers to diversify income, industrial pollution should be reduced at the source, with offsets considered only in highly challenging circumstances.
- For decades, farmers have provided a carbon offset service that, if sold as carbon credits, would be worth $1.2 billion annually, yet they have not received recognition or payment for this service.
- 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 already constitute the largest portion of Australia's emissions "reduction" efforts. However, if carbon offsets are not well-planned and integrated into food and fiber production, Australia risks losing productive agricultural land.
- Agricultural land use is already a primary factor in reducing Australia's net emissions.
Key report recommendations include:
- Acknowledge the crucial role of agriculture in Australia's net emissions reduction.
- Implement policies that drive genuine industrial emissions reductions at the source, rather than depending on carbon offsets on farmland.
- Consider ending the exemptions in carbon policy for coal-fired electricity, which currently avoids accountability.
- Protect essential food-producing land and integrate land, carbon, and nature policies to maximize the benefits of trees planted for carbon absorption.
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 stated. "Industrial polluters will always prefer to pay for food-producing land to be used for carbon plantings rather than reduce 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 is available at https://farmersforclimateaction.org.au/our-vision-and-plan/reports.
Contact details: Peter Somerville Currie 0403 868 984 peter@curriecommunications.com.au
Peter Holding 0409 049 477 media@farmersforclimateaction.org.au
