Blog Layout
Earthing Carbon
By Ross Garnaut, drawn from ‘Superpower: Australia’s Low-Carbon Opportunity’
Plants, vegetation, and soils take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, convert it into energy and store it as biomass. Increasing biomass to reduce atmospheric levels of C02 is known as carbon sequestration. Australia can make an exceptional contribution to climate action by creating natural systems to store more carbon in soils, pastures, woodland forests and biodiverse plantations, selling the offset carbon to other nations to meet their Paris Agreement targets.
It is now clear to the international community – as it was not eleven or eight years ago – that changes in land use and agriculture will have a central role in avoiding high costs of climate change. If we move too slowly and overshoot the Paris targets, soil- and plant-based sequestration – including through the capture of carbon wastes from plant-based industrial processes and storing or using them in ways that keep them out of the atmosphere – will be the main avenue to achieve negative emissions.
The transformation of food, agriculture and land use that is necessary for climate change mitigation is also needed for global development, to improve human health and to maintain a stable global ecology more generally. There will be one agricultural and land use transformation to serve these four great purposes.
To make good use of this opportunity, Australia will need systematic incentives for reducing emissions in agriculture and land, and to provide sound reasons to believe that they are here to stay. And it will need to restore old national strengths that have been allowed to decline in recent years: our strengths in research and education on agricultural, pastoral, forestry and related industrial activities. Alongside our industrial opportunity in renewable energy, our strength in growing and using biomass will set Australia up as the superpower of the low-carbon world economy.
Size, scope, opportunity
Recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have elevated the importance of capture of carbon in the landscape. It is estimated that natural climate solutions can provide 37 per cent of cost-effective reduction in global carbon emissions for a two-thirds chance of holding warming below 2°C. These reports indicate that native forest restoration and reforestation could sequester up to 480 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide in terrestrial ecosystems – sufficient to meet the negative emissions needs of many 1.5°C scenarios.
The unusually large endowment of land and woodlands relative to population gives Australia immense advantages in the production of biomass, as well as in the capture of carbon in the landscape.
We still can’t speak definitively on the size of the opportunity. Australian research funding and effort over the past decade have not matched the economic and environmental importance of the subject. However, in 2011, I speculated that the value of land credits sold into the emissions trading scheme could equal, by 2030, the contribution now made by wool to the Australian farm economy.
The general story is of immense potential for sequestration of carbon through changes in Australian landscapes, but of small and diminishing research effort to define the potential and the means of unlocking it. Two developments have contributed to this unsatisfactory situation: the absence of generally available incentives and a general reduction in research and development on agriculture, pastoral activities, forestry and climate change.
Counting carbon
In 2008, I concluded that climate mitigation in the land sector required comprehensive carbon accounting. The inclusion of land under the Kyoto Protocol framework was incomplete. With the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015, and the subsequent rulebook adopted at the end of 2018, all countries will be required to report emissions under the same United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reporting framework, applying the latest guidance from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes a more comprehensive approach to land-based accounting.
The Paris Agreement raises an expectation that the long-term mitigation goal will be achieved through a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks.
What has come to be known as ‘natural climate solutions’ have become much more prominent in international and especially the European and North American discussion.
Research a decade ago did not permit definitive assessment of how much carbon could be captured in Australia in these ways. However, in 2011, I speculated that the value of land credits sold into the emissions trading scheme could equal, by 2030, the contribution now made by wool to the Australian farm economy.
My treatment of carbon in the Australian landscape in 2008 and 2011 drew upon pioneering work by the CSIRO and the state departments of agriculture, as well as research at universities. A CSIRO publication in 2011, published after my second Review, highlighted the importance of the opportunity: ‘Our soils and forest store large quantities of carbon: somewhere between 100 and 200 times Australia’s current annual emissions. We can potentially increase these stores in our rural lands and perhaps store or mitigate enough greenhouse gases to offset up to 20 per cent or more of Australia’s emissions during the next 40 years.’
The decarbonisation of electricity and the electrification of industry and transport can remove about two-thirds of the reductions to net zero global emissions. The land use, agriculture and food transformation can deliver most of the rest.
A recent research project from the US Academy of Sciences suggested potential for 10 gigatonnes per annum sequestration in global and one gigatonne per annum in US landscapes over the period to mid- century during which the world needs to achieve zero net emissions.
Australia should have sequestration potential comparable to that of the United States. The low agricultural value of most Australian land reduces the opportunity cost of management for carbon sequestration. It is of national economic consequence that we undertake the research to define the scale of and the means of unlocking the opportunity. In the meantime, the judgement on scale presented in 2011 seems modest. The big difference now compared with 2011 is that we no longer have the prospect of an emissions trading system into which land-based carbon credits can be sold.
Compared to other nations, Australia has two advantages in capturing carbon in the landscape. The first is our exceptionally large endowment of woodlands, forests and other land relative to population. The second is our exceptional expertise in land-based industries – from agricultural and forestry science, through agricultural and resource economics to public and private knowledge and institutional arrangements supporting commercial success.
Advanced knowledge and innovation were necessary for transplanting European-style agriculture to a strange and unpropitious physical environment. Research, innovation and education supported by public institutions were important from the earliest times.
In 2008, I brought into the mainstream discussion some early work by the CSIRO and state departments of agriculture on the immense mitigation potential of changes in land use. Nurturing vegetation on the dry, degraded mulga country where rainfall was spasmodic in Queensland and New South Wales could be transformative. Innovative uses of the properties of Australian eucalypts included farming of the mallee on the arid boundaries of crop cultivation for subterranean sequestration and for harvesting biomass.
The 2011 Review took the land use mitigation story further. It advocated inclusion of offsets from agriculture into the emissions trading scheme through what became the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI). These arrangements were carried into the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments’ Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF). The ERF was a clunky, truncated and less adequately funded version of the CFI. It required resources from general revenue, rather than from sales of emissions permits. Nevertheless, Abbott’s ERF kept alive the sale of offsets as a way of providing incentives for farm sequestration. The arrangements developed by the Clean Energy Regulator showed how an offsets scheme related to land use could work, and that there was strong private response to incentives.
The Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) allowed farmers and land man- agers to earn Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs). Each ACCU represents one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent stored or avoided by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. The ACCUs could be sold to clear obligations under the carbon-pricing rules. In July 2014, the carbon price was repealed. On 31 October 2014, the new Coalition government’s climate strategy, the Direct Action Plan, was passed, which established the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF).22 The shift was made from a carbon price to government-purchased abatement, and an expanded CFI, moving eligible projects beyond the land sector to include energy and transport. In the ERF, $2.55 billion was made available for direct purchasing of abatement under the reverse auctions, of which $226 million remained in May 2019. The government’s Climate Solutions Fund was announced on 25 February 2019 to appropriate an additional $2 billion from 2020–21 onwards to fund auctions to 2030.
The ERF involves a voluntary crediting and purchasing mechanism.
To ensure these emissions reductions are not displaced significantly by a rise in emissions elsewhere in the economy, a safeguard mechanism requires Australia’s largest emitters to keep net emissions below baseline (historical) levels. The safeguard mechanism applies to around 140 businesses that have direct emissions of more than 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent a year.
Projects that meet the requirements under the various methodologies can generate ACCUs for emissions reductions. Projects can sell their ACCUs on the voluntary market, or bid to sell them to the government in auctions run by the Clean Energy Regulator. Auctions are held twice a year. The ninth ERF auction was held on 24–25 July 2019. The average price per ACCU contracted has been $11.92 over the life of the scheme, with the average price at individual auctions ranging between $10.23 (April 2016) and $13.95 (April 2015).
There is a way forward that does not violate the current government’s electoral commitments. The first step would be to make the whole of the funding for the Climate Solutions Funds available for use now as legitimate carbon credits are certified by the Clean Energy Regulator. This would see the new fund exhausted over a few years.
The second step would be to require in the next parliamentary term, with the necessary electoral preparation, the beginning of phasing in of full offsetting of fugitive emissions by purchase of ACCUs. The full offsetting would be completed through the 2020s. Demand for credits from the farm sector would be further enhanced by the current requirement for all exceedance of baseline emissions within the Abbott safeguard mechanism to be accompanied by surrender to the Clean Energy Regulator of ACCUs. Alternatively, state governments through their mineral leasing or environmental powers could require offsetting of fugitive emissions by use of certified ACCUs – sourced from their own territory, as the local politics would favour expansion of opportunity for the local farm and station community. This is the approach proposed by the WA Environmental Protection Agency in 2019, in its Greenhouse Gas Assessment Guidelines.
Further into the future, when Australia’s international climate change mitigation credentials have been restored, linking to the European Union emissions trading system would avoid truncation of the mitigation effort. Time would be needed to negotiate change in European and Australian rules on trade in carbon credits. There would be initial European scepticism about the legitimacy of a number of Australia’s rules on farm credits. Where warranted, adjustments could be made. At the same time, Australia would need to persuade European policy-makers of the value of soundly measured and administered carbon farming.
Our efforts in persuasion would be supported by the recognition growing in the international community, including in recent IPCC reports noting the importance of natural climate solutions to the global mitigation effort.
This piece is taken from our upcoming book, Australia's Nobel Laureates, Vol. III, celebrating Australian science and innovation. Taking a whole-of-economy healthcheck on Australia's innovation ecosystem, the book features words from industry, academia, and Government.
Getting asked what we look for in deals is one of the most common questions I get as an investment manager.
The Small Business Association of Australia is dedicated to supporting SMEs, acting as their voice to government and helping them connect, grow, and prosper well into the future.
Sensibles may sound like science fiction, but this revolutionary technology is making waves in aged-care facilities, and has the potential to transform health monitoring at scale.
Alice Springs and the deserts of Central Australia don’t sound like a food basket, but they are for businesswoman and bush foods innovator Rayleen Brown.
A new report aims to lay the foundations for a deeper and more meaningful and equitable relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in the mining transition sector.
If the health and medical research sector in Australia is to move forward, it must address gender equity, diversity, and inclusion- which means making the sector a safe and inclusive workspace for all.
A ground-breaking sheep technology system is bettering the businesses and lives of Australian sheep breeders thanks to a revolutionary combination of software, hardware, and support never before combined into one cohesive unit.
ANCA took an early view to look beyond Australia’s shores whilst developing advanced manufacturing technologies now viewed as ‘business as usual’
As Australia grapples with a critical skills shortage, many are now encouraging young people to embrace a career in the trades, where a wealth of opportunities awaits.
In 2016 I published a blog article titled Moonshots for Australia: 7 For Now. It’s one of many I have posted on business and innovation in Australia. In that book, I highlighted a number of Industries of the Future among a number of proposed Moonshots. I self-published a book, Innovation in Australia – Creating prosperity for future generations, in 2019, with a follow-up COVID edition in 2020. There is no doubt COVID is causing massive disruption. Prior to COVID, there was little conversation about National Sovereignty or supply chains. Even now, these topics are fading, and we remain preoccupied with productivity and jobs! My motivation for this writing has been the absence of a coherent narrative for Australia’s business future. Over the past six years, little has changed. The Australian ‘psyche’ regarding our political and business systems is programmed to avoid taking a long-term perspective. The short-term nature of Government (3 to 4-year terms), the short-term horizon of the business system (driven by shareholder value), the media culture (infotainment and ‘gotcha’ games), the general Australian population’s cynical perspective and a preoccupation with a lifestyle all create a malaise of strategic thinking and conversation. Ultimately, it leads to a leadership vacuum at all levels. In recent years we have seen the leadership of some of our significant institutions failing to live up to the most basic standards, with Royal Commissions, Inquiries and investigations consuming excessive time and resources. · Catholic Church and other religious bodies · Trade Unions · Banks (and businesses generally, take casinos, for example) · the Australian Defence Force · the Australian cricket teams · our elected representatives and the staff of Parliament House As they say, “A fish rots from the head!” At best, the leadership behaviour in those institutions could be described as unethical and, at worst….just bankrupt! In the last decade, politicians have led us through a game of “leadership by musical chairs” – although, for now, it has stabilised. However, there is still an absence of a coherent narrative about business and wealth creation. It is a challenge. One attempt to provide such a narrative has been the Intergenerational Reports produced by our federal Government every few years since 2002. The shortcomings of the latest Intergenerational Report Each Intergenerational Report examines the long-term sustainability of current government policies and how demographic, technological, and other structural trends may affect the economy and the budget over the next 40 years. The fifth and most recent Intergenerational Report released in 2021 (preceded by Reports in 2002, 2007, 2010 and 2015) provides a narrative about Australia’s future – in essence, it is an extension of the status quo. The Report also highlights three key insights: 1. First, our population is growing slower and ageing faster than expected. 2. The Australian economy will continue to grow, but slower than previously thought. 3. While Australia’s debt is sustainable and low by international standards, the ageing of our population will pressure revenue and expenditure. However, its release came and went with a whimper. The recent Summit on (what was it, Jobs and Skills and productivity?) also seems to have made the difference of a ‘snowflake’ in hell in terms of identifying our long-term challenges and growth industries. Let’s look back to see how we got here and what we can learn. Australia over the last 40 years During Australia’s last period of significant economic reform (the late 1980s and early 1990s), there was a positive attempt at building an inclusive national narrative between Government and business. Multiple documents were published, including: · Australia Reconstructed (1987) – ACTU · Enterprise Bargaining a Better Way of Working (1989) – Business Council of Australia · Innovation in Australia (1991) – Boston Consulting Group · Australia 2010: Creating the Future Australia (1993) – Business Council of Australia · and others. There were workshops, consultations with industry leaders, and conferences across industries to pursue a national microeconomic reform agenda. Remember these concepts? · global competitiveness · benchmarking · best practice · award restructuring and enterprising bargaining · training, management education and multiskilling. This agenda was at the heart of the business conversation. During that time, the Government encouraged high levels of engagement with stakeholders. As a result, I worked with a small group of training professionals to contribute to the debate. Our contribution included events and publications over several years, including What Dawkins, Kelty and Howard All Agree On – Human Resources Strategies for Our Nation (published by the Australian Institute of Training and Development). Unfortunately, these long-term strategic discussions are nowhere near as prevalent among Government and industry today. The 1980s and 1990s were a time of radical change in Australia. It included: · floating the $A · deregulation · award restructuring · lowering/abolishing tariffs · Corporatisation and Commercialisation Ross Garnaut posits that the reforms enabled Australia to lead the developed world in productivity growth – given that it had spent most of the 20th century at the bottom of the developed country league table. However, in his work, The Great Reset, Garnaut says that over the next 20 years, our growth was attributable to the China mining boom, and from there, we settled into “The DOG days” – Australia moved to the back of a slow-moving pack! One unintended consequence of opening our economy to the world is the emasculation of the Australian manufacturing base. The manic pursuit of increased efficiency, lower costs, and shareholder value meant much of the labour-intensive work was outsourced. Manufacturing is now less than 6% of our GDP , less than half of what it was 30 years ago!
