are dumping their pollution problem onto Australian farmland
| Key Points |
|
A new report has found that Australian farmers are carrying the cost of industrial pollution twice over.
Farmers for Climate Action commissioned the analysis from carbon and agriculture consultancy Regional Policy Solutions.
The report is titled Shifting the Burden.[1]
It arrives as the federal Safeguard Mechanism review approaches a critical deadline for public input.
The scheme governs pollution from more than two hundred major industrial facilities across Australia.
Public submissions on its future closed on 18 September, one day before publication.[2]
The report identifies a clear driver behind the spread of carbon plantations across productive farmland.
Industrial polluters increasingly buy land-based offsets rather than cutting pollution at their own facilities.
Report author Oscar Pearse said this pattern reflects the government's least-cost abatement principle.[3]
Farmland already delivers a carbon offset service that researchers estimate is worth 1.2 billion dollars annually. Agricultural land has long absorbed carbon through unpaid land sector accounting under national emissions rules.
Farmers receive no formal payment or public recognition for this substantial contribution.[4]
The report points to Tasmania's Rushy Lagoon property as a cautionary example of the trend. Farmland there was purchased outright for a large pine plantation built to store corporate carbon.
Mr Pearse called such conversions a shortcut for polluters seeking to avoid direct emissions cuts.[3]
To prevent further cases like it, the report proposes sorting carbon projects into three distinct tiers. A green tier would support working landscapes that stay fully integrated with active farming operations.
Higher tiers covering large-scale conversions would face closer scrutiny before any approval proceeds.[3]
Agriculture has already reduced its own on-farm emissions considerably over recent years, the report notes. Growing support for integrating carbon abatement into productive properties has helped drive that steady progress.
Coal, gas and oil corporations have made comparatively smaller cuts at their own industrial sites.[5]
The report found that fossil fuel and resource companies purchase most of Australia's available carbon credits. These same sectors have largely avoided reducing pollution directly from their own operations and facilities.
Farmers absorb the resulting pressure on their land while missing out on any profits.[5]
Climate Council analysis identifies coal, gas and iron ore mining as the next major opportunity for cuts. These resource industries represent a substantial share of Australia's total industrial pollution output.
Analyst Greg McLeod said resources companies still have strong options available to reduce their emissions.[6]
Farmers for Climate Action argues that policy should target pollution reduction closer to its actual source. Land sector offsets should support genuine on-farm carbon gains rather than replace industrial action altogether.
The group wants offsetting treated as a last resort rather than a routine default choice.[3]
The economic toll on farm households is already significant, according to figures cited from ABARES estimates. Typical farm profits have fallen by nearly thirty thousand dollars a year across recent seasons.
That works out to roughly five hundred and fifty dollars less in every single week.[5]
Worsening fires, droughts and steadily rising insurance premiums drive much of this ongoing financial decline. Climate change intensifies each of these separate pressures across farming regions in every state. Farmers absorb these mounting costs while also managing land that serves broader national carbon goals.
Beyond direct climate damage, farmers provide an unpaid carbon sequestration service valued in the billions. Former NSW Farmers president Mal Peters said this pattern has persisted for more than two decades.
He said regional Australia deserves genuine recognition rather than continued silence from industrial polluters.[4]
Carbon income does offer real diversification potential for some farm businesses seeking new revenue streams. Selling credits can supplement falling profits during especially difficult seasons marked by drought or flood.
The report warns this opportunity should never substitute for genuine industrial accountability at the source.[3]
Least-cost abatement lets big polluters choose whichever path to compliance happens to be cheapest. Farmland offsets are frequently cheaper than upgrading ageing industrial equipment or overhauling production processes entirely.
This dynamic keeps pushing carbon plantations onto productive agricultural land across regional Australia.[3]
The federal Safeguard Mechanism review offers a genuine chance to change this entrenched pattern. It covers more than two hundred facilities responsible for heavy industrial pollution each year.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen launched the review to assess settings for the period beyond 2030.[2]
The review will examine closely how the scheme should evolve once that decade closes. It places particular emphasis on domestic abatement, industrial decarbonisation and stronger energy security.
A final report from the review process is expected sometime in early 2027.[2]
The Shifting the Burden report recommends lifting the Safeguard Mechanism's target for 2035 considerably. It suggests a seventy per cent reduction goal to reflect real farm sector progress already made.
This shift would demand far greater direct action from Australia's largest remaining industrial polluters.[3]
Diverting food-producing land toward industrial offsets carries serious long-term consequences for the wider nation. Australia's food and fibre production capacity depends heavily on retaining large areas of working farmland.
Uncoordinated carbon plantation growth could permanently reduce that essential productive capacity over time.[3]
The report calls for tighter integration between land use, carbon policy and nature protection frameworks. Fragmented rules currently allow inconsistent decisions to be made across different regions and states.
Farmers for Climate Action wants clearer national standards applied consistently to future land conversion approvals.[3]
Uncoordinated carbon plantations also threaten regional communities that depend heavily on active local agriculture. Whole-farm conversions can hollow out small towns built around ongoing farming and associated services.
Chief executive Verity Morgan-Schmidt said food production must remain the clear national priority.[1]
Farmers hold a direct economic interest in seeing a genuinely strong national emissions target succeed. Weaker industrial reduction goals only increase long-term pressure on remaining agricultural land nationwide.
A stronger Safeguard Mechanism would protect both farm livelihoods and Australia's broader food security.[2]
Shifting the Burden makes a sobering case about Australia's climate accounting. Farmers already provide an unpaid service worth well over a billion dollars every single year. Industrial polluters continue buying that service instead of cutting their own emissions at the source.
The Safeguard Mechanism review offers a genuine opportunity for meaningful change to occur. Government decisions made in the coming months will determine who ultimately bears the ongoing cost. Farmland remains a finite resource that cannot keep expanding to match rising industrial demand.
Genuine accountability, rather than least-cost convenience, should guide the reforms that follow this review. Restricting major polluters from defaulting to farmland protects both farmers and national food security.
The review's eventual outcome will help shape the future of Australian agriculture for decades ahead.
1. Shifting the burden: new report finds farmers carry load of industrial emissions from coal and gas, Farmers for Climate Action. Media release announcing the Shifting the Burden report and its key findings.
2. Bowen launches review of emission caps and credits for Australia's biggest carbon polluters, RenewEconomy. Details the scope, timeline and September 2026 consultation deadline of the Safeguard Mechanism review.
3. Farmers pay the price for big polluters: report details a shifting burden, The Land. Reports Oscar Pearse's findings, the Rushy Lagoon case study and the report's tiered offset recommendations.
4. F4CA report says farmers carry industry's climate load, North Coast Times. Covers the $1.2 billion unpaid carbon service estimate and comment from former NSW Farmers president Mal Peters.
5. Farmers demand fair go in fight with fossil fuel giants, Bega District News (AAP). AAP report citing ABARES farm profit figures and the concentration of carbon credit purchases among fossil fuel companies.
6. Australia's biggest polluters to face emissions review, The Senior (AAP). Covers Climate Council comment on the resources sector's emissions-reduction opportunities and the review's consultation deadline.
No comments :
Post a Comment