LOOKING at One Nation’s continually soaring popularity in the polls, it is fair to say scrapping Australia’s target to reach net zero emissions by 2050 is a popular plan.
While the Coalition joins in the promises to scrap the target, it is also looking to walk away from another policy it has largely supported over the past two decades – the carbon market.
Both parties have vowed to scrap the “safeguard mechanism” which forces big emitting companies to purchase carbon credits if they exceed a certain limit of emissions. Without a policy like the safeguard mechanism, it hard to see the carbon market survive.
The Coalition’s move away from the carbon market is significant for the carbon industry, which has struggled to find friends across the political spectrum for its entire existence.
Labor claims to support the carbon market and has geared the safeguard mechanism in a way that many are tipping to send the demand for Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCU) through the roof.
But it has also tied the industry up in regulation, cancelled its main ACCU producing methodology, cancelled a key methodology for the beef industry and held the soil carbon methodology up in a review for more than a year.
Many in the carbon industry believe Labor and its climate change department are scared of criticism from the anti-fossil fuel lobby, which has cast the carbon market as a way of producers profiteering and big companies paying their way out of real action.
Lobby groups like The Australia Institute and the Australian Conservation Foundation have been critical of offsets for similar reasons. And in parliament, groups the Greens and Senator David Pocock have been critical of Labor’s approach to the carbon market, calling for limits on carbon credits when legislating the safeguard mechanism and tighter controls on carbon projects.
A bit about the carbon market
Australia’s carbon market started with the Abbott Government in 2013, with the creation of the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) which was a replacement of the Gillard Government’s carbon tax.
The ERF was set up to facilitate carbon projects and was the sole buyer of ACCUs at the time. In 2016, the Turnbull Government established the safeguard mechanism, putting an emissions limit on companies like mines and making them purchase ACCUs whenever they exceeded those limits.
When the Albanese Labor Government came into power in 2022, they ramped up the safeguard mechanism – making the limits decline over the years to 2035.
What are One Nation and the Coalition saying?
Beef Central contacted both One Nation and Nationals leader Matt Canavan to ask if there was a plan to continue the carbon market if they scrap the safeguard mechanism. Mr Canavan has not come back, but a spokesperson from One Nation said it had no plan to continue the carbon market.
“One Nation would absolutely scrap the safeguard mechanism, carbon market and all net-zero and emissions reductions policies,” the spokesperson said.
“Net-Zero is asking, and will in the future force, farmers to lock up their productive agricultural land. Net-zero is also increasing the cost of fertiliser and energy inputs into farming. Farmers are increasingly resorting to revenue from alternative sources like carbon markets because successive governments have made agriculture un-economic thanks to the pursuit of industry-killing net-zero policies.
“One Nation believes prime agricultural land is for growing food and fibre, not for locking up to meet agreements made in Paris.”
Liberal leader Angus Taylor said in his budget reply speech the safeguard mechanism was a default carbon tax.
“This tax jacks up the price on essential building materials like steel, cement, and glass – driving up the cost of new homes. It also undermines investment in key industries and hastens them going offshore,” Mr Taylor said.
“Indeed, we will abolish Labor’s crippling net zero carbon taxes wherever we find them. On mining, manufacturing, electricity, vehicles, and imports.”
Campaign starts to save the carbon market
With hundreds of farmers having signed up to carbon projects over the past two decades, a campaign has started to rescue the carbon market.
The Growing Australia’s Nature Economy (GANE) campaign was launched earlier this year. It says the carbon market has paid out close to $800m to farmers, landholders and Indigenous communities.
GANE has been particularly critical of One Nation and the Coalition saying some of the loudest critics of the carbon market are from the electorates that have benefited from carbon the most.
It has been posting videos and press releases from farmers involved in the market explaining how they have benefited from carbon.
Rural towns community’s and businesses are going backwards and have been for quite sometime. The reason is that our staple industries for rural and regional communities (Agriculture) is struggling and also going backwards. The older tradition way from the industrial revolution of running a property is no longer fit for purpose and is actually degraded land, health, production and profits. By encouraging producers to adopt regenerative farming practices wether that be for grazing or farming purposes we can collaboratively rejuvenate the land, increase production, increase profits, encourage the next generation to stay on the land, employ more people, spend more money in local small businesses put people back into rural and regional towns and schools. Increase government GDP. Produce more nutritionally dense food that will help the growing health crisis. All of that is only possible by improving soil health which is to put more carbon into the soil, and reduce costly inputs. The way to do that is to support education of these regenerative practices and reward the good producers doing the right thing that can be scientifically backed up through a soil carbon project and the ACCU scheme. I openly invite anyone from Beef, One nation or the Liberals to come out and see first hand on my property and business what is going on and how it all works.
Ben Simpson.
It is demoralising to hear the uninformed ideological rhetoric coming from the Coalition and One Nation. Are they that stupidly unaware that big Australian business operates on a competitive global markets, in which your carbon management can be a point of difference? If they get their way they set Australian business back in these much needed markets. Are they that blinded by ideology to realise that Safeguard Mechanism is promoting mining, manufacturing, agriculture, waste and energy for the future, not anti at all, but promoting processes of greater efficiency, energy security and thus operational security and thus longevity and profitability? Whilst also developing job and innovation projects that lead to co-dependent industries? Are they that stupidly unaware that decarbonisation efforts are driving a trillion dollar industry with huge investment, job creation and innovation learnings and gains, and benefits to industrial emitters and big energy users through energy diversification, energy recuperation process efficiencies, and useful R&D and pilot trials that would not happen without carrots and sticks. Similarly the soil carbon method has greatly benefited open-minded agriculture with significant cash revenue from ACCUs whilst simultaneously improving soil health and thus farm productivity and profitability. Sure there is real pain for some large emitters, and for questionable ill-thought through unsustainable projects, but the overall benefits of Safeguard Mechanism, supporting policies and industry born or flourishing out of it are domestically and globally of great economic, social and maybe even environmental benefit.
And these know nothing loud-mouths want to destroy that? And what then of that lost industry, new markets, profitability for agriculture & manufacturing alike, its thousands of jobs, the jobs through new projects, the communities where they live, the IP, the transferrable innovation, our global competitiveness, project and regional investment, our business looking to the future and the endless opportunities that would bring?
Simply put, One Nation and the Coalition are talking nonsense, an uninformed reckless fundamentally flawed economic ideology that does the complete opposite of benefiting Australia and its people and workforce.
John McGrath,
You are spot on with your analysis.
The govts policies and the drought in many areas has ment that this year my fellow farmers have sown less than 1/2 the normal area of land to our most important food crop, our wheat crop.
Many have also decided to cut their costs with less fertiliser because it is so expensive. Others have also decided not to put on the critically important nitrogen fertilisers later in year because of the high cost. Both these decisions mean the total amount of grain grown per hectare will be much below normal.
come harvest in Nov Dec.
The question will be who will get grain to eat and who will eat less or be unable to eat at all. Starvation of a few more poor people overseas won’t matter to our Labor politicians in Canberra or our rich beurocrates in their secure offices, but it will matter a lot to the hungry and to every Australian faced with yet more price increases when they go to their local supermarket.
The level of ignorance and the stupidity of our politicians and the managers is breathtaking. Every person in Australia will pay, as will the 49 million people overseas who are fed by our Australian farmers every year.
Carbon reduction is absurd as carbon should be increased to ensure that production of food crops continues to expand for the purpose of meeting the food demands of the human race which is predicted to grow to 10 billion by 2050. If carbon production is reduced human starvation will become a massive problem. The increase in carbon on Earth does not increase global temperatures. That is a myth created by the IPCC. Global temperatures are governed by sunspot activities over which humans have no control.
1000 percent
to think reducing a trace gas that in Austrailian input is so small its like peeing into the ocean and hopeing your warm water dosnt melt the icecaps Atmospheric CO2 is .044 of 1 percent
total myth and carbon offset onley transfers tax payer money
The Safeguard Mechanism is fundamentally a government intervention designed to create a market and economic incentives that would not otherwise exist, with the intention of driving behavioral and technological change.
It’s also worth noting that the IPCC itself acknowledges significant uncertainty ranges and varying confidence levels in many climate projections and impact assessments. The science should always be read in its entirety, including the discussion around assumptions, uncertainties and confidence intervals, rather than focusing solely on headline conclusions.
The tide is changing, and one thing I have learned is that you cannot hold back the tide.
As a broader principle, whenever governments rely on direct market intervention to influence behaviour, rather than creating conditions for industry-led innovation and adoption, there is a risk of increased complexity, unintended consequences, compliance costs, market distortions, and the creation of both winners and losers. Whether the benefits outweigh those costs is ultimately a matter for debate. Unfortunately, much of this debate has, at times, lacked balance, with alternative viewpoints often receiving less attention than prevailing policy positions. Robust public policy is best served when competing ideas and evidence can be openly examined and challenged.
We have just partnered with Carbonlink in a soil carbon project on Latrobe Longreach and expect to lift our soil carbon levels considerably through changing the way we run cattle , less mobs ,larger mobs, more moves, short grazes, longer spells for the country. We are not blindly experimenting here. We have the proven lived experience in the Queensland Mitchel Grass of Mike Pratt Stephen Stacey Ben Simpson Bob Marshal to learn from. Thanks to the internet and smart tv we have been exposed to influence of Allan Savory through Charles Massy Will Harris Gabe Brown and Emery Birdwell. I am convinced there is a better way of farming and running livestock then what has been popular to date. I am excited by the path our Daughter Jody has us on for the health of our soil pasture animals people communities and Planet since getting to know Alejandro Carrillo
I agree, the Carbon Market needs tidying up.
However the ignorant push by the Coalition and PHON
Is misleading.
Farming will be forced to face rising Temperstures and changed rainfall patterns
The next few generations will pay a heavy price for the Fossil Fuel Lobby groups and the wilfully ignorant politicians we are observing
Very depressing
We never seem to learn until too late
Does any one think the cattle King Sydney Kidmin worried about carbon farming ?
He worked with nature , good & bad .
The whole carbon farming myth is designed to push livestock farming out of existence.
its designed to keep everyone poor?
In principle / and practice successfull farmers /cattle men look after their assets? their own stations as Land Stewards.
carbon farrming with their ever changeing and often unrealistic goals and rules ignor the fact that the Land owners know best.
I believe carbon farming should be thrown in the bin along with those who instigated the dreamed up BS initially.
All farming is either carbon farming or it’s desertification- especially in grazing. Croppers have to pay detailed attention to available nutrients or they quickly suffer crop failure. Graziers can be lazier – the ones who don’t replace the nutrients they extract in food and fibre are merely mining the soil. The greatest source of pasture nutrients (N, K, P, etc) comes from naturally cycling organic matter, which is ~57% carbon. Australian soils have lost maybe 50% of their carbon since settlement, therefore 50% of their cycling nutrients. Kidman knew that his style of grazing was going to reduce fertility through carbon mining, he should roll over in his grave and send his knighthood back 😉
Sound comments John.
Most graziers know that looking after their country puts carbon in the soil. This helps water absorption, pasture growth, groundcover etc. What many don’t appreciate – largely because there is so much noise – is that there are safe ways to be paid for this. Soil carbon credits. Not so much tree carbon, that tends to lock up land.
The soil carbon market does completely the opposite of locking up land. It makes it more productive. It’s pretty unique in that it pays producers to look after their country.
“Climate change” used to be called the “Greenhouse effect”. In a greenhouse, a warmer and wetter climate is created, sometimes CO2 is pumped in, in order to grow more plants / food.
Any ignorance surrounding “climate change “, is coming from the green agenda, not political bodies such as Phon or the Coalition.
If a population approaching 10 billion needs to be fed, then Climate change is a net positive.
it’s humbling to be reading of other sensible like minded people. if anyone needs obvious examples of government intervention just look at our private school subsidised system, universities and our ndis. we will be broke before this new climate cult even gets going. cheers Matthew Della Gola