Soil carbon: time to bury the emissions problem

The United Nations has highlighted the depletion of the worldā€™s precious soil resources as one of the worldā€™s biggest environmental challenges, and says that boosting soil carbon will play a critical role in slowing and halting the growth in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The issue of soil erosion, its potential impacts on underground aquifers, the threat to forests, peatlands and grasslands, and the issue of dealing with nuclear waste are the principal themes of the United Nations Environment Programā€™s (UNEP) 2012 yearbook.

But it is soil, and the carbon that is stored within it, that is the major focus of the report ā€“ a fact that may not be lost on the political opponents in this country, who have been arguing about how much focus should be put on soil carbon within Australiaā€™s own emissions abatement efforts.

The UNEP report suggests that the amount of carbon stored in the top metre of soil alone is around 2,200 billion tonnes, or three times the level currently held in the atmosphere. However, it notes that soil carbon stocks are vulnerable to human activities and can decrease significantly and rapidly in response to change in land use ā€“ such as crop tillage, deforestation, unsustainable agricultural and forestry practices, and urban development.

The problem occurs when the soilā€™s organic matter is broken down, causing some carbon to be converted to carbon dioxide and then lost from the soil. UNEP estimates 60 per cent of carbon stored in soils and vegetation has been lost since the 19th century when there were big changes in land use. The organic matter is also crucial, as it binds the nutrients needed for plant growth and allows rainfall to penetrate into underground aquifers.

UNEP also warns that more than 20 per cent of forests, peatlands and grasslands in developing countries alone could lose vital ecosystem services and biodiversity by 2030, with the draining of peatlands (which hold one third of the worldā€™s soil carbon) the biggest concern. It already contributes 2 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions a year, the report says.

“Soil carbon is easily lost but difficult to rebuild,” the report said.

To try and redress this situation, UNEP suggests changes in agricultural methods such as reduced tillage and the careful use of animal manure or chemical fertilisers and crop rotation; and to encourage this through financial incentives, such as payments for carbon storage, and the international trade of carbon credits for soils. It says improvements of grasslands offer a global greenhouse gas mitigation potential of 810Mt of CO2 up to 2030, almost all of which would be sequestered in the soil.

This has particular relevance in Australia, where carbon farming is one of the aspects of climate change policy that enjoys bilateral support, even if there is a difference between the two sides of politics on the scope of its role.

The Coalition, which opposes a carbon price in the form of a tax or a trading scheme, is banking on soil carbon delivering at least 60 per cent of their targets, or around 85 million tonnes of Co2e by 2020.

The government, though, has taken a more modest approach, with its Carbon Farming Initiative likely to only account for 5 per cent of emissions permits in the initial phases of the carbon pricing scheme.

Soil carbon will only be one of a number of different approaches in the CFI ā€“ others include landfill gas, abatement in piggeries, savannah burning ā€“ but it is likely to be several years before methodologies are agreed on for soil carbon, a point underlined by UNEP, which speaks of the “critical need” to develop universal ways to measure, report and verify changes in soil carbon over time.

One of the weaknesses of the Coalitionā€™s climate policy was that it relied so much on yet-to-be-agreed science to deliver on its 5 per cent emissions reduction target. ā€œThe lack of adequate methodologies and approaches has been one of the main barriers to accounting for the significant mitigation effects that land management projects can have,ā€ UNEP noted.

Carbon farming

Meanwhile, despite bipartisan support for the CFI, the program is likely to get off to a slow start, according to experts and potential participants, because of the uncertainty about the overall carbon pricing scheme, concerns about the fall of the international price on carbon, and the painstaking process of approving new methodologies.

The Carbon Market Institute on Monday launched its official guide for business on the CFI, in conjunction with Ramp Carbon and legal firm Norton Rose.

Seb Henbest, from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said the price of permits generated under the CFI will be greatly impacted by the price of international permits, and the floor price in the Australian carbon scheme. The current expectation is that the Australian market will trade at or around the $15/t floor price when the market-based scheme is introduced in 2015. The difficulty for carbon farming projects in Australia is that investors may find it more attractive to buy permits on the international market, rather than having to invest ā€œup frontā€ for Australian projects.

ā€œIf the carbon price is low, it will be a challenge for the market,ā€ he said. ā€œIf it is high, it could be a bonanza.ā€

David Ayre, from the National Farmers Federation, said soil carbon was of critical importance to Australian farmers because it could be married into cropping and grazing practices. However, he said, while there was great interest in the initiative, many Australia farmers needed to see that the initiatives could generate a scale that warranted the investment.

Without the scale, forestry might be the only attractive part of the CFI, which was a potential negative for food production. He said the NFF was keen to establish a series of ā€œmodel farmsā€ that might display how the CFI would work.

Comments

12 responses to “Soil carbon: time to bury the emissions problem”

  1. Alastair L Avatar
    Alastair L

    Fossil fuel fertiliser corporations (not to mention GM corps like Monstano) will oppose any kind of accurate measurement and verification of OM and Carbon abatement in soils. They stand to be the big loser, bigger than coal even which will still be required to some extent for smelting steel.

    Great doco on the BD movement taking hold amongst poor Indian farmers who are sick of getting screwed by AgriBusiness and have watched their soils ā€” the cradle of modern civilisation ā€” get destroyed in 30 years. Water table has fallen 100s of metres in areas like the Ganges plains. Big trouble ahead unless we shift to natural, organic and (best of class) BD farming.

    One Man One Cow One Planet 1/6 – YouTube http://bit.ly/z3m5Je

  2. Jake Avatar
    Jake

    I think biochar should be the solution of choice here. True carbon sequestration will not come from piping coal-fired emissions into natural gas caverns or exhausted oil wells, instead we should look to sustainably managed forests processed through combustion plants and turned into electricity, waste-heat, and biochar for soil remediation.

    1. Alastair L Avatar
      Alastair L

      +1 Biochar

  3. Mike Robbins Avatar

    Interesting piece Giles. You touch on two of the main problems of “carbon farming” through carbon sinks. One is that it has to compete with cheaper and quicker ways of generating emissions reductions. In the end, farmers may to pursue carbon-friendly practices that generate other benefits and then regard the emissions credits as a by-product they can sell at the market price. There are precedents for this on the carbon market; a lot of CDM projects are “unilateral” – e.g., the carbon producer has invested up-front.

    Also, as UNEP points out, there’s no global agreement on techniques for measuring, monitoring and reporting agricultural sinks. Any agreement has to allow for the fact that farming is one of the most diverse industries worldwide – and that that diversity is far greater in some countries/regions than others. But the tools do exist.

  4. Michael Kiely Avatar

    If all the energy and resources spent by our national research agencies ‘proving’ that farmers can’t grow soil carbon at significant rates was spent instead on finding ways of removing the barriers, we’d have made it by now. We invite anyone interested to read any report on the viability of soil carbon sequestration by CSIRO, GRDC, DPI, ABARE, and university-based scientists – and find just one that is not simply ‘all problems, no solutions.’

  5. Chris Sanderson Avatar

    In the northern rivers region of NSW (and perhaps in other areas?), the imported camphor laurel species of tree proliferates at the expense of native species. They are considered by environmentalists as weeds.

    Iā€™m told by experts on this subject that camphor laurel converts very well to biochar.

    Unfortunately the market for biochar is not yet economically viable. However if govt provided some financial assistance until it is, and efficient portable biochar generation technology was available, both problems could be solved. ā€¦ā€¦../Chris

    1. Jake Avatar
      Jake

      Hey Chris, I believe this company is developing a portable biochar plant.

      http://www.biocharproducts.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=112

    2. Alastair L Avatar
      Alastair L

      Once the benefits of bio-char are established as an component of a holistic agricultural system then there will be some kind of a market for it without needing carbon credits. I think the verification problems of carbon credits will prove very problematic for soil credits on things like biochar (think poor pink batts installation and blue gum plantations).

      Science should concentrate on qualifying and quantifying the agricultural benefits in as broad terms as possible to stimulate the market before any carbon accounting schemes are considered. It’s like how FITs have stimulated renewable energy in Germany not so much the European carbon tax. Create demand don’t muck around to much with accounting/fiscal fixes, they just get gamed anyhow.

  6. Alastair L Avatar
    Alastair L

    Another (accounting and verification) problem with carbon credits going to farmers that I haven’t seen answered is what happens if the carbon sequestration they are paid for up-front is reversed by say the application of fossil-fuel-based fertilisers which is associated with rapid losses of organic matter and soil biota?

    It’s sad that Australian farmers so often want to be paid to do something that improves their land, soil quality and the environment yet are quite happy use their own profits to destroy soil quality and the environment. If only there were more BD farmers, the only ones I’ve seen who can actually reverse dry-land salinity on abandoned agricultural land and who regenerate and improve soil quality year in year out. Not that all the ag scientist at CSIRO, Melb Uni etc etc could learn the slightest thing from such intellectually inferior people. :-\

  7. D. John Hunwick Avatar
    D. John Hunwick

    Putting carbon in the soil is surely a double win – for the environment and the farmer. I would be extremely happy for some level of tax to be used to support farming that was biologically (ecologicaclly) sane. Perhaps it will only happen when the price of imported (ie non-regional) fruit and vegies becomes so high that local production becomes more economical and sustainable.

    1. Alastair L Avatar
      Alastair L

      @D John Hunwick
      We don’t have much fresh produce that is imported to Australia. That’s why we pay through the nose for fruit and veg in this country compared to almost every place outside Australia I’ve lived.

      In New York people can buy organic fruits and vege of many varieties for a fraction of the cost of conventional (environmentally damaging) produce in Australia. Similar in London. Europe imports from Nth Africa and Mediterranean and USA imports from Sth AMerica. It keeps their producers at lower margins, too due to the low-wage competition. They probably subsidise local agriculture (and possibly transportation fuel costs) more than Australia too.

      1. Alastair L Avatar
        Alastair L

        Fruit in Thailand is actually affordable for regular people why is it so expensive in Australia, especially organic which I eat almost exclusively for the nutritional and environmental advantages.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.