CSIRO study erodes credibility of key carbon model

02 Nov, 2015 04:40 AM
Without accounting for the soil erosion, the accuracy of the carbon accounting is undermined

AUSTRALIA'S method of measuring how much carbon is being stored in its soil is flawed, undermining the credibility of government programs to pay farmers to sequester the climate change inducing element, a new study by CSIRO researchers has found.

The Carbon Farming Initiative begun by the Gillard government and the Abbott-Turnbull government's Direct Action climate policy have spent millions of dollars to encourage farmers to boost carbon levels in their soils to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase the productivity of the land.

However, the model used in Australia and elsewhere in the world to calculate carbon storage fails to account for soil and wind erosion, which means the carbon sink is as much as 17 per cent over-estimated over a century, according to the peer-reviewed research published last week in Nature Climate Change.

"The omission of [soil organic carbon] erosion in crop production models has implications for potential...sequestration in Australia and elsewhere," the authors, led by Adrian Chappell, a principal research scientist with CSIRO's Land & Water division, wrote.

Without accounting for the soil erosion, the accuracy of the carbon accounting is undermined and the uncertainty in estimates of how much carbon is being trapped is unnecessarily increased, Dr Chappell said.

Some farmers, for instance, may see no detectable increase in the carbon being stored even though they follow standard practices because their soil is being eroded, and the carbon is ending up elsewhere.

The 2009 "red dawn" that saw a huge region of eastern Australia cloaked in a dust storm.

The 2009 "red dawn" that saw a huge region of eastern Australia cloaked in a dust storm. Photo: Quentin Jones

"They will turn around and blame the management system," Dr Chappell said. "A whole lot of misleading outcomes will be signalled."

Likewise, farmers downwind or in valleys may inadvertently be rewarded for carbon washed or blown on to their land.

Government auction pending

The report comes just days before the Turnbull government is due to hold its second auction under the $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund.

Sequestration projects such as carbon farming accounted for 28 million tonnes of the 47 million tonnes of abatement during the first auction. The payout for all winning bids totalled $660 million.

A second auction is due to be held on November 4-5, with carbon farming again likely to feature prominently among the bids.

A spokesman for Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the government was confident in the integrity of its modelling.

"Our soil carbon methodologies are world leading and have been verified and endorsed by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]," he said. "This occurred as recently as September."

Shrinking profit margin

Dr Chappell said the Environment Department was "aware of the significance of soil erosion" for Australia's National Carbon Accounting System.

"I don't know if they are in the process of doing anything about it," he said.

Dr Chappell said measuring the loss of soil could be done by tracking changes to caesium levels as a proxy for erosion.

While fairly inexpensive, the detection of the trace element along with carbon would increase the cost for farmers and would most likely undermine the economics of the process for some.

"There's not enough of a profit margin to make it worthwhile."

The government's website uses an illustration of carbon farming as its main promotion of the ERF.

'Respect science'

The Greens deputy leader, Larissa Waters, said the apparently flawed models used to pay for carbon abatement raised further doubts about the government's Direct Action policy.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Thursday "said our country's success depends on respecting science", Senator Waters said.

"To live up to that rhetoric, the Prime Minister needs to take note of CSIRO's study and amend the accounting methods," she said. "More broadly, the Turnbull government needs to bring its climate policy in line with science, including by increasing [former prime minister] Tony Abbott's woeful climate targets before Paris."

Mr Turnbull will present Australia's target to cut 2005-level emissions by 26-28 per cent by 2030 at this month's climate summit in Paris.

Fairfax Media also sought comment from the ALP.

'Red dawn'

The CSIRO team is studying soil erosion not only for carbon changes but also to understand how the productive capacity of Australia's farmlands is changing.

Major dust storms, such as the "red dawn" event of 2009 that blanketed a region from Sydney to Brisbane and reached as far as the snowfields of New Zealand, are examples of how vulnerable soils are to erosion.

Not only are important nutrients and carbon being blown or leached away, the remaining soil is also more susceptible to further erosion because it can typically hold less moisture and support less vegetation, Dr Chappell said.

The prospect that future climate change will make heavy rainfall events more intense and increase the gustiness of winds will most likely exacerbate the erosion of soils in Australia and elsewhere even as populations and food demand continues to swell, he said.

Date: Newest first | Oldest first


3/11/2015 9:52:17 AM

Nico the problem for you is the science IS NOT supported by the facts. It is all theories and adjustments to support the theories and that IS NOT true science. It is all about the money as stated by many above. And now when you are loosing the argument Nico, you advocate moderating this site to no doubt block the views differing from your own. Why, is it starting to become to obvious that you are wrong and it will soon start to affect your funding stream. The whole AGW scam is just about non productive leaches sucking off the productive sector, end of story.
New World Disorder
3/11/2015 12:27:57 PM

The end-game of the climate scam is coming. http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/nation s-and-peoples-should-fear-the-par is-coup/
3/11/2015 1:49:53 PM

Censor and silence all those who disagree with the scam you mean Nico ? Yes that is the way this nut-job belief system operates as they don't want any opposition to expose them and their lies along with the financial and scientific scam they are pushing. Nico's words should be evidence enough to all that he is not interested in the truth , just his own view. Does anyone need anymore evidence that the cagw adherents are a bunch of very dangerous idiologically driven cranks that will let no one stand in their way. All must yield to them including free speech and independent thought.
Natalie Williams
3/11/2015 5:26:03 PM

This article doesn't say which model CSIRO is denigrating. There are multiple carbon models in use across Australia and many more around the world, as well as many being developed which take into account the whole life cycle of soil carbon. It is very disrespectful to give the people developing these models a brush off of this magnitude, when Australia is probably leading the way in terms of sequestration calculations and how to reverse carbon loss from soils. Whether you are a doomsdayer or denier, this science is game changer that has only benefits for Ag in the long run, why stymy it???
4/11/2015 11:06:14 AM

Gumtree, it would be very nice if you could produce some "free speech and independent thought", especially if it were backed by evidence. But this is something you seem incapable of doing. Evidence-free assertions are, as I said, a waste of time. Have you read the article in question? Do you understand it? Can you say in what particular it is wrong? In what way does this request constitute censorship?
Bill Pounder
5/11/2015 9:56:16 PM

Carbon sequestration is natural and free, increased atmospheric CO2 increases all plants biomass. Here's two cow peas over 42 days:- https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=P2 qVNK6zFgE Even the CSIRO says, "Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2." http://www.csiro.au/en/News/News- releases/2013/Deserts-greening-fr om-rising-CO2
6/11/2015 6:59:35 AM

Pounder, who has an overt political agenda, relies on readers not to follow up his references. He is very well aware (but doesn't mention) that there is intense research into the effects on plants of enhanced atmospheric CO2. Some ecosystems benefit. Others don't. (More woody weeds, for example.) The CSIRO study he cites cautions that, while CO2 fertilisation may slow climate change, we "will still require large reductions of global fossil fuel emissions." See: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/jo urnal/v5/n5/full/nclimate2581.htm l
6/11/2015 7:23:29 AM

The simple fact you want censorship for this site Nico tells us everything .
6/11/2015 8:39:12 AM

It's a wonder you bother to read and write comment here Nico given that you are a skeptic of skeptics.
Food Producer
6/11/2015 8:51:13 AM

Wrong again Nico. Woody weeds are mostly C4 plants which wont see any benefit from increased atmospheric CO2 rates. C3 plants which are our food plants will see a huge benefit from the increasing CO2 rate.
< previous |  1 | 2 | 3 | 4  |  next >


Screen name *
Email address *
Remember me?
Comment *


light grey arrow
I'm one of the people who want marijuana to be legalized, some city have been approved it but
light grey arrow
#blueysmegacarshowandcruise2019 10 years on Daniels Ute will be apart of another massive cause.
light grey arrow
Australia's live animal trade is nothing but a blood stained industry that suits those who