Monday, December 21, 2009 8:59 PM
Barnaby
Thanks for raising this matter. I think I have part of the solution to the problem that Mr Abbott has regarding the issues surrounding the carbon debate and the environment. I have been pondering this problem trying to do something to progress the situation on the island for a number of years. When I read about Peter Spencer and then read your comments in The Australian, I thought it was provident.
I am one of the many farmers that has been caught up in the native vegetation issue. I have just challenged the Tasmanian Forest Practice Authority on a ruling to clear some vegetation (500 acres) on King Island, and fortunately I did win, in this instance, through their own stupidity.
The role of farmers in meeting the future carbon sequestration objectives across the Australian landscape has been virtually ignored. Farmers, in their endevour to face the ever increasing cost price squeeze placed upon them, have purchased land (often from the Crown) with the aim of expanding their operations to feed the anticipated 35 million Australians that Rudd thinks we need, as well as survive financially.
If one does believe in the carbon link to climate change, then the simpliest solution, which has quadruple (plus one) bottom line end result, would be to introduce a GET (Good Environment Tax) on all food and fibre produced in Australia. This would bring it into line with the GST that was removed as a result of the horse trade that occurred when the GST was introduced.
This GET should be targetted for restoring the degradation and environmental damage that occurs across the Australian landscape every time food is produced. It would also be used to compensate farmers (eg through management agreements) for the theft of their assets as a result of these native vegetation laws. The funds would be returned to landmanagers for programs adopted under an accredited EMS (Environmental Management System_Judith Troeth knows about these things)) so that specified targets and priorities are met. The distribution of the funds could be linked to the current BAS process.
It would achieve five things that are currently not being addressed in all the current arggy bargy.
1. The landscape will slowly be restored with the resultant landscape scale sequestration achieved simultaneously.
2. Biodiversity in its own right will be protected and restored
3.The Australian consumer will have their hip pocket nerve reawakened to the fact that food does have an environmental cost, and doesnt just appear on a supermarket shelf.
4. It keeps the hedge funds and investment bankers fingers out of the carbon trading pie.
5. It would lift the current profile of farmers in the eyes of the Australian and world consumers.
The downs side, (if there is one), is that the cost of food in Australia will increase by 10%. However if you believe the carbon/climate change lobbyists then the likely long term affects on Australia's food production is going to make this increase pale into insignificants.
If the link between carbon and climate does in fact ultimately fail, then nothing is lost, as the problems with the loss of our biodiversity andl environmental cost of our food production have been sorted long term, and the Australian consumer will learn to understand the link and the balance between food production and the environment.
This GET would bring Australian farmers and our agricultural production to the forefront of the world in terms of long term sustainability
Cheers
Donald Graham
1016 Millwood Road
King Island Tasmania
0458123081
0364611333