So if this is where we really stand, we need to look at several ways of reducing/mitigating these emissions. In 2008, Ross Garnaut released a report that he had prepared for the Rudd government on climate change and its impact on Australia. One of the chapters in this review was on agriculture. Several different ways in which agricultural and rural areas may be used to mitigate or reduce greenhouse gases include, reduced livestock emissions. Methane emissions from livestock accounts for about 67% of the GHG emissions from agriculture in Australia. Therefore there is scope to change to low methane emitting livestock or for technological advances to develop low methane emitting stock.
It was highlighted in Garnaut’s 2008 report that there is considerable potential for biosequestration in rural Australia.
What is the potential supply of carbon mitigation services from land-use change of Australian farmers?What are the abatement and transaction costs for the supply of these services, and how they vary spatially?What economic incentives are necessary to realise this supply?
A farmer j will participate in a carbon sequestration or abatement project is the incentives they receive are greater than the sum of the abatement costs and the transaction costs.
Carbon sequestration potential varies significantly based on geographical location
An integrated assessment of land use change in the Border Rivers-Gwydir catchment - Jonathan Moss
An Integrated Assessment of Land-useChange in the Border Rivers-GwydirCatchment Jonathan Moss, Oscar Cacho, Stuart Mounter
Acknowledgement Primary Industry Adaptation Research Network (PIARN) 2
Presentation outline Potential for GHG reduction from farmers Objectives of research Methodology Results Conclusions 3
Australian farming sector Potential for GHG mitigation: ◦ Reduce emissions ◦ Increase soil carbon ◦ Bioenergy ◦ Second-generation biofuels ◦ Wood or carbon plantations ◦ Conservation forests 4
Land-use change for climatemitigation Considerable potential for biosequestration Realisation may greatly reduce the costs of mitigation (Garnaut 2008) Incentives required 5
Objectives of research What is the potential supply of carbon mitigation services? What are the abatement and transaction costs? What economic incentives are necessary? How will different policy arrangements affect this supply? 6
Methodology For the supply of land-use changes from landholders: Abatement + Incentive s > transaction costs 7
Abatement costs Calculated as opportunity cost Dependent on: Location Current land use Soil type Climatic variables 8
Simulations Developed model of LUC in Border Rivers-Gwydir catchment Modelled current land uses and 4 proposed land uses Calculated carbon sequestration using FullCAM model Abatement costs calculated from a variety of secondary sources 9
Carbon sequestration Av. change from current land use Av. change from current land use to mixed spp. environmental to Eucalyptus globulus plantings plantation 50 20 Carbon biomass (tC ha-1)Carbon biomass (tC ha-1) 40 30 10 20 10 0 0 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 Year Year 11
Average additional carbonsequestration (t C ha-1) 12
Conclusions Additional carbon can be sequestered from LUC Mixed species plantings and Pinus radiata plantations have the highest sequestration potential Targeting regions with the highest sequestration potential is not necessarily lowest-cost strategy Results are sensitive to discount rate 18