Martin Rice and Will Steffen write in The Conversation (29.9.16) about a new Climate Council report which argues that land storage of carbon emissions – a central plank of the federal government’s Direct Action climate policies – is less effective than other means of emissions reduction.
‘Just as people pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, the land also absorbs some of those emissions. Plants, as they grow, use carbon dioxide and store it within their bodies.
‘However, as the Climate Council’s latest report shows, Australia’s fossil fuels (including those burned overseas) are pumping 6.5 times as much carbon into the atmosphere as the land can absorb. This means that, while storing carbon on land is useful for combating climate change, it is no replacement for reducing fossil fuel emissions.
‘Land carbon is the biggest source of emission reductions in Australia’s climate policy centrepiece – the Emissions Reduction Fund. This is smoke and mirrors: a distraction from the real challenge of cutting fossil fuel emissions.’
- Putting carbon back in the land is just a smokescreen for real climate action »
- Business moves on climate as the Paris Agreement gets closer to sealing the deal »
- Current emissions could already warm world to dangerous levels: study »
- Carbon sequestration – why and how? »
- Blue carbon is not the silver bullet the Coalition wants it to be »
- Dishing the dirt: Australia’s move to store carbon in soil is a problem for tackling climate change »
- The clock is ticking on net-zero, and Australia’s farmers must not get a free pass »
- Carbon offsetting is not warding off environmental collapse – it’s accelerating it »
- The Morrison government wants farmers to profit from looking after the land – but will anyone want to pay? »
- Now we know the flaws of carbon offsets, it’s time to get real about climate change »
- Labor’s biodiversity market scheme needs to be planned well – or it could lead to greenwashing »
- A tonne of fossil carbon isn’t the same as a tonne of new trees: why offsets can’t save us
- Why corporate regulators such as ASIC and the ACCC are taking greenwashing more seriously
- Program to plant 20 million trees prioritised cost-saving over gains for nature, research finds