While the debate about greenhouse policy has abated somewhat, the pause has created an opportunity to revisit some of the more basic aspects of climate change knowledge, including the accuracy of methods used to calculate greenhouse emissions or measure atmospheric changes. What seems evident is that (as usual) Governments are happy to implement policy, but reluctant to commit real resources to long-term measurement and monitoring.  View the rest of the post here

Dutch and German agricultural economic researchers have recently published a paper examining the implications of including agriculture in the European Union's ETS. The research highlights three issues that are relevant to Australia. View the rest of the post here

"Additionality" and "Enforcability" are two issues associated with the inclusion of agricultural offsets in a mandatory 'Cap and Trade' emission reduction scheme that require careful consideration, according to a new review of the issue published by Professor Ben Gramig of Purdue University in the USA.  View the rest of the post here

A report released by the WWF in the UK has started to highlight the complexities of agricultural greenhouse emissions, and has identified that simply substituting meat and dairy products for processed plant substitutes (such as tofu) is unlikely to actually reduce greenhouse emissions.  View the rest of the post here

The Coalition has released its climate change policy, detailing the alternative approach that would be adopted if it won Government. The policy aims to meet the Government's commitment to reduce emissions by 5% by 2020, with more than half the emission reduction to be achieved through soil carbon sequestration.  View the rest of the post here

According to the Scientific American, Minnesota State has just decided to create a carbon fee of between $4 and $34 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions to the cost of coal-fired electricity.  View the rest of the post here

After the complerte rubbish published by several media outlets yesterday (including the ABC and Fairfax) about Australia supposedly 'cheating' on its Kyoto Protocol obligations by not reporting soil carbon emissions, it was a relief to see some more sensible reporting of this issue emerge. View the rest of the post here

Reports from the UN climate change conference at Copenhagen confirm that it could be difficult to achieve any real changes to the greenhouse accounting rules associated with soil carbon, because developing nations see it as a way for developed nations such as Australia to offset emissions domestically, and therefore avoid having to buy large amounts of offsets from developing nations. View the rest of the post here

The 'deal' agreed (thus far) between the Government and the Coalition on the CPRS legislation appears to be a significant improvement on earlier proposals and will provide agriculture with some avenues to offset higher input costs, but the exclusion of the sector from CPRS coverage is by no means permanent or guaranteed after 2015, and will require agriculture to demonstrate some real progress in reducing emissions. View the rest of the post here

Media commentary on the role of agriculture in the CPRS reveals considerable misunderstanding of the implications of Kyoto Protocol emission accounting rules to efforts by farmers to receive credit for carbon sequestration in agricultural soil. Adding to the complexity of this issue, a commentator has pointed out that, if the Australian Government were to recognise soil 'credits', it would have the potential to significantly reduce future Government revenue from the sale of emission permits. View the rest of the post here