ON a dairy farm on the NSW south coast there's a young farmer by the name of Pete. He works long hours, most of the time single-handed, to milk 400 cows twice a day.
During the past few years he has fought high interest rates, the beguiling offers of rich developers to buy his productive and beautiful riverside property, and drought.
This year, at the beginning of spring, Pete's lagoon at the bottom of his dairy yard is the lowest that it has been before summer and later this year the Tuross River is expected to stop running and become a series of pools beside his property.
Like other dairy farmers in the region and elsewhere in Australia, he has been forced by near monopolies to sign contracts for his milk at lower prices than last year.
On the economic front Pete has battled to keep his farm and survive the tough competition that has come from dairy regulation, near monopolies that can cut prices to the bone and cheese imports that reduce opportunities for milk sales.
Like other farmers, Pete is stereotyped as uncaring about the environment, wasting water and contributing to carbon emissions through the methane produced by his cattle (the burping and farting of ruminants).
Yet Pete believes wholeheartedly in climate change, wants the Australian government (the Howard government previously and now the Rudd government) to do what it can, and does everything he can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save energy.
Pete's old farmhouse is surrounded by moving solar energy panels that will soon produce enough greenhouse-gas friendly electricity to service his farm's needs and put some back into the power grid.
The dairy roof is covered with more solar panels and there's a heat-transfer pump.
The cows are not lot fed, he has planted scores of trees through the years and he uses an electric truck on the farm.
Pete starts his day with a session on the internet, checking markets and the media to keep abreast of technical, weather and political developments. His concern about the threat of climate change is combined with a concern for food security in Australia and elsewhere.
And it is here that Pete's personal concerns become a common concern among farmers and regional Australia, who aren't climate change deniers or ignorant of climate change and emissions trading schemes.
These concerns need to be addressed by the Rudd government and recognised as legitimate and widespread by the Malcolm Turnbull-led Coalition.
Labor's proposed carbon pollution reduction scheme does not address, for now, whether agricultural emissions will be included and whether farmers can get carbon credits for using carbon-cutting tillage and land-management techniques.
In the US farmers are outside the scheme but can still earn credits.
Nationals MP Mark Coulton cottoned on to remarks by Rudd's climate adviser Ross Garnaut about those opposed to an emissions trading scheme and reacted in a vein that could have been directed equally to the Prime Minister and Turnbull.
Labor's decline in popularity in regional areas, according to Newspoll, will give the Rudd pause for thought and is a warning to the Opposition Leader, who has consistently underestimated the size and strength of the opposition to an emissions trading scheme in his own ranks.
"Without drastic modifications the proposed ETS is the most dangerous and ill-conceived piece of legislation to be put before the Australian parliament," Coulton says.
"The danger the proposed ETS poses to regional Australia was highlighted recently in the release of Access Economics modelling, which found that 126,000 jobs will be lost in regional Australia by 2020, and NSW government research, which found that it will result in a 20 per cent decline in regional economies.
"In making regional Australia his ETS scapegoat, Kevin Rudd has forgotten that it is the agricultural industry that has spared Australia from the worst global recession since the Great Depression.
"Regional Australia is the sacrificial lamb at the altar of the Rudd government's ETS and it should come as no surprise to the Prime Minister that the people of regional Australia won't stand for it."
Having suffered the devastating pressures and losses shared by Australia's manufacturing industry in the years of tariff reductions and open global markets, Australian farmers are entitled to be concerned about where the introduction of an emissions trading scheme will lead in terms of costs and competition.
After all, Australia's farmers are among the most efficient and least subsidised in the world and continue to compete on world markets with heavily subsidised American and European producers.
And it is not only the threat of increased production costs that farmers face from the global evolution from Kyoto greenhouse gas abatement schemes to new emissions trading schemes beyond 2012.
There is the danger of a new protectionism emerging in the guise of fighting climate change.
At the UN climate change talks in New York last week and the Group of 20 leaders' talks in Pittsburgh there were dire warnings about Europe-wide tariff barriers being erected against carbon emitters.
As well, the US congress has already included a trigger for carbon tariffs in the Waxman-Markey emissions trading bill and the Australian government had to avert union plans at the Australian Labor Party conference only a few months back to put up green trade bans.
Protectionists, inspired by the global financial crisis and using climate change as a cover, are back.
Rudd pointed publicly to the warning of French President Nicolas Sarkozy that countries that didn't adopt carbon reduction plans could face European carbon tariffs on imports.
Sarkozy told other leaders in private sessions this was not an idle threat and that he was not speaking only for France.
At the same time Penny Wong knows that the protectionist US Senate is far likelier to endorse the congressional proposal for a 2018 implementation of US carbon barriers than many other components of the Waxman-Markey bill.
US President Barack Obama also noted last week that climate change schemes were even harder to conclude because of the effect of the global financial crisis.
Neither Rudd nor Turnbull can afford to dismiss the concerns of Australian farmers about an ETS as simple climate change denial when agricultural production and free trade are at risk.
Dennis Shanahan
Country Vandal of Queensland
Lets delve a little deeper shall we? Exempt farmers...i dont think so, we have power, fuel, groceries, ..oh did i hear someone say, "well so do i"...bulls eye! We are all going to be paying an extra tax. City or country makes no difference...and how do our $'s change the environment? THEY DON'T. So if we explore more history, lets think about Koyoto...hmm, Australia "made" its quota WooHoo...do you know why? Let me enlighten you. Because governments locked up landowners land..thats right, less land to produce food and fiber for Australian People. Government took away our right to make a living and then boasted about how "they" met the quota! THEIVES! But they are not happy with that, now they want more, so enter the ETS / CPRS...and we all get to pay...but the climate does what it wants to do! WE need inventions, industry to reduce emissions...NOT penalise the hell out of all Australians. We need governments to stop playing city against country..GROW UP! WE need to be feeding and clothing our Australian poplulation with home grown / produced products. Instead of contaminated imports, they are killing us and our children. I do not want to give the UN the power over Australia, even if Rudd & Co do, to tell us what we will and will not pay. Australia is not beholding or answerable to anyone exceppt Australia. Politicians take note, grassroots people are uniting, do not dissmiss this. We do not want chemicals to feed to our livestock to reduce a naturally occuring gas ! Wake up!!! This is very dangerous!
Angela of Sydney
Yes, Chris of Adelaide, agriculture is excluded from the scheme... for now. The Federal Government has announced a conclusive decision will not be reached before 2013, admitting that they are unable to make a 'smart decision' with the current available science. The result for rural Australia is significant uncertainty about the possibility of having to undergo substantial structural reform to meet viable emissions targets, should the Government in a few years change its mind about inclusion in the scheme. The wait-and-see approach leaves primary producers in CPRS-limbo and the Government ought to make a commitment either way. If we are always waiting for tomorrow's science to be available, our efforts to meet carbon reduction targets will never come to fruition.
.
Jo of Sydney
"Labor's proposed carbon pollution reduction scheme does not address, for now, whether agricultural emissions will be included and whether farmers can get carbon credits for using carbon-cutting tillage and land-management techniques". The rest of this story is a complete beat-up - it's all about something the government may or may not do in the future. And let's be honest - agriculture is not a big part of the carbon problem and it may well prove to be a significant part of the solution.
Paul Obvious of Brisbane
'Sacrificial lamb' is not a metaphor in this case; it is a reality. (well, sacrificial farm, not lamb, then) The ETS is nothing more than a religious sacrifice designed to appease the gods, for man's inherent naughtiness. 'We'll trash these industries, if you don't strike us down with drought, storms etc' is the refrain. And it IS religion - the 'science' the ETS is based on, is nonsense. Rudd and co are the Druids in charge of the sacrifices. They should wear robes and chant 'Om, om' rather than bothering with their waffly speeches. It's back to the future, I'm afraid. And the people in the suburbs don't care, because they think it will only be the country cousins who have their head on the chopping block.
Simon of Canberra
Since you're holding up Pete to be an example of environmentally responsible farming, what I want to know, has he fenced his cattle off from the river bank. This is standard practice for most farmers, even though they know it's the wrong thing to do, and it destroys rivers. As for your claim the ETS will ruin farmers, complete rubbish. Just more fear-mongering from one of a number climate change denialists found within The Australian's ranks.
Peter of Coburg
While I think the ETA is badly designed and caters to special interest groups way to much, relying on Access Economics weakens your arguments greatly, they allow their political desires to influence their reports. Your political bias is also showing I am sure you screamed long and hard aboout the union movement using the most sympathetic image of people hit by Work Choices and said things like they should just move to a new job and give up protections/rights for no return because it was in the Nation's interest (? by the way the evidence for that is much less certain than for people affecting the weather). Face it BOTH were badly designed and by attacking one and praising the other you destroy your effectiveness at convincing the uncertain.
WinstonSmith of Perth
The whole agriculture issue is a thorny one and definitely needs to be better considered. Unfortunately the loudest voice crying poor has been coal - but their billions in subsidies, their huge profit margins and CCS (due in about 20 years) will save us. Ok, maybe not. I think that smart farmers like Pete need to be rewarded and a lot of other farmers, who will be the real one to suffer due to changing weather patterns, will need to be supported if we want to maintain a viable ans sustainable agriculture industry in Aus. Otherwise its imported food and lots of extra costs for everyone to eat.
Mary Ziviani of Toowoomba
I have little Science Education and thus find it difficult to master the Climate Change Debate. I remember the Caption: Save the Earth! Some of my best friends live there! There is so much argument about Global warming, the cost-effectiveness of alternative energy sources such as Solar Power. Then the Politicians fight for their Political Lives over every subject. There is no doubt that the Bush Fires will produce enormous amounts of Carbon. My father was a Dairy Farmer; and the old adage was No trees within 100 yards of the house. Fire Breaks are the most basic Common Sense. Living under Eucalypts is to me sheer Lunacy. Dad, who died in 1989, always told us, Don't go on the Land. He recognised in his early years that it is a hard life. We cannot overlook the Agricultural Sector and concentrate only on the Energy Sector regarding Climate Change. We have the best farmers and the best Farm Produce in the world and we have to protect this very valuable asset. Barnaby Joyce asked for greater Zonal Tax Allowances for people in the bush; and that too is basic common sense. France pursued the Nuclear Energy Route to the disapproval of the rest of the world. But you can understand why Mr Sarkozy is now intolerant of High Carbon Pollution in other countries. Please Mr Prime Minister and Mrs Penny Wong, pay attention to the Agricultural Sector.
watcher of newcastle 10:21am today
The ETS is a non-solution to a non-problem, AGW is a scam. I refer readers to the letter of 60 eminent German Scientists to the German Chancellor dated 26 July 2009 which stated ¿The scientists, from many disciplines, including physicists, meteorology, chemistry, and geology, explain that ¿humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles.¿ ¿More importantly, there¿s a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role,¿ the scientists wrote. ¿Indeed CO2¿s capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today¿s atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.¿ Global temperatures were significanty warmer (1 to 2 C) during the medieval warming period (about 1000 yrs ago) and the Roman warming period than today even though there was no industry producing CO2 and CO2 levels were lower than today. Australia should hold a royal commission on this important topic as it is obvious the opinion of the IPCC cannot be believed. After all this is the body that enthusiastically embraced The infamous Mann hockey stick which was later shown to be scientifically incorrect, and had up to that point been a cornerstone factor in the AGW argument.
ronald reagun of Brisbane
Why should farmers like Pete receive any special treatment in a ETS? After all, the price paid to dairy farmers by the processors for their milk is around 28c per litre. Which makes dairy farming in Australia unviable. Which makes Pete a fool for not selling his property to developers. Like Marie Antoinette said about the plebeians, "Let them drink water". And Pete could then join his fellow delusionists in their fight to prevent CO2 levels from rising and by doing so, cause millions of people in Asia to die of starvation. Plants growing in air containing only 380ppm of CO2 cannot produce to their full capacity. We need more!
Cleanremedy of Sydney
Look, the only way we can make a change is if everyone pitches in and helps. Yes, agriculture too. I'm not saying to put a methane capture tube on every cow, that is just stupid. What I am saying is to help restore a more natural balance to the way we live. Plants are the most efficient at converting CO2 to oxygen. Farm smarter, think about the big picture and diversify the way we grow starch.
Kate of South West QLD
Unfortunately the ETS is being affected by the current federal governments biased attitudes, and seems to be aiding in it's next re-election campaign. Perhaps the major rural political bodies in Australia should look at some serious media campagins - instead of doing nothing to combat the negative image the federal government portrays of primary producers. We must educate people in the urban areas and stop feeding them propaganda from the Labour/Greens/environmentalist crews who do not want to listen to (or even entertain the idea that there may be) a 'sustainable producer'.
Torchwood1979 of Brisbane
And this is another reason that I weep when I see The Nationals sliding towards minor party status. Farmers are losing their much-need advocacy because The Nats seem more interested in navel gazing than standing for what they claim to believe in.
SteveH.
Eventually the Australian public will come to realise that they were badly misled by Mr. Rudd the 'economic conservative' during the 'Me too' election. Unfortunately for many ordinary people's standing of living this realisation will come too late.
Peter of Bega NSW
Dennis thanks for pointing out why there is widespread regional opposition to the Rudd-Wong CPRS. Its' cost will be many farmers going to the wall and Australia becoming largely dependant on inferior imported food. The benefits of the proposed CPRS will be an immeasurable reduction in CO2 emissions. Why do it ? It's unfortunate that the urban voters can't see the longer term negative effects both regional and city of this CPRS . We will all be disadvantaged so that some elite can get very rich.
Joofa of Warren 9:12am today
Dennis, Dairy farmers, cattle and sheep producers, grain growers, cotton growers, all farmers and rural communities are at risk here. The trouble is that policy by both sides of politics is being determined by what the majority of voters want or think they want and unfortunately they are all based in the cities on the seaboards. It's time for rural Australia to be united in one voice; the days of having a labour electorate in the bush are gone. The days of Labor being good for workers and Liberals for the bosses are well and truely gone as well; both sides want the best for everyone, the difference now is that with the NSW Govt for example, all monies are being spent in the cities to sure up their votes at the detriment of the rural economies. We can see why Mr Turnball is so keen to be seen doing something with the ETS, he lives in a trendy city electorate that wants to sleep well of a night thinking they are doing the right thing for the environment, not what is actually better for the farmers, miners at the coal face that have to try and make a living out here. Penny Wong telling farmers how to manage water and their land....words escape me! Farmers are the only true environmentalists as they are continually trying to improve their country for better income and longer viability. Rural Australia, especially NSW, we need united voice to fight against the death by a thousand cuts approach that is happening to us all now.