The cruel cost of dodging Kyoto by using farmland as a “carbon sink”

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

An Australian farmer writes –

“For the sake of the farmers in Australia, please educate their political leaders on the basics of biology and farming. Consider two very simple points.

“1) Plants sequester the greatest quantity of CO2 at the highest rate while they are rapidly growing.

“2) Farmers have a vested interest in maximizing the amount of plant growth in every last bit of farmland.

“Those simple points show that setting aside farmland to act as a “carbon sink” is counterproductive. The farm fields of the midwestern United States (where I live) are an amazingly effective carbon sink. Using modern farming techniques, literally tons of biomass are created in every acre of farmland, every year. Land that’s “set aside” and not farmed absorbs only a fraction of the CO2.”

Our reply –

G’day, enquirer! Unfortunately we are here faced by the sheer lunacy of the UN’s arrangements for implementing the pointless and utterly-failed Kyoto Protocol, which your Prime Minister foolishly signed in Bali twoyears ago shortly after he became Prime Minister. Under the Protocol, the bureaucrats permit states parties to perpetrate a device, dodge, duck, dive or dibble-dabble by which, if they declare a large enough proportion of their farmland as a “carbon sink” and prevent anything from being grown on it, they are exempted from making any of the cuts in carbon dioxide emissions to which the Kyoto Protocol commits its signatories.

The previous Australian administration originally negotiated this nonsensical and corrupt arrangement, but at least had the sense not to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, as worldwide evidence mounted that the rate of “global warming” predicted by all of the UN’s X-Box 360s was not occurring even in Australia, where warming has been greater than in most other places.

Once Kevin Rudd had made the strategic mistake of signing Kyoto, he suddenly found that he had to try to meet his obligations under the protocol. So his administration, in conspiracy with numerous State governments, began notifying farmers that they could no longer grow crops on their own land, at one fell swoop depriving them not only of their livelihood but also of the entire capital value of their principal – and often only – asset. What is more, by craftily getting the State administrations to do his dirty work, Mr. Rudd was able to circumvent the provision in the Australian constitution requiring that any expropriation of land by the Commonwealth must be compensated justly. It is arguable that the States, too, are bound a fortiori by this provision, but Mr. Rudd is hoping that no one will mount a judicial review case against him (which he would lose).

You are, of course, quite right that the crops grown by farmers absorb CO2 in their growing. However, in the crazy metric of carbon inputs and outputs, sources and sinks that now obsesses bureaucrats too stupid and narrow-minded to understand the sheer, hilarious extravagance of its futility, the view is that the working of the land and the delivery of its produce to the market, together with various other agricultural activities, have a greater “carbon footprint” than the efficient growing of crops would save. Insane, but there it is. In the end, this whole nonsense will collapse, as heroes like Peter Spencer stand up and say “Boo!” to the bullies. There is no scientific basis for any of these monstrous and costly dispositions, and those who have pretended that there is will be flung from office by voters tired of being milked and bilked.