Search

Soil-based carbon farming has been identified in previous research as a win-win for farm productivity and the mitigation of climate change through carbon sequestration. However, it faces numerous barriers to adoption, including low carbon prices, high transaction costs, information barriers and high uncertainty around future outcomes, markets and policy conditions. Collaboration between landholders and other stakeholders has been proposed as a potential means of overcoming some of these barriers, while maximising the benefits of soil-based carbon farming. In this article, we present the results of a two-stage process investigating collaborative soil-based carbon farming in Australia, involving national-scale key informant interviews and a regional-scale Participatory Rural Appraisal. Fifty-three interviews were undertaken with key carbon farming stakeholders, including landholders, landholder groups, carbon service providers, government, researchers and the financial sector. Collaboration was seen to offer the greatest advantages in relation to knowledge-sharing and social support, followed by its potential to increase carbon income through enhanced bargaining power and the optimisation of co-benefits. The advantages of collaboration were less clear in relation to reducing costs or maximising farm productivity and collaboration also presents new challenges around risk and complexity. Under current conditions, informal collaboration models were seen to offer the best balance between the benefits and risks, with existing cooperatives also well-placed to diversify into carbon. Alternative conditions in the future or in other locations would be needed to facilitate models involving joint projects, pooled credits, shared land management and/or the creation of new carbon-specific cooperatives. • Soil-based carbon farming benefits both carbon sequestration and farm productivity. • Advantages of collaboration are greatest for knowledge-sharing and social support. • Collaboration less beneficial in relation to cost-reduction and farm productivity. • Informal models for collaboration preferred by study participants. • Existing agricultural cooperatives are well-placed to diversify into carbon farming. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Whilst carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been promoted as a direct countermeasure against global warming, there remains much debate about what its final role as a climate change mitigation strategy will be. One key criticism directed towards CCS has been its inability to gain public support. This study compares public attitudes to the range of low carbon energy sources and technologies across Australia and China, and is the first study to compare primary data across these two countries on this topic. An online survey encompassing a broad set of questions was used to identify the factors that are associated with support for CCS compared to other energy technologies. Data were collected from a nationally representative Australian sample (n = 2383) and from Chinese urban residents across six regions (n = 1266). The survey confirmed low levels of knowledge and support for CCS in both countries. However, male respondents, those who perceived themselves to have higher knowledge of CCS, and those who valued economic outcomes over environmental protection were more likely to support CCS - as long as the risks were not perceived to outweigh the benefits. The results found that for Australians who believed in human-induced climate change they were likely to be unsupportive of CCS. This opposition appears to be linked to no tolerance for extending fossil fuels as in our factor analysis CCS was aligned to fossil fuels in Australia. In both countries, support for renewable energy technologies remains strong. Given the International Energy Agency's future energy demand projections, combined with slow progress towards meeting the Paris Climate Agreement, the lack of knowledge and support for CCS is concerning. While there have been some technological advances, without parallel improvements in public acceptance of CCS, it will be difficult to see any commercial projects going forward in the near future. Although, the Chinese government's success in educating on climate science, as evidenced in these results, suggests that they may be more effective at informing the public of the benefits of CCS and take the lead on its deployment for climate change mitigation. Based on the latest climate models, it is almost crunch time for governments to decide if CCS has a role to play as part of an energy transition to a low carbon future or perhaps it may be time to turn their focus to climate adaptation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We model operational and embodied GHG emissions for Australia's built environment. • The scope includes residential and commercial buildings. • A high ambition scenario delivers a 94% reduction in emissions compared to BAU. • Includes renewables, electrification, efficiency and material replacement. • Novel pathways analysis highlights options for net zero and net negative emissions. Achieving net zero operational and embodied greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the built environment is recognised in Australia and globally as a key strategy to address climate change and achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, gaps in knowledge remain regarding potential national pathways to achieve this outcome in Australia. This study further extends and applies a national-scale integrated macroeconomic simulation model to explore coherent pathways to net zero emissions in the built environment sector by 2050. The scope of the study includes residential and commercial buildings and both operational and embodied emissions. It applies scenario analysis incorporating different levels of climate ambition, including a shift to renewable energy, electrifying buildings, improving energy efficiency and replacing carbon-intensive materials. We find that a high ambition scenario (Scenario 2) delivers a 94% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050 when compared against business-as-usual, placing a net-zero target within reach. Improvements on Australia's SDGs performance are also attained. Through subsequent pathways analysis we find that achieving net zero or even net negative operational and embodied emissions is feasible with more ambitious action in key areas, including increasing the share of mass-timber buildings and reducing end-of-life losses in sequestered carbon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Pricing greenhouse gas emissions is a burgeoning and possibly lucrative financial means for climate change mitigation. Emissions pricing is being used to fund emissions-abatement technologies and to modify land management to improve carbon sequestration and retention. Here we discuss the principal land-management options under existing and realistic future emissions-price legislation in Australia, and examine them with respect to their anticipated direct and indirect effects on biodiversity. The main ways in which emissions price-driven changes to land management can affect biodiversity are through policies and practices for (1) environmental plantings for carbon sequestration, (2) native regrowth, (3) fire management, (4) forestry, (5) agricultural practices (including cropping and grazing), and (6) feral animal control. While most land-management options available to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions offer clear advantages to increase the viability of native biodiversity, we describe several caveats regarding potentially negative outcomes, and outline components that need to be considered if biodiversity is also to benefit from the new carbon economy. Carbon plantings will only have real biodiversity value if they comprise appropriate native tree species and provide suitable habitats and resources for valued fauna. Such plantings also risk severely altering local hydrology and reducing water availability. Management of regrowth post-agricultural abandonment requires setting appropriate baselines and allowing for thinning in certain circumstances, and improvements to forestry rotation lengths would likely increase carbon-retention capacity and biodiversity value. Prescribed burning to reduce the frequency of high-intensity wildfires in northern Australia is being used as a tool to increase carbon retention. Fire management in southern Australia is not readily amenable for maximising carbon storage potential, but will become increasingly important for biodiversity conservation as the climate warms. Carbon price-based modifications to agriculture that would benefit biodiversity include reductions in tillage frequency and livestock densities, reductions in fertiliser use, and retention and regeneration of native shrubs; however, anticipated shifts to exotic perennial grass species such as buffel grass and kikuyu could have net negative implications for native biodiversity. Finally, it is unlikely that major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions arising from feral animal control are possible, even though reduced densities of feral herbivores will benefit Australian biodiversity greatly. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

• The economics of carbon sequestration in South Australia were evaluated. • Results confirm active afforestation is a high-cost abatement option. • Conservative carbon accounting methods further limit incentives for land-use change. • Achievable abatement is likely small relative to emissions at recent carbon price. • Changes to Australian carbon accounting could incentivise more land-use change. Governments globally are developing increasingly ambitious carbon emissions reduction schemes that include significant emissions offset credits for forest-based carbon sequestration. Such strategies can present significant challenges in highly modified and intensively farmed regions where forest land use opportunity and establishment costs are high. This article evaluates the economics of land-use change via active afforestation for local carbon abatement in the Australian state of South Australia, a region with high supply costs representative of long-established temperate farming regions. We found that there is no economically viable abatement below $38 tCO 2 e−1, however up to 154 Mt CO 2 e of abatement could be available up to prices of $50 tCO 2 e−1. Variation in current Australian Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) policy parameters related to permanence and crediting periods were also assessed. Recent ERF contracts involve a 100-year land-use change commitment (permanence period) and a 25-year crediting period where payments for growth in carbon from the land-use change is contracted. We compared outcomes of this arrangement to a scenario with equal 100-year permanence and crediting periods. We found substantial differences in carbon supply at some price points for a 25 rather than a 100-year crediting period. Under ERF parameters the first economically viable revegetation options occur at $42 tCO 2 e−1, however, we found a 69 percent reduction in economically viable supply at a carbon price of $50 tCO 2 e−1. The results highlight the role offset crediting policy can have on dis-incentivising land-use change and the need for landholders to be compensated fully for temporal opportunity costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Regenerative agriculture facilitates climate change adaptation and mitigation. • Transitioning from conventional to regenerative agriculture can be challenging. • Transformation occurs across personal, practical and political spheres. • Personal transformation can be facilitated through learning and induced epiphanies. • Transitions are navigated (and sustained) through zones of friction and traction. Regenerative agriculture, an alternative form of food and fiber production, concerns itself with enhancing and restoring resilient systems supported by functional ecosystem processes and healthy, organic soils capable of producing a full suite of ecosystem services, among them soil carbon sequestration and improved soil water retention. As such, climate change mitigation and adaptation are incidental to a larger enterprise that employs a systems approach to managing landscapes and communities. The transformative potential of regenerative agriculture has seen growing attention in the popular press, but few empirical studies have explored the processes by which farmers enter into, navigate, and, importantly, sustain the required paradigm shift in their approach to managing their properties, farm businesses, and personal lives. We draw on theories and insights associated with relational thinking to analyze the experiences of farmers in Australia who have undertaken and sustained transitions from conventional to regenerative agriculture. We present a conceptual framework of "zones of friction and traction" occurring in personal, practical, and political spheres of transformation that both challenge and facilitate the transition process. Our findings illustrate the ways in which deeply held values and emotions influence and interact with mental models, worldviews, and cultural norms as a result of regular monitoring; and how behavioral change is sustained through the establishment of self-amplifying positive feedbacks involving biophilic emotions, a sense of well-being, and an ever-expanding worldview. We conclude that transitioning to regenerative agriculture involves more than a suite of 'climate-smart' mitigation and adaptation practices supported by technical innovation, policy, education, and outreach. Rather, it involves subjective, nonmaterial factors associated with culture, values, ethics, identity, and emotion that operate at individual, household, and community scales and interact with regional, national and global processes. Findings have implications for strategies aimed at facilitating a large-scale transition to climate-smart regenerative agriculture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]