Salvation is three things – – SOIL and NUCLEAR and BIOFUEL
View the Yeomans Methodology Here (at 30 June 2017)
The Department of the Environment and Energy here in Australia is clearly not prepared to take the concept of removing carbon dioxide from the air seriously.
But it is absolutely imperative that we start removing the huge CO2 overload right now.
Soil carbon sequestration is now touted to be official Australian policy.
But they sit on it.
The policy is spelt out in Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011. It says that if a farmer improves the fertility of his soil, in some suitable manner, and measures the resulting increase in soil carbon he will be awarded Australian Carbon Credits. The Act says the farmer must follow an agreed protocol for both measuring soil carbon changes and for managing the soil. A protocol is called a “Determination Methodology”.(usually revered to simply as “Methodologies”)
But it’s not happening.
Unfortunately Department of Environment employees structured the requirement for managing the farm and the measurement procedures to be compiled with in a manner that systematically prevents Soil Carbon Sequestration ever happening in Australia. Additionally, it is now been decreed that only Departmental personnel can devise and create Methodologies. The Minister for the Environment then approves the proposed methodology. That’s the procedure. (Technically the Minister himself can propose a methodology.)
For soil carbon, Departmental officers have created two methodologies. Both have proved to be absolute failures as not one single one of our 135,000 Australian farmers have considered them sane and workable and taken up their offers to sequester carbon out of the air. Read the incredible Departmental requirements in these methodologies and you’ll see why not one Australian farmer has taken them seriously.
Here are the links to the complete methodologies.
The first one is called — Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) (Sequestering Carbon in Soils in Grazing Systems) Methodology Determination 2014
To see what a farmer has to totally understand and then do, have a look at the methodology. Hold control and click on, or just click — https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2014L00987
As there was no takers for this methodology next year they came out with a another.
It’s called — Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative—Facilities) Methodology Determination 2015
Again no takers. To see what a farmer has to do on this new “simplified” methodology — control and click on — (Currently you will have to type in this address to get there The “click” thing doesn’t work yet Oct 21 2017)
They now have composed a third “soil methodology” (two more years). It was opened for comment in the period between 4 September 2017 to 2 October 2017. Sadly, having looked at it myself I expect it too will be totally rejected by the Australian farming community. I maintain, justifiable so and on the grounds that it too will be seen as “impractical and unworkable”.
It’s called – Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative- Measurement of Soil Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Systems) Methodology Determination 2017
to see it, control and click on –
It’s impossible to follow. Same as the other ones. For an example – Go to the link then scroll down to pages – 36 and 37. They’re typical of the mathematics a farmer is expected to be able to follow and use.
Because these Departmental methodologies are so unworkable and because of the now dangerous state of our atmosphere and the resultant destabilization of world weather systems I created one myself. My methodology is designed to significantly encourage farmers to increase the basic fertility of their own soils (which is what we want), while complying with the dictates of the Carbon Farming Initiative Act sufficiently to qualify for Australian Carbon Credits.
The fundamentals of the nature of soil; in a nut shell.
All broken down rock material – that is sub soil – becomes humus rich top soil quickly, just with thoughtful management and a moderate and regular supply of water. To illustrate the nature of soil: The rich black soils of the Darling Downs becomes a mixture of reddish brown sand and bull dust, when its humus is all cooked off at 5000 C. Good management techniques – some we have yet to discover – can rapidly reverse the process and turn brown desert dirt, into rich and fertile, carbon charged, top soil.
Our Australian Department of the Environment people seem to know nothing about the rapid creation of soil fertility. Nor apparently are they interested. Yet they author the “Methodologies” on how it should all be done.
I originated the whole concept of soil carbon sequestration to combat global warming back in the late 1980s. I wrote and lectured on my concept both in the US and later back here in Australia. From there the concept took off. Yet they’ve never asked me a thing. Farmers have told me they could use and work within my methodology and make soil carbon sequestration happen on their farm; but absolutely no way with the methodologies dreamed up by the people in our Australian Department of the Environment.
Unfortunately, along with all our hopes, dreams and efforts to effectively combat climate change by soil fertility enhancement, we must never forget the elephant in the room is the rich and powerful agrochemical industry. Are strings being pulled?
I submitted my methodology to the Department both directly and indirectly through the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee. It was emailed to them on 7 July 2017. I was received an email back from the Department mail on 5 September. I was informed that my submission and the principals behind it are to be ignored by the Department. They list the reasons and conclude by saying — “Accordingly, the Department does not intend to further develop your proposal at this stage”.
Below is a copy of my methodology which they propose to ignored. And below that is a complete copy of that final Departmental rejection email to me and wherein which they state their reasoning behind their total rejection of my whole methodology of encouraging the developing large scale soil carbon sequestration to beat climate change.
For comparison, make sure you have a look at the methodologies the Department dreamed up which have been totally rejected by every single farmer in Australia then :
And this is the email where they rejected our methodology —
The raising temperature in the Earth’s biosphere is too serious a phenomena to allow such an official and significant Department of Environment letter such as this one, to go uncorrected and uncriticised .
So let’s go through it.
On the first page it reported on apparent advice from the Soil Technical Working Group relating to a protocol I suggested prior to the construction of the current “Yeomans Methodology“. That surly appears somewhat incompetent. It also asks for “further data” but doesn’t say on what!
They then suggest that the one gram sample size used in LECO in their Loss on Ignition test machine is “practical” when testing large areas of agricultural land, and a sample 2,000 times bigger might be impractical . This has to be nonsense.
Additionally it says our sample sizes are 4,000 grams, a size not mentioned anywhere in any of our literature. Actually 4,000 grams is also beyond the capacity of our loss on ignition test equipment.
“The likelihood of instrument error” suggested might occur is much more likely in a one gram test sample than in a 2 kilogram. The logic escapes me.
If our test equipment was used it would of course require Australian Soil and Plant Analyse Council calibration approval. Which we will do when our methodology is accepted.
Finally, if they had read the Yeomans Methodology they would see that the standard LECO manufactured test machine is acceptable for soil sampling.
They note seven more objections to the Yeomans Methodology in their letter. One would suspect from these objections that the Department dismissed the methodology deliberately without any diligent consideration. In some ways it actually seems that it was not even read.
“Permanence obligation” is in fact covered in the Methodology.
“Defining what activities are eligible” before farmers have worked out the best way to improve the fertility of their soil is extremely counter productive. The requirement effectively hamstrings and knobbles the development of techniques of rapid soil fertility enhancement on any farm in the nation.
Their email (which came with a note saying a hard copy would be posted which after two weeks has not been received) has to says there is insufficient defining of the methodology’s “greenhouse gas assessment boundary”. Departmental literature says “a greenhouse gas assessment boundary is all greenhouse gas emissions and reductions directly affected by the activity”. The scope for obfuscation is thus unlimited. Part 5 of our proposed methodology suggests an approach that is workable and usable in practice. At least, so farmers say.
The other “objections” are already covered clearly in the Methodology. So their email / letter is confusing.
The email clearly is used to remind us that the Emission Reduction Fund “does not support research and development”. What does that really mean? I would take “support” to mean actual financial support. Surely “does not support” should not be interpreted by the relevant Departmental personal to mean the Department should actively discourag research and development by others. If that is case then the Departmental people should cease interpreting it that way.
It’s now political. Nothing will happen unless you start chasing your local Federal Member or Senator to get the Minister for the Environment and Energy, that’s the Hon. Josh Frydenberg MP to get his Department people to get our Methodology approved. His contact numbers at his web site are 03 9882 3677. The fax number is 03 9882 3773 and the number in Canberra is 02 6277 7920.
It’s not up to me now, nor those in the Department, it’s up to you.
The late Margret Meed, highly respected American biologist, statistician and philosopher once said –
“If You Ever Think You’re Too Small To Be Effective,
You’ve Never Been In Bed With A Mosquito”
The Dalai Lama agreed. His words were – “If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito.”