Conclusion

The outcome of the debate could determine the severity of the climate crisis and the fate of millions in years to come. Or it could have no influence on events at all. Such is the uncertainty and ambiguity that has haunted the Climate Change issue since it emerged.

To guide the decision-maker through the uncertainty to understand the risks arising from the options, we offer a 4-cell matrix: On one axis we have ACTION: Yes or No. One the other axis we have IMPACT: Great or Minimal.

The Soil C Dilemma: Risks and Rewards

The Soil C dilemma is ‘to act or not to act’, given its great promise, despite the uncertainty. The risks associated with each option can be revealed by this matrix.


OPTION A: If a market that rewards landholders for Soil C Sequestration is allowed to proceed at a level which engaged a critical mass of farmers (50+%), vast tonnages of CO2e could be absorbed within the 10 year time span the Stern Report gives us to act and the worst excesses of climate change could be avoided. A large number of farmers will be trained in regenerative carbon farming techniques; farm landscapes will be restored an their ecologies enjoying deeper, richer biodiversity of species in soil microflora and fauna, native grasses and shrubs and trees, insect and birdlife, and small and larger mammals.

OPTION B: IF Soil C Sequestration is sidelined until it meets the approval of the greenhouse accountants, it will certainly be too late to have a significant impact on the trajectory of the future. Doomsday scenarios may be too dramatic. And they may not.

OPTION C: If farmers are allowed to sell their carbon, and they don’t grow any, the “loss” would be the cost of baselining soil carbon for 130,000 properties across Australia. This is not necessarily a loss. It can be an investment in sustainable land management.

OPTION D: No action, no investment, no bad news. Good bet.

Soil Carbon is an insurance policy.