Our next Carbon Neutral Agriculture (CNAg) course will be presented by Richard Eckard in Melbourne 3-4 June.

Climate target organisation SBTI faces staff revolt over offsets - because they enable greenwashing

A warming climate will make Australian soil a net emitter of atmospheric CO2

The problems with ‘carbon negative’ claims via @just_food

We find that while most alternative agricultures define themselves through a set of principles, these do not challenge or undermine the scientific principles that underpin mainstream agronomy.

"In reality, we were probably going to be doing a few of the Eligible Activities already" - Additionality?

Country Breakfast

Here's how to fix Australia's approach to soil carbon credits so they really count towards our climate goals via @ConversationEDU

Should we celebrate soil carbon credits when most can be explained by rainfall and do NOT contribute to our Paris commitment, but DO contribute to productivity i.e. not additional.

Alan Kohler: Farmers beware, soil carbon cash is a trap | The New Daily

@AndrewSpeirs12 @CorriganLucinda @AGBU_GENE @angusaustralia Not sure methane measurement on farm helps much (assuming residual methane production as the desired trait), as it would require significant additional production data @caelstails what do you think?

Producers will still need to meet their supply chain targets by 2030, based on SBTI/GHG Protocol: "Companies should use GWP values provided by the IPCC based on a 100-year time horizon"

Alan Kohler: For failing ‘carbon farms’, money grows on trees | The New Daily

@AlanKohler @TheNewDailyAu @AlanKohler We have lost sight core purpose of offsets - buyers and sellers need to ask if their ACCU actually means less net GHG? Between fires and drought, many sequestration projects do not, or at least present serious risk of reversal.

@mjgoodenco @barnoolut @AdamCoffeyNT @ihasslac See my other tweet. Not saying you cannot build SOC below 30 cm but exponential errors in sampling and measurement mean it is statistically impossible to prove over decadal time steps.

@barnoolut @mjgoodenco @AdamCoffeyNT @ihasslac Cannot be more “accurate” than actually talking soil samples. All other methods are correlated to this. The inherent error in soils cores is about 20% and wet chemistry another 10%. It is technically impossible to be more “accurate” than the method you are correlating against.

@barnoolut @AdamCoffeyNT @mjgoodenco @ihasslac Around 20% error in sampling and another 10% laboratory error. Then drop below 30 cm and you are multiplying a vast increase in soil volume by an order of magnitude less carbon. Errors become exponential. It would take decades to statistically prove change.

@barnoolut Not repay but yes restore - a carbon maintenance obligation

When a simple system carbon balance does not add up, critical thinking demands we ask hard questions