Talk of the town: Net zero, but at what cost to agriculture?

In recent years, political parties have based entire election campaigns on the premise that their party is the only one that not only knows how to get Australia to net zero, but are the only ones who can.

Across the ditch in New Zealand, the issue led to the controversial "burp tax", which proposed taxing the greenhouse gasses that farm animals make from burping and urinating as part of a plan to tackle climate change.

The validity of that proposition will no doubt hinge on peoples' beliefs and political persuasion. However, it does tap into a deeper question that many in the bush are asking themselves, what is the true cost of net zero when it comes to agriculture?

Several of the industry's peak bodies including the National Farmers Federation and Meat and Livestock Australia have committed to helping the broader industry reach its net zero targets.

Read Also:

Those plans are readily available and in many cases are already in full swing.

But what about the other projects and initiatives that are currently in the works to help the country achieve its goals?

On the Western Downs mining giant Glencore has an environmental impact statement on public exhibition for a project that proposes to pump liquefied CO2 into the Great Artesian Basin.

The premise being that by liquefying and storing the CO2 thousands of metres underground, it will allow the company to produce more traditional power sources without the emissions, which sounds good in theory.

However, several producers across the region, some of whom are among the biggest operators in the red meat industry, are understandably concerned about the potential risk the project would pose to underground bores if approved.

This project may be an Australian-first but much of the angst felt by producers in the Western Downs is similarly felt by producers across the country that are facing land-rights issues over any number of projects.

In recent years, the boom of the renewable energy industry has prompted countless new solar, wind and hydro projects to be put forward, all of which can impact on primary producers in one form or another.

Some of these projects have divided communities, such as in Dulacca where a new wind farm caused a rift between long-term friends due to where they stood on either wanting or not wanting the project.

Aside from potentially physically taking up agricultural land and impacting rural communities, these projects can have long-term impacts on things such as land value, and diversification.

Which poses its own question, what is more important to the country's long-term growth, being carbon neutral or having a strong agricultural sector?

If some of the country's most productive farming land is either physically taken up or irreversibly altered by these projects the long-term ramifications for Australia's future generations could be severe.

So what is the answer?

The balance between agriculture and projects aimed at carbon neutrality needs to be prioritised by those in power to ensure one is not prioritised at the detriment of the other. Hopefully those decision makers can weigh up the need for carbon neutrality and the need for a flourishing ag sector when making those calls.

- Billy Jupp, Queensland Country Life senior livestock journalist.