Plan to crop emissions by half at net zero loss for farmers

Nitrous oxide emissions could be dramatically reduced “overnight” at no cost to farmers under a proposal handed to the federal government.

An industry plan promising to halve nitrous oxide emissions from Australia’s cropping systems “overnight” at no cost to farmers is being considered by the federal government.

The Fertiliser Australia proposal, seen by The Weekly Times, claims Australia’s agricultural emissions could be reduced “immediately” by 59 per cent if fertiliser was commercially coated pre-farm with a nitrification inhibitor.

However, for it to work the federal government must agree to cover the retail cost difference between standard and treated compounds to “incentivise farmers to purchase pre-coated fertiliser”.

The plan was discussed two weeks ago at a meeting between the peak industry group and representatives for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen and Agriculture Minister Murray Watt.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese speaking at the 2023 Bush Summit held at the Tamworth Regional Entertainment and Conference Centre. Picture: Jonathan Ng

Fertiliser Australia chief executive Stephen Annells said the industry was keen to open a dialogue that would help government reach mandated emissions targets and set policy that would hopefully avoid any negative impacts on farmers, the regions and food production.

“Australia is different to other parts of the world,” he said.

“We are looking at nutrient use efficiency, as opposed to nutrient reductions, and making sure more gets into the plant and less into the environment.”

Nitrous oxide account for 4 per cent of Australia’s national greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture produces about 60 per cent of that total, with soils making the bulk of that mainly from nitrogen fertilisers, crop residues, dung and urine.

Last Friday, in a speech to the News Corp Bush Summit, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese committed to helping farmers ensure their soils are carbon-rich “because that means they are more productive soils.”

“It means looking for more efficient fertiliser applications – because they cost less, waste less and release less nitrous oxide,” he said.

University of Melbourne primary industries climate challenges centre director Richard Eckard.

“Australian farmers are ahead of the curve on so many measures. And this government will continue to work with you to encourage this innovation.”

Projected emissions savings under the plan, already supported by 20 fertiliser companies, would be valued at $31 million a year on the Australian Carbon Credits Units market calculated at $28 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.

The proposal, co-authored by eminent climate experts Richard Eckard and Peter Grace, said emissions reduction would be “immediate” at the time of application, instead of farmers waiting “many years” as is the case for sequestering carbon in soil.

They said government would also “be seen to be taking direct action” on N2O emissions.

Professor Eckard hopes the proposal will be included in the government’s agriculture sector decarbonisation plan.

“We are asking government to step in and bridge the gap between now and the time when their own projects deliver lower-emitting fertilisers,” he said.

There are currently eight such projects being developed through the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, although none are expected to come into line until at least 2030.

The proposal said urea coated with a nitrification inhibitor is 14 per cent dearer than conventional urea and would only return an average grain farm $200 annually, making farmer adoption “almost impossible to achieve”.

“We therefore see a public good outcome from government addressing this market failure,” the submission said.

“It would be far more efficient and cost effective for government to engage in a pre-farm aggregation of N2O abatement.”

The payment would be passed onto growers through a reduced price for treated nitrogen fertiliser.

A spokesperson for Mr Bowen said the proposal would be considered along with input from other researchers, industry, the climate movement, unions and the community to inform an agricultural sector plan it says will be “robust, ambitious and achievable, and accepted by the broader community”.