Where's the truth on soil carbon?

Abbott carbon plan 'unworkable'

From the report:

TONY ABBOTT'S ''direct action'' climate strategy would reduce emissions by only half as much as the Coalition claims because it made over-optimistic assumptions about the amount of carbon that could be stored in soil, a study suggests.

Soil carbon accounted for 60 per cent of the proposed emission reductions in Mr Abbott's climate policy, or about 85 million tonnes of carbon a year by 2020.

But according to the analysis, only 27 million tonnes a year is possible and only 18 million tonnes at the low price the Coalition has budgeted to pay for soil carbon from its multibillion-dollar ''direct action'' emissions reduction fund.

Last month the Coalition said its scheme would match the government's promise to cut emissions by at least 5 per cent by 2020, but would do this by buying abatement directly from farmers and industry - not by putting any price on carbon.

But the analysis, by ClimateWorks - a partnership between the Myer Foundation and Monash University - and McKinsey management consultants, suggests the scheme would either deliver far smaller emission cuts than the Coalition claims or would cost far more than the $3.2 billion budgeted over the first four years.

It seems to me that there are dubious claims being made by some scientists about the potential for soil carbon in Australia. I don't have time to search it out now, but a few weeks ago there was a woman talking on Phillip Adam's Late Night Live about soil carbon having a huge potential, even greater than what the Opposition seemed to allow for it. I thought her claims sounded far fetched, and this report indicates I might be right.