This article explains why Kyoto-style carbon rules have struggled, and why soil carbon needs a different approach. Colin Austin argues that soil carbon (especially through wicking beds) can be one of the few practical “now” solutions while energy technology catches up. He outlines why additionality and permanence don’t fit dynamic soils, why aggregators and the “Deeming principle” are essential for adoption, and why China and Australia—together—could shift global climate negotiations toward absolute, measurable carbon balance.
Colin Austin — 27 June 2011
Compromises and Limitations of the Kyoto Protocol
The only viable aim for a global agreement on greenhouse gas emissions is to be globally neutral. At the time the Kyoto Protocol was created, this seemed politically impossible, so Kyoto became a compromise. Most developed countries agreed to small reductions (typically around 5% below 1990 emission levels), while developing countries were excluded from formal commitments.
The result has been failure. We are putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere faster than ever. There are three clear reasons. First, the target itself was inadequate. Second, most countries failed to reach even that low target. Third, the growth in emissions from developing countries has far exceeded the small reductions achieved by developed countries.
Developing countries—particularly China—have benefited from rapid industrialisation, and rising emissions are a reality of that process. There is little likelihood this will change in the near future. In response, many countries (especially in Europe) introduced trading schemes, yet the results have been disappointing for a simple reason: there are not enough carbon credits for polluters to buy. To avoid difficulties, governments have softened the rules on how much carbon is allowed. The outcome has been broad disillusionment with Kyoto, and it seems inevitable that it will be replaced by a revised approach.
Kyoto and Soil Carbon
When Kyoto was formulated, soil carbon was not considered. Forestry was accepted as a valid carbon sink, and rules were developed for forestry accounting. Many governments now recognise that soil carbon may be critical for controlling greenhouse gas levels, but in the absence of soil-specific rules, governments have largely imported forestry rules into soil carbon schemes.
This creates major problems. Concepts such as additionality and permanence may be valid for forestry, yet they are not applicable to soil carbon in any simple way. Soil carbon is dynamic: carbon enters and leaves continuously. Applying forestry-style rules to soil is not a technical detail—it shapes whether the system can actually work at scale.
Climate Change Sceptics and Deniers
Climate change sceptics and deniers have been effective in disrupting progress. They are often large and powerful organisations with vested interests and ideological supporters. Their arguments commonly claim climate change is not happening; if it is happening the impact is small; and if it is happening it is not caused by manmade emissions but is part of natural cycles.
However, they are fighting a losing battle. The costs of natural disasters—floods, droughts, and fires—have increased dramatically. This is difficult to deny because insurance figures make the trend visible. As awareness spreads, it becomes inevitable that governments around the world will take climate change more seriously and demand action, despite continued disruption by sceptics.
A Replacement for Kyoto
The major thrust in combating climate change has focused on alternative energy sources. At present, current green technologies cannot provide the required energy on the required global scale to replace fossil fuels. Some countries have slowed their growth in emissions, but globally these efforts are dwarfed by increased fossil fuel use in developing countries.
Yet technology changes quickly. Fifty years ago, the jumbo jet, fax machines, computers, and mobile phones were largely unheard of. It is reasonable to believe that within a similar timeframe (around 50 years) the chances of a viable alternative energy source emerging are high. That does not solve the immediate problem: floods and droughts are increasing now. We need solutions that can be implemented immediately.
Soil carbon is receiving widespread interest for two reasons. First, it appears to be one of the most practical ways of controlling net emissions. Second, it increases the ability to grow crops under expected increases in flood and drought cycles.
Wicking Beds as an Immediate Strategy
Practical experience indicates that wicking beds, used to increase soil carbon, could provide an immediate solution. Early thinking about wicking beds focused on growing crops in drought conditions. Later thinking recognised that wicking beds can also capture carbon, and attention shifted toward maximising carbon absorption, especially by using external sources of organic material that can dramatically increase the rate of carbon capture.
Wicking beds provide a form of double protection. They can sequester large amounts of carbon, and they also provide protection against floods and droughts. They cannot eliminate extreme conditions—for example, long drought followed by devastating floods that deposit debris across farmland—but they can make better use of available water during drought, assist drainage in minor floods, and help dissipate water after extreme flooding.
Obtaining International Recognition
If wicking beds have significant potential in the fight against climate change, the question becomes how to bring the technology to global negotiations for serious consideration. This is a two-step process. The first step is to demonstrate, by controlled scientific experiments conducted by reputable scientific organisations, that wicking beds can potentially remove the tens of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide currently being emitted. Once this is achieved, the second task is to develop a practical monitoring and trading system.
The system needs to be global. Many developed countries do not have sufficient land area to absorb all their emissions. Carbon trading can allow developed countries to support adoption in developing countries with significant land area—Asia, Africa, South America, Russia—who could adopt wicking bed technologies financed in part by carbon trade.
Strategies for Adopting Soil Carbon
Some countries (particularly Australia) and the UN have been struggling with how to adopt soil carbon as a climate change strategy, especially because of measurement difficulties and the volatility of soil carbon. Both the UN and Australia have adopted an approach of not specifying a single method, but inviting organisations to submit a methodology. Expert reviewers assess submissions and, if approved, they become accepted systems. This approach provides flexibility and creates an entry point for innovators.
Roles of Australia and China
Australia is a large country with old, depleted soils and erratic rainfall. Early adoption of European farming practices damaged fragile soils, which increased national awareness of soil degradation and the role of carbon in regeneration. Practical farmers have pioneered conservation techniques that are widely adopted. No-till farming adoption is among the highest in the world, supported by specialist machinery manufacturers who export no-till and stubble-breaking equipment globally.
Pioneers such as Louisa and Michael Kiely (founders of Carbon Farmers of Australia) have promoted carbon farming and helped form the Carbon Farmers Coalition. Christine Jones has also been an early pioneer and free thinker on soil carbon and carbon trading. Governments at federal and state levels have invested heavily in soil carbon research and monitoring technology.
However, Australia’s prosperity has been strongly linked to exports of coal, iron, and other mining products—largely to China. This has created powerful vested interests that oppose strong climate action, including carbon trading schemes. While the population broadly supports action on climate change, specific schemes are often political compromises, especially under a hung parliament. Australia also has a small population and limited international political clout, so it has generally adhered closely to Kyoto rather than pushing major international reforms.
China shares with Australia a variable climate subject to floods and droughts. With a large population to feed, China has strong motivation to protect agriculture from the worst effects of climate change. China has also demonstrated remarkable ability to adopt and develop technology. The major difference is political clout. China is important in its own right and also acts as a leader for the developing world. If China adopts a particular strategy on carbon, other countries are likely to follow.
China and Kyoto
China is not a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol. There are strong reasons. Kyoto focused on percentage reductions from 1990 levels, but in 1990 China was not the economic powerhouse it is today. As a rapidly growing economy, China would find it difficult to reduce emissions without affecting the spread of technology benefits to less affluent populations. A percentage reduction based on historic baselines is a poor fit for China.
Many features of Chinese society are intrinsically low emission compared with Western alternatives. In China, many services are available locally, reducing the need for mass movement of people by car. In many Western cities, suburban layout forces longer travel distances, and limited public transport increases reliance on cars, which is greenhouse intensive. China’s high-speed rail network is also greenhouse effective compared with heavy dependence on cars and planes.
If China is already greenhouse efficient in some structural ways, it is inequitable to impose a percentage reduction on a rapidly advancing population. This links to the Kyoto concept of additionality, which can punish countries that are already carbon efficient. In future agreements, what should matter is the absolute level of emissions, not a percentage relative to an old baseline.
Now consider what would happen if China became carbon neutral by adopting soil carbon. Under the UN/Australian submission principle, China could prescribe procedures for carbon absorption and present scientific evidence. China is the world’s largest emitter (the US is second). The US has refused to sign Kyoto largely because China is not a signatory. If China achieved carbon balance (or materially reduced net emissions) through soil carbon, backed by science, the US could not rely on that argument, and developing countries would likely follow China—making a global agreement easier to reach.
China has been reported as introducing a carbon trading scheme, though details have not been widely available in the English literature at the time of writing.
A New Philosophy for Soil Carbon and Wicking Beds
Kyoto-based soil carbon schemes have tended to copy forestry rules, but soil carbon is fundamentally different because it is dynamic. Carbon is continuously entering and leaving the soil. Accounting should therefore be based on the carbon in the soil at a particular point in time, recognising that soil carbon varies with seasons and conditions.
This volatility creates real questions. What happens if 100 tonnes are captured in year one, rising to 120 in year two, falling to 85 in year three, and rising again to 130 in year four? How do you trade carbon in a system where values naturally rise and fall? What happens if farmland is converted to buildings? In a sensible world, fertile topsoil would be recovered and moved for ongoing food production—but how is that handled within carbon accounting?
There is also a practical cost problem. If a Kyoto-style system requires measuring carbon at every farm, the transaction cost becomes prohibitive. A scalable system must avoid that trap.
The Deeming Principle
The solution lies in what is called in Australia the Deeming principle, increasingly accepted. W. Edwards Deming transformed manufacturing by shifting from measuring every item to monitoring the process. If the process is under control, individual items can be assumed acceptable.
Applied to agriculture, this means farmers could be paid a set amount for following a defined carbon-sequestering process. It does not need to depend on each individual soil type or microclimate. The aim is to absorb billions of tonnes of carbon, which requires participation by as many farmers as possible. A process-based payment system is simple, rugged, and attractive to farmers.
The Role of Aggregators
In practice, the farmer would be paid by an aggregator who manages many farms. In China this could be a public entity (local government or institute) or a private organisation. With wicking beds, the farmer would report the amount of organic material incorporated into the land. The aggregator conducts ongoing research to measure relationships between organic inputs, current soil carbon content, decomposition rates, and greenhouse gas release. This produces a figure for current (and predicted future) soil carbon that can support carbon trading.
The aggregator does not pass through the full payment to farmers. It holds back a portion to cover measurement costs and to provide an insurance function. If soil carbon temporarily drops, or if land is taken over for building, the insurance covers the loss. This protection is essential. Without it, a farmer might be paid $20 per tonne for captured carbon, yet later become liable to pay back carbon at $200 per tonne during drought or market changes. Large future increases in carbon prices are expected as trading develops, so the risk is not theoretical.
The aggregator creates a stable revenue stream for the farmer, who is never placed in the situation of paying money back due to drought, volatility, or land-use change. At the same time, purchasers of carbon credits gain confidence that credits are reliable. In practice, the aggregator would not need to pay back credits; losses would be covered by new credits or from a carbon bank.
Conclusion
Establishing wicking bed technology as a global carbon strategy requires three key steps. First, confirm through independent scientific measurement the improvement in water use efficiency and productivity. Second, measure the amount of carbon stored in soil and the rate of loss over time, using methods such as logarithmic decay or half-life approaches for extrapolation. Third, develop a carbon trading methodology suitable for submission to the appropriate authorities in China, Australia, and the UN.
Colin Austin — 2011.
Download “Technology and Politics of Soil Carbon” (Full PDF)
