Kyoto is now decades old, yet atmospheric carbon continues to rise. This submission argues that the real issue is not talk, taxes, or trading schemes, but physical action that changes carbon flows in the real world. Plants already pull vast amounts of carbon from the air. The practical challenge is keeping more of that carbon in soils for longer, by improving soil biology, moisture stability, and farming systems. The proposal focuses on simple, scalable structures that farmers will actually adopt.
Submission Synopsis
This document is a synopsis of a larger submission prepared by Colin Austin (10 November 2013). It is structured around three core questions:
(1) why we are not winning the climate challenge, (2) what we should be doing in the real world to mitigate climate change, and (3) what Australia can realistically do, given economic and practical constraints.
Summary
Kyoto is described as failing, with atmospheric carbon rising faster than before. Many policy tools have been tried—carbon tax, carbon trading, auctions—but the submission argues that what matters is physical change: either stopping carbon entering the air, or taking it out.
In the long run, humanity must reduce fossil fuel use. In the short run, we can remove carbon from the air using vegetation, then store more of it in soil. The submission emphasises that vegetation already absorbs many times more carbon than human emissions; the key is to retain more of that carbon in the soil so it does not rapidly return to the atmosphere.
Soil carbon is framed as low-cost and strongly beneficial beyond climate: it improves soil water holding capacity, nutrient holding capacity, food security and health, and reduces pollution of water resources. The main barrier is not theory, but adoption: schemes must be workable at scale and attractive to farmers.
The proposed “essence” is an eco-organisation that:
- Documents and supervises systems for retaining carbon in soil across farm types and regions.
- Develops software to predict carbon retained.
- Makes payments to farmers.
- Provides accreditation of farm products.
Preface
The submission aims to outline a plan for Australia to make a real contribution to global climate change mitigation, while recognising real-world constraints. It notes that people who have experienced floods or bushfires often understand that climate change does not “cause” extreme weather, but can make it worse. The document argues that public understanding has been weakened by poor communication of mechanisms, and by over-reliance on statistical “mass data” approaches that many people distrust.
The author references additional material in three books (a trilogy) that contain more detail, and notes that further information is available via the Waterright website and directly by email. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
Question 1: Why We Are Not Winning The Climate Challenge
The Scale Of Industrial Growth
A central argument is that emissions growth is driven by the spread of industrial living standards. The submission describes a shift from a world where a smaller portion of the population lived an “industrial lifestyle” to one where far more people do—and where that number is expected to rise further. This growth is described as unstoppable because developing countries will not voluntarily abandon modern benefits.
The submission argues that small reductions in one country can be offset quickly by growth elsewhere. This is used to illustrate why policy success claims can be misleading if they do not match the true scale of emissions change.
Political Restraints
The document argues that political progress has been limited because scientific facts have been communicated poorly. It suggests that people understand and accept clear mechanisms, but are often sceptical of complex statistical framing.
The submission states that the mechanisms of climate change have been understood for a long time and can be validated through satellite measurements of radiation received and emitted by Earth. It argues that simple, direct presentation of energy balance would reduce confusion: if net energy is increasing, it must be balanced by increases in temperature, latent heat (evaporation), and chemical energy (biomass), consistent with thermodynamics.
It then distinguishes between “mechanism” and “impact”: the author argues the key debate is not whether the planet’s energy balance is changing, but how climate change will affect people and how societies will respond. Some people may benefit (for example, those in colder regions), while others—such as those exposed to sea level rise or more damaging extremes—may suffer. The submission again stresses the point that climate change does not create extreme events, but can intensify them.
The lack of accepted, well-publicised risk narratives is described as reducing public pressure, which in turn reduces political incentive to take effective action. This creates a situation where meeting narrow targets can be treated as “success” even if the physical effect is small.
Legal Restraints
Climate change is global, and international protocols tend to prioritise strict legal and accounting structures. The submission argues that this emphasis on legal compliance has often overtaken the goal of achieving real-world outcomes.
Soil carbon is used as the main example. The document argues that a strict interpretation of permanence and additionality requirements leads to impractical expectations on farmers, such as measuring captured carbon, estimating what stays “permanently,” and calculating what is “additional” relative to prior practices. The author argues that these requirements make schemes too complex for broad adoption, and farmers—focused on earning real income—often view such programs as unworkable.
This failure of adoption is presented as a major global constraint, because soil carbon is positioned as one of the few options that can be deployed quickly and at scale.
Question 2: What We Should Be Doing In The Real World To Mitigate Climate Change
A Two-Stage Plan
The submission proposes a two-stage approach:
- Long term: reduce fossil fuel dependence. The author argues the energy available from the sun is vastly larger than human use, and is technically harvestable. The main challenge is bulk energy storage.
- Short term: use soil carbon to create a window of time—potentially decades—during which the world can develop and deploy alternatives to fossil fuels.
Soil carbon is not presented as a license to keep burning fossil fuels indefinitely. Instead, it is framed as a practical buffer: something we can begin now, while harder technology transitions are underway.
Getting To Grips With Scale
The submission emphasises scale repeatedly. Burning coal and oil occurs in billions of tonnes. Carbon stored in soil is less dense than coal, so the volumes involved can be enormous. This is why “small demonstrations” are not enough. A scattered set of farms improving carbon storage is compared to token progress: technically real, but practically insignificant when compared to the size of the problem.
Vegetation Absorbs Far More Carbon Than We Emit
The author argues that a crucial fact is not widely recognised: vegetation already removes large amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. The Keeling Curve is used to illustrate this, focusing on the large seasonal drawdown in the Northern Hemisphere spring. The submission interprets this as evidence that plants remove carbon at multiples of human emission rates.
The implication is direct: if plants are already doing the capture, the problem is not capture capacity—it is retention.
Managing The Carbon-Vegetation Cycle
The submission argues the largest emitter is not electricity or transport, but “rotting vegetation”—meaning the natural return of carbon to the atmosphere via decomposition and oxidation. This is presented as an overlooked lever: slowing the return flow can be as powerful as increasing absorption.
The author notes that carbon is carbon; the atmosphere responds to net flows, not moral categories. Therefore, reducing the rate at which organic carbon returns to the air can lower atmospheric levels, even if the carbon is not stored “forever.”
Thermodynamics, Entropy, And Why Organic Matter Breaks Down
Photosynthesis creates high-energy complex molecules. Because they contain energy, they tend to break down into more stable molecules like carbon dioxide and methane. This tendency is framed as an expression of thermodynamics and entropy: systems move toward stability.
The core practical insight drawn from this is:
if we can manage decomposition pathways so that a larger fraction ends up as stable residues (humus) rather than fully oxidising back to CO₂ or CH₄, then we can shift the balance.
Rates Matter More Than Permanent Storage
The submission argues that thinking only in terms of “permanent” soil carbon is a serious mistake. Atmospheric carbon is described as dynamic, with large flows in and out—more like a river than a tank. The key is whether net balance is rising or falling over time.
The author makes a practical point: if the natural vegetation cycle is many times larger than human emissions, then relatively small percentage changes in the “return flow” could offset a large portion of human emissions. This is used to justify focusing on decomposition control and soil retention strategies.
Decomposition Pathways: What Speeds Up Carbon Return
Several pathways are described as rapidly returning carbon to the atmosphere:
- Burning: converts most carbon quickly to CO₂.
- UV exposure with oxygen: surface organic waste can decompose and oxidise, even without dramatic flames.
- Aerobic bacterial attack: under soil, bacteria can still decompose organic matter and release CO₂.
- Anaerobic breakdown in water: can release methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas.
What Slows Carbon Return: Humus And Fungal Decomposition
The submission highlights decomposition that creates stable residues, commonly described as humus. Humus is framed as chemically stable and soil-building.
Fungi are presented as especially important because they can build long-lived structures, contribute to stable soil aggregates, and help bind organic matter into soil particles. Mycorrhizal fungi are highlighted for their symbiosis with plants: plants provide sugars; fungi extend hyphae that improve nutrient and water capture; fungi can exude compounds that contribute to stable soil carbon.
Macro-organisms are also noted, especially deep-feeding worms that transport surface organic material deeper into soil where it is protected from UV-driven oxidation. Worm secretions are described as stable “glues” that help soil structure and aeration.
Farming Practices And The Soil Carbon Debate
Soil is described as a major carbon sink (second only to oceans). The submission notes that deep, carbon-rich soils—such as those in savannah belts—show what long-term accumulation can look like. It also notes that fossil fuels themselves are ancient stored vegetation carbon that resisted breakdown.
A key claim is that undisturbed land tends to accumulate soil carbon, while traditional farming tends to release it. Therefore, the challenge is to adjust farming systems so they build soil organic content rather than deplete it, and to create incentives that make this attractive.
Bacteria And Fungi: Different Roles, Different Outcomes
The submission contrasts bacteria and fungi:
- Bacteria: generally fast, robust, and active with oxygen; they may release CO₂ rapidly and have shorter-lived structures.
- Fungi: longer-lived, can form large structures, can better support stable soil building; mycorrhizal fungi support plant growth by extending nutrient and water capture.
The strategy proposed is to manage conditions that favour fungal activity and minimise oxidation. Fungi are described as more fragile: they are easily damaged by soil disturbance, whereas bacteria are more likely to survive. Therefore, reduced disturbance and “safe haven” refuges for fungi are important.
Water Management And Carbon Farming
Moisture is described as crucial in the fungi–bacteria balance. Bacteria can thrive across wide moisture ranges, while fungi are described as thriving only in a narrower band of stable moisture conditions.
One proposed technique is to apply wicking-bed principles to decomposition: trenches lined with waterproof barriers (such as polythene film, or potentially sealing leaves like eucalyptus leaves) can act as controlled decomposition chambers and irrigation channels. Organic material is buried, moisture is maintained, and inoculants such as worm eggs and mycorrhizal fungi are added to favour fungal decomposition and soil-building outcomes.
Sources Of Organic Waste
The submission argues that achieving scale requires very large organic inputs. On-farm agricultural residues help, but may be insufficient alone. Additional sources and strategies described include:
- Carbon crops: fast-growing plants, coppicing species, or productive trees pruned regularly to supply organic matter.
- Sewage use on non-food plants: sewage can supply water and nutrients for carbon crops where food safety concerns are avoided, especially if lined channels prevent leakage to groundwater.
- Forest residues: trimmings and undergrowth can be processed to reduce fire risk and provide carbon inputs.
- Urban green waste: city waste diverted from landfill avoids methane generation and becomes a valuable soil input.
The submission stresses that climate change should not be treated in isolation: soil carbon also links to nutrient scarcity (including nitrogen energy costs and phosphorus limits), water quality, and human health through nutrient density of food.
System For Soil Carbon
The submission summarises a practical “state of the art” system that focuses on managing soil biology:
- Continuous plant cover: soil biology depends on plant energy; without plants, critical fungi die. Approaches include intercropping, planting ahead of harvest, and using alleys or islands of permanent plants.
- Mycorrhizal fungi: plants convert atmospheric carbon into sugars that feed fungi; fungi contribute to stable soil-building compounds. Fungi are delicate and need consistently humid soil, though spores are tough.
- Deep burrowing worms: move surface organic matter deeper, protecting it and improving structure; may help fungi spread.
- Bacteria: robust and fast-breeding; important but not always the best pathway for long-term stable residues.
- Moisture control: steady moisture supports fungi; wicking systems maintain “moist but not saturated” conditions.
- Soil trees: deep-rooted legumes can add nitrogen, mine phosphorus, and provide refuges for fungi.
Hugel Culture
Hugel culture is described as an older European method: burying logs, forest waste, and compost under soil. As logs decompose, they become spongy material that holds water and can embed carbon into soil. This is presented as a relevant technique, particularly where water holding capacity is as important as carbon retention.
Question 3: What Australia Can Realistically Do
Australian Skills And Expertise
The submission argues that Australia has strong expertise in soil carbon, combining practical farming experience under difficult conditions with scientific capability. The author does not claim Australia has unique advantage in energy storage technology, but does argue Australia can lead in soil carbon systems that can then be exported or adopted globally.
Organisational Structures And Strategy Choice
The submission frames a key strategic choice:
- Option 1: comply strictly with Kyoto protocols.
- Option 2: build a system that works in practice, is adopted widely, and can act as a template for the world.
The author argues Kyoto has been historically ineffective, covers only a limited portion of emissions, and creates soil carbon schemes that are too complex and expensive to be adopted widely. The submission argues that legal and accounting correctness must not override practicality and farmer uptake.
Lessons Learned From Soil Regeneration Experience
The submission reflects on long experience in soil regeneration, including early “single variable” trial approaches that showed there is no magic bullet. Instead, soil regeneration is presented as building a working ecosystem: plants, bacteria, fungi, worms, and many other organisms must work together.
It gives an example of failed attempts to use mycorrhizal fungi alone, where fungi did not spread—suggesting that worms and broader soil biology are needed to distribute spores and create the right conditions.
Complex Information Trail
The document argues that farmers face an overwhelming and messy information landscape: reductionist science, practical knowledge, permaculture experience, and also low-quality “magic potion” claims. Sorting this is unrealistic for farmers who must focus on producing crops and earning income. Therefore, the submission argues that “throwing money at the problem” without support structures wastes resources.
Farming Reality And What Motivates Adoption
Farmers are described as highly exposed to climate risks, but their primary job is producing food and fibre, not solving climate change for society. The submission argues that society must reward farmers fairly for carbon capture services, and must avoid unnecessary bureaucracy.
It also notes market realities: farmers sell into markets often dominated by large organisations with more power. A soil carbon scheme must fit into this economic context, and should deliver meaningful value. Small, trivial payments are unlikely to motivate change; instead, soil carbon payments should help offset the real costs of improving soils, with the improved soil being a longer-term benefit for the farmer.
Beyond Climate: Food Quality, Health, Water, And Pollution
The submission emphasises that increasing soil carbon can improve nutritional quality of food by supporting minerals and soil biology, potentially helping reduce modern diet-related diseases such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. It also links soil carbon to better water storage and reduced nutrient and chemical leaching into waterways. The point is that soil is a national asset, and the policy justification is broader than climate alone.
The Eco-Organisation
The submission proposes an intermediary organisation—initially possibly government, later potentially industry or consulting based—that provides the enabling structure for wide adoption. The organisation is intended to make soil carbon “accessible” by turning complex ecology into practical operating systems.
Soil Carbon Software
A major barrier identified is the expectation that individual farmers measure soil carbon increases directly. This is described as too expensive and administratively heavy, potentially costing more than the payments. The submission argues this would stop adoption immediately.
Instead, it proposes that the eco-organisation develops operating manuals (region and farm-type specific), and then develops predictive software—likely web or mobile based—to estimate carbon capture from actions taken. The software would be tuned using selected field data and would function as a calibrated interpolation system across agricultural zones.
The goal is not perfect accounting elegance, but a workable system that achieves real scale. The submission suggests this approach would also be usable in developing countries, where millions of small farms cannot reasonably conduct individual carbon testing programs.
Who Bears The Risk
The submission raises a practical decision: should farmers be paid a standard fee for following an approved procedure, with the eco-organisation carrying variability risk, or should farmers be paid based on estimated carbon captured?
A standard fee is described as the simplest approach, even if it clashes with strict legalistic approaches. The submission also proposes product accreditation—particularly around mineralisation—so farmers gain commercial advantages (consumer trust and better prices), which may drive adoption more strongly than carbon payments alone.
The Essence
The submission restates its core structure: an eco-organisation that documents and supervises soil carbon systems by region and farm type, develops prediction software, makes payments, and provides accreditation of farm products.
Conclusion
The submission argues strongly against continuing with schemes that are legally tidy but practically dead on arrival. It states that Kyoto-influenced soil carbon frameworks have produced complexity and cost that prevent adoption, particularly when farmers are expected to measure carbon changes directly.
The recommended approach is to trial and prove a simple, practical, adoption-focused scheme in Australia, then use it as a template for global adoption—especially in developing countries where scale is essential.
Finally, it reiterates that soil carbon delivers broader benefits: improved nutritional quality of food, stronger water retention and food security, and reduced pollution. The submission argues that Australia’s greatest contribution could be developing practical systems and incentives that enable farmers worldwide to capture carbon in soils at scale.
Colin Austin — © Creative Commons. Reproduction permitted for private use with source acknowledgment; commercial use requires a license.
Download “Soil Carbon, Climate Change and Solutions for Australia” (Full PDF)
