The trouble with the FarmOnline poll was that you asked the wrong question ... it shouldn't have been "Should the ETS be delayed to preserve the economy?" but "Is this the right scheme for the country, both now and in the future?" Stimulating the economy while making changes to the way we use energy is perfectly simple - if the government had spent its stimulus package on building a national rail network and providing low-cost (subsidising) solar arrays for in the hundreds of thousands, there would have been widespread, sustainable growth, jobs and export opportunities and a long-term future for Australia creating less and less carbon emissions. The rail network, if properly done, would enable people to live outside of the cities, in the rural and regional areas, without having to use their cars to commute to jobs; provided low-cost, low-emission freight and transport; and the solar industry would have sky-rocketed forwards with many more jobs, opportunities for export and most importantly, a real lessening of the power burden on the city power infrastructures. C'est la vie ... Rudd chose to hand out cash payments and insulation. Whoop-de-doo.

Given the high incidence of climate scepticism among the readership of The Land, it is not surprising that there is a gap between the two surveys. It is an example of the gap between City and Country. Another example of that gap is the fact that farmers and graziers are the only class of small business being considered for inclusion in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Despite the fact that few, if any, emit 25,000 tonnes, the entry point for every other sector of the economy. The Carbon Coalition supports the 'opt-in' concept for agriculture, but only if we win the right to offset our emissions with the carbon we can sequester. Please 'sign' our petition to Minister Burke on giving us access to the scientific methodologies being used to decide fate of soil carbon sequestration in the $20m being spent across 9 projects. The "Collaborative Science in Agriculture" petition is available on http://carboncoalitionoz.blogspot.com

The fact that the fate of an entire industry can hang on the ability of scientists to replicate what carbon farmers are doing in real life when they 1. don't believe it is possible and have said so publicly, 2. claim that only snake oil salesmen would even suggest that we can sequester more than the miniscule amounts that they have been able to demonstrate and 3. were sufficiently ignorant of contemporary agricultural practice as to leave out the carbon sequestering land management techniques in an audit of Agriculture's practices to determine how the industry should be treated under an Emissions Trading Scheme beggars belief. The gaps in the data left an indelible impression and have skewed policy against carbon farming ever since. Only complete transparency can guarantee that the $20m is not wasted on research that is also methodologically flawed. (There won't be another $20m for soil carbon research. This is it.) The Carbon Coalition has been working with a group of senior soil carbon scientists for close to three years with great success. For our part the more we have learned about scientific method, the more we have been able to understand and to contribute. And we believe that the more our scientific colleagues are exposed to our world the better the outcomes for the science will be. Collaborative Science In Agriculture might speed up the process of translating findings from lab to farm gate, which Mick Keogh from the Farm Institute tells us takes 25 years.

Given the inaccurate and unsubstantianted scaremongering rhetoric spewed out by the likes of Mick Keogh form the AFI, self-serving politicians and ill-informed landholders I am not surprised the polls vary. The smart farmers are already moving to new production systems, farmers entrenched in 20th centruy farming practices are going to go to the wall because they refuse to or cannot change thier ways. If the grazing industry becomes unviable due to the ETS or due to declining margins, climate change or changing consumer patterns then the famers should be looking to change, not whinge that it is someone else's fault. The fault is with the landholders who refuse to change thier ways. The public pays for the damage to the public infrastructure (i.e. the environment) whilst the farmer keeps on doing what they have done for years.

Farmer goups should be lobbying for forest sequestration to be included as soon as possible as a no regrets policy to combat climate change, create income and improve the environment. Those that think the politicians are saving them are deluded, the politicians are looking after themselves and just like the Stock & Land are preying on your fears and ignorance to sell papers and make sure they get re elected.

Wake up farmers even without an ETS the so-called city slickers are the ones buying the meat - if they feel it is damaging the environment then they will stop, move to other products, you guys are still at the bus stop and the bus has left. The Lorax

This article appears to be straight propaganda. It alludes to charlatan science are being genuine.

Farmers know the lies being propagated by some misguided people. The farmers have seen the seasons change.

"A Lowy Institute poll last year found that climate change had dropped down the list of policy priorities from equal first place to fifth, with most Australians caring more about jobs." This quote came from the Sydney Morning Herald, on March 09.

I would hardly think that it has gone back up to the top.

Farmers live with nature and must respect it or they wouldn't be there. It's sure not the money keeping them in it. The fact that most aren't swayed by the witless propaganda from so-called environmental groups seems to be a real problem - maybe the farmers are right, which suggests an even bigger problem.