research report The Impact of a Carbon Price on Australian Farm Businesses: Cotton Farming Australia s Independent Farm Policy Research Institute

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "research report The Impact of a Carbon Price on Australian Farm Businesses: Cotton Farming Australia s Independent Farm Policy Research Institute"

Transcription

1 research report June 2011 The Impact of a Carbon Price on Australian Farm Businesses: Cotton Farming A report prepared by the Australian Farm Institute with funding from Cotton Australia 2011 Australian Farm Institute Australia s Independent Farm Policy Research Institute

2 The Impact of a Carbon Price on Australian Farm Businesses: Cotton Farming June 2011 A report prepared by the Australian Farm Institute with funding from Cotton Australia 2011 Australian Farm Institute

3 Australian Farm Institute 2011 This publication is protected by copyright laws. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without the written permission of the publisher: Australian Farm Institute Limited Suite 73, 61 Marlborough Street Surry Hills NSW 2010 AUSTRALIA ABN T: F: E: info@farminstitute.org.au W: All rights reserved The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Board of the Australian Farm Institute or the Institute s members or corporate sponsors. Disclaimer The material in this Report is provided for information only. At the time of publication, information provided is considered to be true and correct. Changes in circumstances after publication may impact on the accuracy of this information. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Australian Farm Institute disclaim all liability for any loss, damage, expense and/costs incurred by any person arising from the use of information contained in this Report. Publication Data Davison, S, Keogh, M (2011), The Impact of a Carbon Price on Australian Farm Businesses: Cotton Farming, Research Report, Australian Farm Institute, Surry Hills, Australia. Design and Production: Australian Farm Institute

4 The impact of a carbon price on Australian farm businesses: Cotton farming Australian Farm Institute, June Summary Farm level modelling was carried out of the impact of an economy-wide carbon price on the costs and profitability of a model cotton farm in northern NSW. Three carbon price scenarios were examined, one of which commenced at $20 /t CO 2 -e, and the other two of which utilised modelling by the Australian Treasury of the carbon price associated with emission reduction targets of either 5% or 15% by the year Five years after the introduction of a carbon price, the model cotton farm was projected to experience total annual business cost increases of between 2.1 and 4.5% compared to a business-as-usual scenario, amounting to between $30,992 and $66,916 in additional annual costs, depending on the carbon price. The additional costs included both on-farm costs, and also additional processor costs which were assumed to be fully passed on to the farm businesses. These increases in business costs (in the absence of the potential for farm businesses to increase cotton prices) would result in a reduction in farm net income of between 5.5 and 11.9%, relative to a business-as-usual scenario by year 5. The modelling does not incorporate any assumptions about additional dynamic responses (over and above normal productivity growth) by farm business managers to the additional costs, and as such provides a projection of the potential challenge these policies will pose for farm businesses, rather than attempting to predict future outcomes. Nevertheless, the results highlight that the proposed carbon policy represents a major challenge for Australian cottongrowing businesses, irrespective of any future decision to also include direct farm emissions under that carbon policy. Page 1

5 Introduction The Australian Government has proposed to introduce a policy that will impose a price on greenhouse gas emissions produced by some Australian businesses from 1 July, The details of this policy are still to be finalised, although it has been announced that the carbon price mechanism will initially be a fixed carbon price specified by the Government, which will continue for 3-5 years before transitioning into a market-based emissions trading scheme similar to the previously announced Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). The Government has announced that direct emissions from agricultural activities will not incur a cost under the proposed carbon scheme for the foreseeable future, although the possibility of imposing a cost on agricultural emissions at some future time has not been ruled out, and has been proposed by a number of prominent persons and groups involved in advising on carbon policy. While agricultural emissions will not incur a direct cost under the proposed carbon price mechanism, major emitters such as electricity generators will have a cost imposed on their greenhouse emissions, and other major sources of emission such as fossil fuels are also likely to be included in the scheme. This will mean that the proposed carbon price mechanism will increase the price of energy, and hence the cost of farm inputs that involve the use of energy in their production or delivery. Generally speaking, the price that Australian farmers receive for the agricultural commodities they produce is set in the international marketplace, in which Australian farmers are pricetakers. This means farmers are not able to increase the prices they receive, and that any additional costs incurred by Australian farm business have a direct impact on farm profitability. Even in the absence of a direct cost being imposed on agricultural emissions, the implementation of a carbon price mechanism in Australia will have a negative impact on farm profitability. The scale of the adverse impact will vary depending on a range of factors, including the degree of reliance of different farm business and their related sectors on energy and energy-related farm inputs. The aim of the research reported here is to gain an understanding of the potential impact of the proposed carbon price mechanism on the profitability of cotton farms in Australia. Methodology In order to project the impact of the proposed carbon price mechanism on Australian cotton farm businesses, a financial model was developed of a typical cotton farm business, based on data available from industry sources (Cotton Research and Development Corporation, 2007). The methodology utilised has been described in a previous research report (Keogh and Thompson, 2008). In summary, a set of normal assumptions (including rates of farm productivity growth) was applied to the relevant farm financial data in order to project trends in farm costs and farm revenue into the future under a business as usual scenario. The impact of a carbon price mechanism on the cotton farm businesses was then estimated using formulae that create a link between the price of carbon, the impact of that carbon price on fuel and electricity costs, and the impact of changes in fuel and electricity costs on the cost of farm business inputs, including upstream and downstream sectors. The responsiveness of farm input costs to a change in energy prices was calculated on the basis of the significance of energy as an input to the goods or services being utilised by the farm business. This enabled the impact of the carbon price mechanism on cotton farm inputs costs and farm Page 2

6 profitability to be calculated based on projected future changes in the price of carbon. Projected farm costs and farm profitability under a carbon price mechanism could then be compared with the business-as-usual scenario in the absence of a carbon price mechanism, in order to estimate the impact of the policy on future farm profitability. Previous research by ABARE (Tulloh et.al. 2009) has identified that post-farm transport and processing costs will also be impacted by a carbon price, and given the international exposure of Australia s farm commodity and food sectors, it is also anticipated that these additional costs will be passed back to farmers in the form of higher processing costs and/or lower farm commodity prices. A key issue for cotton farmers is the likely impact of a carbon price on processing costs. In order to estimate these cost changes as accurately as possible, detailed energy use data was obtained for a cotton gin (Ismail, 2009). This data, together with the standard emission factors applied for electricity and gas (DCCEE, 2011) was used to estimate changes in cotton ginning costs under the three carbon policy scenarios, and the three carbon price scenarios under consideration in this research. In the case of post-gin freight, the methodology used to calculate the impact of a carbon tax on future freight costs was the same as that used for farm freight costs. A breakdown of the energy-related costs for cotton processing is provided in Table 1 below. It was assumed that these were the only processor costs that would change as a consequence of a carbon price, which is most likely a conservative assumption, given total ginning costs exceed $57 per bale. Table 1. Post-farm processor costs. Processing element Cost per bale Electricity $8.24 Gas $2.00 Other $0.46 Cartage (gin to port) $12.50 TOTAL $23.20 Model farm businesses Itemised farm expenses and revenue (Cotton Research and Development Corporation, 2007) data for a typical cotton farm was updated using appropriate Reserve Bank of Australia indices to dollars. This data was utilised because the absence of irrigation water has prevented most cotton growers from producing normal crops over recent years, therefore more recent industry data was not readily available. Consultation with industry personnel confirms that the data can be considered typical for a cotton farm in northern NSW, although should not be considered to represent an average cotton farm. Some characteristics of the model farm are displayed in the following table. The farm production information was utilised together with the FarmGAS farm greenhouse emissions calculator to calculate annual greenhouse emissions arising from this farm. The greenhouse emission data enabled modelling of a scenario in which the farm businesses incurred a cost for farm emissions. Page 3

7 Table 2. Characteristics of the typical cotton farm. Bales/ha 9.24 Total area of cotton (ha) 400 Greenhouse gas emissions t CO 2 -e Farm costs breakup Chemical application 5% Chemicals - Defoliants 2% Chemicals - Herbicides 3% Chemicals - Insecticides 9% Electricity 1% Fertiliser 11% Fuel 10% Gross farm revenue $ 1,913, Gross farm expenses $ 1,497, Scenarios examined Three carbon price series were used in the analysis, to provide a picture of the impact of different carbon prices. The three price series used were as follows; LOW the carbon price commenced at $20/t CO 2 -e in the 2013 year ( ) and increased at an average of 4% per annum. MEDIUM the carbon price utilised the Australian Government Treasury modelling (Australian Treasury, 2008) of a carbon price series that would be required to reduce national emissions by 5% by 2020 (updated to 2010 dollars). This price series commences at approximately $28/t CO 2 -e and increases by an average of 4.4% per annum. HIGH - the carbon price utilised the Australian Government Treasury modelling of a carbon price series that would be required to reduce national emissions by 15% by 2020 (updated to 2010 dollars). This price series commences at approximately $38/t CO 2 -e and increases by an average of 4.3% per annum. Page 4

8 $ per tonne CO2-e Figure 1. Carbon price series utilised in modelling. $ $ $ $ $80.00 $60.00 $40.00 $20.00 $- Low $20 Med-CO2-5 High-CO2-15 The modelling provided an opportunity to project the impact of three different carbon prices on farm input costs and farm profitability over an extended period of time, assuming historical rates of farm productivity growth are maintained into the future. The modelling also provided an opportunity to examine the potential implications for farm businesses if agricultural emissions incurred a carbon price at some future time (Agriculture Covered). In this scenario, it was assumed that agricultural emissions incur a carbon price after five years, commencing with the carbon price being applied to 10% of farm emissions, increasing by 1.5% per annum. This broadly reflects the coverage of agricultural emissions included in the CPRS proposal, and is also similar to the coverage of agricultural emissions included in the New Zealand ETS. A final scenario that was also able to be analysed utilising the modelling employed here was one under which a carbon price is implemented in the economy, with no cost imposed on emissions arising from fuel. This scenario No Fuel utilised the same carbon price series detailed previously. For on-farm input costs, all linkages between changes in the price of fuel and farm input costs were removed. For off-farm costs specifically related to the processing sector the proportion of processor input costs that were not fuel related costs were estimated, and this was used to estimate cost increases for processors under a carbon price which excluded fuel. For cotton processing, the major input which is affected by fuel price is the post-gin cartage to port. Under the No Fuel scenario, the increase in cartage to port was eliminated, with only the electricity-dependent costs remaining. The methodology associated with the calculation is explained further below. Page 5

9 Results Agriculture as an uncovered sector It should be noted that the following discussion relates to projected changes from the business-as-usual scenario under which no carbon cost mechanism is implemented in the Australian economy. As such, the projections being discussed are relative rather than absolute changes. Table 3 below displays changes in farm input costs and farm cash income (gross farm cash revenue minus farm cash costs) arising from the impact of the carbon price, assuming agriculture remains an uncovered sector, under the three different carbon prices under consideration. Table 3. Projected change in farm business costs and farm cash income, cotton farm. Carbon price scenario Low $20 Med-CO2-5 High-CO2-15 Change in total costs and cash income (agriculture uncovered) Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20 Year 25 Year 30 Carbon Price $ $ $ $ $ $ Cost - Processor ($) $ 6,187 $ 7,527 $ 9,158 $ 11,142 $ 13,555 $ 16,492 Cost - farm ($) $ 24,806 $ 30,014 $ 36,307 $ 43,905 $ 53,068 $ 64,102 Cost Total ($) $ 30,992 $ 37,541 $ 45,465 $ 55,047 $ 66,623 $ 80,594 Cost change (%) 2.1% 2.5% 3.0% 3.7% 4.5% 5.4% Income change (%) -5.5% -5.2% -5.1% -5.1% -5.3% -5.4% Carbon Price $ $ $ $ $ $ Cost - Processor ($) $ 9,460 $ 11,725 $ 14,174 $ 17,327 $ 21,246 $ 25,869 Cost - farm ($) $ 37,778 $ 46,440 $ 55,716 $ 67,535 $ 82,045 $ 98,931 Cost Total ($) $ 47,237 $ 58,165 $ 69,890 $ 84,863 $ 103,291 $ 124,800 Cost change (%) 3.2% 3.9% 4.7% 5.7% 6.9% 8.3% Income change (%) -8.4% -8.1% -7.9% -7.9% -8.1% -8.4% Carbon Price $ $ $ $ $ $ Cost - Processor ($) $ 13,440 $ 16,654 $ 19,991 $ 24,063 $ 29,114 $ 35,451 Cost - farm ($) $ 53,476 $ 65,562 $ 77,961 $ 92,908 $ 111,200 $ 133,794 Cost Total ($) $ 66,916 $ 82,216 $ 97,951 $ 116,971 $ 140,314 $ 169,245 Cost change (%) 4.5% 5.5% 6.5% 7.8% 9.4% 11.3% Income change (%) -11.9% -11.4% -11.0% -10.9% -11.1% -11.4% Based on the assumptions used in this modelling, it is projected that total cotton farm business costs under a carbon price will range from 2.1% to 4.5% higher by year five of the policy, an increase of between $30,992 and $66,916 per year. Farm costs are projected to rise by a greater amount than processor costs, with farm costs contributing 80% of the total increase in farm costs. This is related to the high percentage of input costs which are reliant on fuel and electricity in the model cotton farm, which are projected to change as a consequence of the introduction of a carbon price. The increase in processor costs shown in Table 3 above are for the whole farm, which produces 3,696 bales of cotton per year. The change in processor cost per bale (relative to the baseline cost in the absence of a carbon price mechanism) is shown below in Figure 2. Page 6

10 Figure 2. Change in processor cost per bale of cotton relative to baseline cost. While the percentage increase in input costs appears relatively minor, in dollar terms the total change in input costs is quite large. This is related to the high total revenue and total costs of the cotton farm. With total costs of $1,497,046 in the base year, an increase of $30,992 in total farm costs doesn t appear significant in percentage terms, but the dollar increase in costs may have a significant impact over the long-term on farm profitability. The impact of a carbon price on farm businesses can also be expressed in terms of the changes in farm cash income (gross farm cash revenue minus farm cash costs) as the price of carbon changes. Farm cash income is an important measure for a farm business, as it reflects the cash surplus generated each year that is available for owner/operators expenses and/or to retire debt. The projections in this table highlights that the bottom-line impact of increases in farm and processor costs are significant when considered from a perspective of the effect on farm profitability, with a 2.1% increase in farm input costs, for example, translating to a 5.5% reduction in farm cash income under the lowest carbon price scenario after five years. The relative impact of increased costs on farm cash income is less in this case than for other farm enterprise types that do not have such large operating margins. This does not, however, take account of the risks associated with irrigation enterprises over recent years. It should be noted that the above results are expressed in terms of changes from the businessas-usual scenario, under which no carbon price is introduced into the economy, and the cotton industry maintains current productivity growth rates of approximately 1.5% per annum. In all cases, the imposition of a price on carbon slows the rate of growth in future farm cash income, (in $ terms) but nominal farm cash income continues to grow under all scenarios examined, as Figure 3 (below) highlights. Page 7

11 Figure 3: Projected farm cash income under different carbon price scenarios for a typical cotton farm. The analysis provided an opportunity to develop a carbon price/farm cost curve for the farm, which provides a picture of how farm input costs are projected to increase for differing carbon prices. These results are displayed in Figure 4 below. Figure 4: Relationship between carbon price and overall (farm and post-farm) cost increases for the typical cotton farm. At a carbon price of approximately $20 per tonne CO 2 -e, the additional costs are approximately $7.17 per bale of cotton produced, of which approximately 20% was additional processor costs, and 80% was additional on-farm costs. Page 8

12 Agriculture as a covered sector The Australian Government has stated that agricultural emissions will not attract a liability under a carbon price mechanism for the foreseeable future, and this might lead to the conclusion that the sector therefore does not need to consider the implications of a carbon cost being imposed on farm emissions. However, it is pertinent to note that the New Zealand emissions trading scheme which has already commenced includes a proposal to impose a cost on at least some farm emissions from 2015, by making downstream processors and input suppliers liable for emissions that are generated on farm. This, in combination with the fact that agriculture sector emissions will become more prominent in future in the national inventory as other sectors emissions decline (and therefore more likely to attract the attention of policymakers) suggests that it is prudent to also examine the implications for farm businesses of a liability for a proportion of direct farm emissions. A scenario was therefore modelled under which a carbon price mechanism was introduced in the economy such that a carbon price trajectory equivalent to the Treasury modelling of the CPRS-5 scenario was experienced. The agriculture sector, from year five, was then assumed to be required to pay a carbon price for 10% of farm emissions (in accordance with the Emissions-Intensive Trade Exposed sector proposal included with the CPRS), with the level of liability increasing by 1.5% per annum from year 6. This would mean that a farm business would be liable to pay a cost for 10% of estimated farm emissions in year 5, 11.5% in year six and so on. Figure 3 (below) shows projected changes in farm cash income for the model cotton farm under this scenario, comparing the results with the projected income under a carbon pricing mechanism with carbon prices equivalent to the CPRS-5 Treasury carbon price series. The resulting projections indicate that the imposition of a cost for farm emissions from year 5, even at an initial 10% level, would result in a significant additional decrease in farm cash incomes for the model farm included in this modelling. By year 30, if agriculture is excluded from the carbon trading mechanism, farm cash income is projected to be 8.4% below business as usual. If agriculture is included under a carbon pricing mechanism by year 30, farm cash income is projected to be 11.4% below business as usual. It should be noted that this impact is projected to occur under a model whereby it is assumed historical cotton industry productivity growth of 1.5% per annum is able to be maintained for the duration of the period under investigation. This probably over-estimates future productivity growth rates, given recent ABARES research indicating a slow-down has occurred in crop sector productivity growth since the mid-1990s. If the modelling incorporated a slower rate of long-term productivity growth, the negative impact on farm income would be greater, and would also increase more rapidly than was the case in this modelling. Page 9

13 Figure 5: Change in farm cash income for a cotton farm business under a scenario where agriculture becomes a covered sector after 5 years, and incurs a liability for 10% of emissions, escalating by 1.5% per annum. Even with a relatively moderate rate of coverage for agricultural emissions (starting at 10% coverage in year five and increasing by 1.5% per annum, there is a negative impact on the profitability of the model cotton farm, despite an assumption of a 1.5% per annum growth in cotton farm productivity over an extended period. No fuel scenario A carbon price policy scenario that has been the subject of some discussion is one under which no carbon price is implemented for emissions arising from liquid fuel, and under which agricultural emissions are excluded from a carbon price. The scenario modelled here attempts to provide an estimate of the impact of such a policy for Australian farm businesses. For farm-sector costs detailed in the models developed for this analysis, it is a relatively straightforward process to remove any linkage between the carbon price and fuel-related farm input costs such as fuel and freight, in order to calculate the direct impact of a no-fuel carbon policy on farm businesses. The potential impact of a carbon scheme on cotton processors is assumed to depend on two main variables, which are; 1. The total amount of electricity inputs utilised by the processor and key input providers, and 2. The direct emissions produced by the processor, for which it is likely that a carbon price will be applied. Page 10

14 In the case of cotton processing and post-farm transport costs, detailed energy use and cost data was accessed for a cotton gin. This data, together with relevant greenhouse emission factors for each fuel and energy source, was utilised to calculate changes in cotton processor energy costs under the different carbon price scenarios under examination in this research. The data on cartage from the gin to the port was also able to be used to calculate changes in fuel costs in the earlier modelling, and these additional costs were excluded from the No- Fuel scenario. No data was available about direct emissions arising from the gin, however it was assumed that these were relatively minor given the nature of ginning operations. A necessary assumption was that the cotton gin did not have an option of easily or quickly changing energy sources as relative prices changed. While this assumption is appropriate over short timeframes, it would be less likely to reflect reality over an extended timeframe although significant capital costs might be incurred in any conversion to alternative energy sources. Modelling was carried out of the projected impacts of such a policy, assuming that all other factors (including the carbon price) remained the same as in earlier modelling. The results are displayed in Table 5 below. Table 5. Projected change in farm business costs and farm cash income, No-fuel scenario, cotton farm. Carbon price scenario Low $20 Med-CO2-5 High-CO2-15 Change in total costs and cash income (agriculture uncovered) Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20 Year 25 Year 30 Carbon Price $ $ $ $ $ $ Cost - Processor ($) $ 5,221 $ 6,353 $ 7,729 $ 9,403 $ 11,441 $ 13,919 Cost - farm ($) $ 5,325 $ 6,365 $ 7,604 $ 9,076 $ 10,819 $ 12,875 Cost Total ($) $ 10,546 $ 12,718 $ 15,333 $ 18,480 $ 22,259 $ 26,795 Cost change (%) 0.7% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.5% 1.8% Income change (%) -1.9% -1.8% -1.7% -1.7% -1.8% -1.8% Carbon Price $ $ $ $ $ $ Cost - Processor ($) $ 7,984 $ 9,896 $ 11,963 $ 14,624 $ 17,932 $ 21,833 Cost - farm ($) $ 8,035 $ 9,708 $ 11,464 $ 13,657 $ 16,289 $ 19,279 Cost Total ($) $ 16,019 $ 19,604 $ 23,427 $ 28,282 $ 34,220 $ 41,112 Cost change (%) 1.1% 1.3% 1.6% 1.9% 2.3% 2.7% Income change (%) -2.8% -2.7% -2.6% -2.6% -2.7% -2.8% Carbon Price $ $ $ $ $ $ Cost - Processor ($) $ 11,343 $ 14,056 $ 16,872 $ 20,309 $ 24,572 $ 29,920 Cost - farm ($) $ 11,296 $ 13,552 $ 15,815 $ 18,484 $ 21,678 $ 25,529 Cost Total ($) $ 22,639 $ 27,608 $ 32,687 $ 38,793 $ 46,249 $ 55,449 Cost change (%) 1.5% 1.8% 2.2% 2.6% 3.1% 3.7% Income change (%) -4.0% -3.8% -3.7% -3.6% -3.6% -3.7% A comparison of these results with the results displayed in Table 3 shows that the cost impacts of a carbon policy that excluded fuel emissions would be significantly lower, ranging from a 0.7 to a 1.5% cost increase by year 5 (depending on the carbon price) which is projected to result in a reduction of farm cash income of between 1.9 and 4.0%. The largest change associated with the No Fuel scenario is projected to be a reduction in the increase of on-farm costs. In contrast, cotton processor costs are projected to be relatively less affected by the change due to the gin s strong reliance on electricity and gas as energy sources. As a result, the main change in processor costs associated with the No Fuel scenario is in the cost of transport from mill to port or major domestic market. Page 11

15 At a carbon price of approximately $20 per tonne CO 2 -e, the additional costs under the No Fuel scenario are approximately $2.44 per bale of cotton produced, of which approximately 50% was additional processor costs, and 50% was additional on-farm costs. In comparison, under the scenario where fuel was included, the additional costs at a carbon price of $20 per tonne CO 2 -e were approximately $7.17 per bale of cotton of which 80% was additional onfarm costs. These results highlight that the impact of different policies will vary between individual agricultural processors, depending on patterns of use (and accessibility) of different energy sources. It should be noted that, in the event the Australian Government remains committed to an emission reduction target by 2020 that involves emission reductions of either 5% or 15% and also decides to exclude fuel emissions from the carbon price, the carbon cost that would be required to achieve that emission reduction target would be considerably higher. No attempt has been made in this modelling to estimate how much higher the carbon cost would need to be under the No-Fuel scenario, in order for Australia to meet the emission-reduction targets that have been announced. Conclusions The scenarios modelled here and the assumptions underlying the modelling are as realistic as possible, but are still subject to a large degree of uncertainty at both a policy and also at a farm operation level. Faced with additional costs, farm business managers would respond in a variety of different ways that are not foreseeable or predictable, and technologies may emerge over time that enable adaptation to occur and the negative impacts of a carbon price on farm businesses to be reduced. However, in the short to medium term it is difficult to envisage major technological changes occurring, especially given the extent to which Australian cotton farms have already adopted practices and technologies that minimise energy inputs over the past two decades. The exclusion of emissions from fuel would reduce the impact of a carbon price policy on Australian cotton farms by a significant amount in comparison with a policy that included fuel emissions (at the same carbon price). The impact is much less for cotton gins than it is for on-farm input costs, due to the relatively low level of fuel use in comparison to other energy sources such as electricity and gas at the processor level. The likely impact of the No Fuel scenario is perhaps under-estimated, as no attempt has been made to estimate how much the carbon price would need to be increased under a No-Fuel scenario in order to achieve a specific future emission reduction target. In conclusion, the introduction of a carbon policy in the Australian economy has the potential to have a significant negative impact on the profitability of cotton production in Australia, irrespective of whether or not agriculture sector emissions are included in the scheme. Page 12

16 References ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics), Publication No Australian National Accounts. Input-Output tables Electronic Publication, Final release of tables. December Australian Treasury, Australia s Low-Pollution Future: The Economics of Climate Change Mitigation. Accessible at Cotton Research and Development Corporation and Cotton Catchment Communities CRC, 2007, Australian Cotton Comparative Analysis 2006 Crop, Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Narrabri, NSW. Ismail S, 2009, Assessment of Energy Usage for Cotton Gins in Australia, a dissertation submitted for the award of Master of Engineering, University of Southern Queensland, Australia. Keogh M and Thompson A, Preliminary modelling of the Farm-Level Impacts of the Australian Greenhouse Emissions Trading Scheme. Research Report, Australian Farm Institute. September NGERS, National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme. Published data. Accessible at The CIE, Possible impacts of the CPRS on the Australian red meat and livestock industry. Report prepared for Meat and Livestock Australia. June Tulloh C, Ahammad H, Mi R and Ford M Effects of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on the economic value of farm production. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Issues Insights June * * * * * Page 13