LABOR'S emissions trading scheme is better for farmers than the Coalition's plan, a leading climate change policy expert says.

But the National Farmers' Federation says it will seek more detail on the Coalition's direct-action plan before being able to properly compare the opposition's plan with the Government's.

Under Labor's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, landowners could be paid for planting trees, regenerating and maintaining native vegetation and possibly for carbon sequestered in soil.

The Rudd Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

  • Agricultural emissions not counted, but sequestration will be rewarded
  • Payments for soil carbon if recognised internationally
  • Payments for protecting or re-growing native vegetation
  • Increased electricity costs

Under the Coalition's plan, farmers would be paid for planting trees and carbon sequestered in soil regardless of whether the international community agrees on the science of soil carbon.

The Abbott Direct Action scheme

  • Payments for soil carbon
  • Less administration
  • Businesses reducing emissions eligible for Government payments
  • Coalition claims that electricity costs stay the same

Farmers will not be forced to pay for their emissions under either scenario.

Australian National University Centre for Climate Policy Associate Director Dr Andrew McIntosh told The Weekly Times the CPRS offered more for landowners but both schemes offered financial incentives for farmers.

"One attraction (of the coalition plan) is it could be easier ... administratively for farmers - it's basically handouts," Dr McIntosh said.

"Both are looking at agricultural landscapes for a large portion of their abatement."

While both had "problems with environmental credibility" and would fail to significantly reduce emissions, Dr McIntosh said by voting against the CPRS the Coalition was "turning its back on a pot of goodies for farmers".

"There are more similarities than differences ... but under the Government's scheme the polluter pays and under the Coalition's the beneficiary pays, as in the taxpayer."

But NFF chief executive Ben Fargher said the CPRS ran a risk of seeing productive land planted to plantations if the price of carbon rose, as planting on cleared land would be well rewarded under the CPRS.

Indirect costs such as fuel, electricity and fertiliser would not rise as much under the Coalition's scheme as under a CPRS, he said.

However, the Coalition's plan left many questions to be answered, including how much landowners would be paid for carbon in soil, how farmers would access the money and what effect the scheme would have on fuel and electricity costs.

"Either way direct emissions are out - at this time we've positioned ourselves as well as possible," Mr Fargher said.