FARMERS cannot afford to ignore climate change, whether they believe in the science or not.

And if agriculture does not have a seat at the negotiations table with big industries such as coal, they will "end up on the menu".

This is the view of leading Western District farmer, Mark Wootton, a self-described climate-change sceptic turned renewable energy lobbyist.

The trained geographer says his view changed as the weight of scientific evidence that human actions were causing climate change grew, and he now accepts the validity of the mainstream scientific view.

Now he argues that whether they "believe" the science of climate change or not, farmers can benefit by learning more about carbon markets.

And he says farming is to play a big role in solving climate change but to enable this, governments urgently need to put more money into extensive agricultural research and development.

Mr Wootton began looking at climate change from a business-risk perspective in the late 1990s.

"The risk is there's a high probability that the science is absolutely correct," he said.

"From a farmer's perspective, I think we have to accept we've moved into a carbon-constrained world. Forget about the politics and look at the risk to your business."

Mr Wootton runs 5000ha at Hamilton with wife Eve Kantor.

They produce beef, wool, lambs, crops and agroforestry.

He also chairs the Climate Institute, a non-partisan, independent research organisation.

"My fear now is there's a high probability that the climate is changing much quicker than the scientists' earlier models showed," he said, "What is unfortunately becoming clearer is that predictions were way too conservative.

"From a business perspective, I've concluded the cost and advantages of acting are not detrimental to our business; if we can be more energy-efficient, if we can be better converters of feed so we produce less methane, if we can use shelter belts for stock protection and increasing lambing percentages - all of those aspects we can do on an integrated, carbon-constrained farm, then they are good for business.

"We can also do this with greater water efficiency, increased biodiversity and, most importantly, an increase in production of food and fibre."

Mr Wootton's greatest frustration is when people of all political persuasions talk about climate change as if it were some sort of religious movement.

"It isn't," he said. "Climate change is not about belief, it is about accepting the probability that the science is correct and that we need to manage the risk."

Mr Wootton said the "shrill, narrow" voices on both sides of the climate-change debate had done a great deal of damage. "All the parties have been absolutely reprehensible about this, especially the Greens, which have been outrageously politically opportunistic," he said.

A recent federal government survey showed only 32 per cent of farmers agreed that climate change was caused by human behaviour.

"But if you change the question and say to farmers, that we are moving into a carbon-constrained world and do you think you should prepare your business for it? I find that the vast majority of farmers say, let's not worry about the politics, we need to prepare our business for this risk," he said.

Mr Wootton blames the Government's "appalling" communication to rural people for the lack of awareness about the potential opportunities for farmers.

Agriculture and regional Australia could offer one of the best opportunities to combat climate change, he said.

"For some, it'll be having renewables on their land, for others it could be actively engaging in sequestering, via appropriate use of trees in landscapes, or for others it may be working in the renewable industry," he said.

Jigsaw Farms is now a net carbon sequester, with 23 per cent of the farm planted to trees - significantly more than what's required to be carbon neutral.

"We have excess amounts of saleable sequestering opportunities available, so we could sell 5000-10,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalents into the market each year," Mr Wootton said.

"We haven't elected to do that because the market isn't mature enough yet."

While he said a carbon price would allow him to sell carbon under the proposed Carbon Farming Initiative, it was premature for agriculture to enter into an emissions trading system. This was because agriculture has problems with measurement, and solutions on how it can reduce its footprint were not yet available.

He said more research, development and extension funds were "fundamentally important" and a positive approach that focused on opportunities was the best way to engage farmers.

Mr Wootton favours an emissions-trading scheme.

He said that Australia, as a mid-latitude country, was the developed country most at risk of being affected by climate change.

"We're going to get nailed by it, and we need to entice others to act," he said.

As commodity exporters, farmers would lose their competitive advantage if they did not own and develop new carbon-reducing technologies and knowledge.

"If we're not at the table, we'll end up on the menu," he said.