FARM groups have continued to attack the Federal Government's carbon price plan despite new rural initiatives in the scheme.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard on Sunday announced a carbon price of $23 a tonne.
- TELL US WHAT YOU THIN
- Is the carbon plan good?
- READ MORE: Editorial
- Have Your Say in the form below
National Farmers' Federation research on the impacts of the carbon price on farmers had assumed a price of $36 a tonne.
Ms Gillard said farmers' diesel fuel rebate would continue, despite fears it would disappear, although the transport sector would face increased diesel costs from 2014 assuming companies did not switch to biodiesel.
AusVeg chairman John Brent said farmers had already been subject to significant rises in electricity prices.
"Electricity is critically essential to food production; without it, irrigation can't be operated and produce can't be refrigerated," Mr Brent said.
NFF chief executive Matt Linnegar said the Government had aimed to "reduce the cost burden for Australian farmers" but the federation remained opposed to the scheme.
"Even with fuel excluded, the average farmer will still incur an additional $1500 a year in costs under a carbon price of $23 per tonne, eroding their net farm income by 2.4 per cent," Mr Linnegar said.
The figure quoted by Mr Linnegar assumes neither the farmer nor other parts of the supply chain make adjustments to their operations, that the farmer does not sell carbon credits and that all additional costs incurred by processors are passed directly on to farmers.
Victorian Farmers Federation president Andrew Broad branded the plan "socialism" but was relieved the diesel rebate had remained.
"The best way to reduce emissions in agriculture is to increase productivity," Mr Broad said.
Regional Australia Minister Simon Crean told The Weekly Times farmers could be paid for absorbing carbon in their soil while "lifting the productivity of the land as well".
He said farmers would be engaged by the carbon farming initiative.
Nationals senate leader Barnaby Joyce said the Government was spending more on bureaucracy to manage the scheme than on soil carbon.
