reduce emissions and store soil carbon. Second, even with a generous carbon credit, many Australian farmers may not participate. A study in southeast Australia found a relatively high carbon credit of $AU200 per metric ton of carbon sequestered induced small changes in farming practices. There was an 11% increase in the adoption of minimum tillage cultivation and a 16% increase in no-tillage farming . As the study points out, the CFI credit scheme is unlikely to inspire additional carbon farming in the south: the adoption of carbon-sequestering technologies is already high across the Southern Region, with 65% of farmers already recognising (without carbon incentives) the positive impact of conservation tillage practices on profitability, hence the consistently low participation rates. Finally, whether Australia's carbon policy is viewed favourably by the agricultural economy may depend on how widespread carbon farming becomes. Most Australian farmers and pastoralists will pay the carbon tax through higher costs of transportation. But if there isn't widespread participation in the CFI, only a relatively small proportion of farmers and pastoralists will benefit from carbon farming credits, and thus are likely to maintain a negative attitude towards the carbon policies. Australian agriculturalists may end up being neutral, if not hostile, towards Australia's new carbon policy. It will be intriguing to see how this innovative economic and political experiment in carbon policy pans out for Australia over the next several years. A recent study for India shows that credits in the range of US$20 to US$200 per metric tonne of