Payment for forest preservation has huge scope for blackmail, carbon accounting Enron style, creeping exaggeration, double counting and domestic rural pork barrelling. The first major point is that standing forests don't absorb increases in emissions ie they absorb some of pre-existing emissions. Therefore they won't help expansion of the carbon economy. The second major point is that timing and amount of net carbon flows can be quite complex; with a one-off CO2 surge from forest burning, a reduction in erstwhile CO2 absorption until regrowth builds momentum and other effects. This is only for forests in the wet tropics, not temperate zones which are unreliable or temporary carbon sinks. Since carbon offsets are generally about 90% cheaper than emission cuts the temptation is to extrapolate the best-case rates of carbon capture and bring them forward, Enron style accounting. In theory there should be disallowance of forestry claims due to drought, fire and disease, but that never seems to happen.

I think it would be easier to simply exclude such carbon credits as is the case with the European trading scheme. When a country burns forest (say as monitored by satellite) it should score a major debit. A completely separate scheme should try to preserve forests for a range of reasons such as biodiversity with carbon capture being a major but perhaps unquantifiable element.

The author relevantly noted .....Brazil and Indonesia, which throughout the 1990s accounted for almost 40 per cent of global net deforestation

and may I say that Australia (Victoria) was implicit in this statistic because we shut down our own sophisticated (imo) and well managed timber industry (especially hardwood) with the effect of giving a free kick to the decimation of our neighbouring asian forests and the associated boom for timber exporters. They could hardly believe their luck!

We now really need to bring our heads out of the sand and realise that the timber we locked up (that eventually went up in smoke) was replaced by this asian deforestation.

Until we can face reality we believe that da nile is still that river in Egypt.

miss all

Beware the payments made in the name of global warming.
The Russian oligarchs made a fortune out of the dopey Europeans in the
carbon credit rackets.

These suggested payments for doing nothing would be highly inflationary
and achieve nothing.

There is a belief that the science on global warming is settled.
Well maybe it was, but there does seem to be a swing back to a more
realistic debate going on in climate circles.
Some of the IPCC scientific members are changing their attitudes.

For me sitting on the sidelines, perhaps the precautionary stance
may be the wisest position.

Anyway the payments of indulgences is not a very clever move.

Martin Luther where are you ?
Nailing a notice to the door of the ASX perhaps ?