The answer to these problems is obvious. Countries should be given credits based on their total sequestration less their total emissions. Questions of baseline performance simply would not arise. Within countries polluters should pay a carbon tax and sequesters should receive subsidies at the same carbon rate. If an underdeveloped country is a net sequester it should receive a payment from an international fund set up for that purpose. Most countries are net polluters and would not receive such payments. The carbon tax rate should be internationally harmonised so that it is similar in every country; similarly the subsidy paid to sequesters. In Australia it would imply that every large owner of land with trees would get some payment, but agriculture would need to be included in the tax regime.

Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing tropical countries may be a worthwhile goal, however it is influenced by a number of factors that we need to consider.

The author claims that a REDD program is needed because 'The destruction of tropical rainforests is responsible for an estimated 17 per cent of global CO2 emissions'. This figure can be found in the IPCC fourth assessment report and in older papers based on preliminary estimates, some even include emissions from peat and other land use change to boost the figure up to 25%.

Yet the latest figure from the World Resource Institute, is 11.3% see http://www.wri.org/chart/world-greenhouse-gas-emissions-2005

So in fact we have almost solved the problem by a rigorous and comprehensive review of the figures rather than expensive emission trading schemes and restrictive rules for developing countries. Yet this fact remains unreported and largely not acknowledged by green groups.

Perhaps because these green groups deliberately confuse forest management with deforestation and seek to extend the concern over tropical rainforest to their own back yard. For example the Wilderness society has a person at the climate talks in Bonn, so too does the Humane Society both lobbying on REDD and making outrageous claims about Australia and in particular Tasmanian forestry.

This confusion is also seen in a paper last year produced for the wilderness society by an ANU professor who is also Australia’s representative on the IUCN, claiming that sustainable harvesting is causing emissions from forests in Victoria, NSW and Tasmania, despite the findings of the Australian government that its forest industry is actually a net carbon sink.

Whilst unnecessary deforestation should be avoided, sustainable forest management should be encouraged. Even the IPCC found that "In the long term, a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit."

Despite political claims to the contrary Australia’s forest management when assessed against international criteriea is sustainable in terms of carbon, social ,economic and environmental values.

Carbon dioxide is causing the planet to overheat? It is a pollutant? Where is your science to prove that?
I wrote to the IPCC asking them for the reference to the science that proves that CO2 is a pollutant and they advised that there is nothing noted in their records.
Refer to Dr Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts and their research into how the temperature raw data has been manipulated.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html
Also Dr Long's findings that rural temps have been artificially increased five fold.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Rate_of_Temp_Change_Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf
Then have a look at how 30% of the IPCC AR4 Report is not peer reviewed http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/ and
http://www.noconsensus.org:80/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.p