Bim, you are wrong. Under the IPCC methodology, all emissions from wood products are deemed to take place in the country where the tree was cut down. So all the paper used by the Japanese and made from our woodchip is deemed to be an Australian emission.

The real sleaze lies in the fact that europe imports most of it's wood supplies and it's chip for paper from Africa and Sth America. So first world countries like the US, Canada, Australia and NZ, that still retain vast areas of productive forest, are at a serious disadvantage under Kyoto. No cost penalties are attached to the european value chain because the African source nations are exempt so, surprise, surprise, the Euro-spivs can have their cake and eat it too.

Perseus, that is very interesting that the carbon debit is incurred in the country where the tree is cut down.

If this is so, then why doesnt the same logic apply to where the coal is dug up from, which would mean that the previous poster "Plerdsus" is right, and BIM and Callinan are quite wrong. Again I say, as a method of cardon accounting this has to be bloody ridiculous

There are many complications and yet to be decided issues surrounding carbon accounting. But on this simple matter BIM is correct. As he plainly said, Australia is only accountable for what it emits within Australia -NOT what it exports.

If you cut a tree down or burn coal in Australia, Australia is responsible for the consequent emission. If you cut a tree down or burn coal in Japan, Japan is responsible for the consequent emission. Could it be any simpler?

Perseus, you said that all emissions from wood products are deemed to take place in the country where the tree was cut down. Well, yes, because that’s where the ‘act’ took place.

It would be insanely complicated and thus impractical to account for the entire life of every bit of paper, car component, bit of coal; what the coal was used to make, who bought it, and in which country they ever used it for whatever length of time, through out its life. This would be quite illogical.

The person who cuts down the tree is responsible, not the person who grew the tree. Similarly, the person who burns the coal is responsible, not the person who dug it up.

Most of the debate over climate change seems to be based on what "they" are doing about it. We assume that any contribution we can make by reducing "our" greenhouse gas emissions is so small that is it not worth the effort. If everyone refuses to accept responsibility to take part in fixing the problem then the problem will not be fixed (yes, the SUV does make a difference).

So Martin if we in OZ are dopey enough to sell the control over our timber assets to the Japanese,who organise the chopping down of the trees on Oz soil, which they then wood chip and ship to Japan to turn into many end products, we cop the carbon debit but the Japs, as the end user gets away scot free. They are the end user( burner) by your own analogy and they should wear the carbon penalty. I can well understand how a bunch of academics with a vested interest in alarmism, couldn't work out a more equitable way of handling the problem,and one with less fairly obvious contradictions.

I am well pleased that our Goverment had the sense not to sign up to Kyoto,despite what you say Mr.Callinan.

PS: Todays Australian has an article about Germany and NZ businesses urging their Govts to get out of the Kyoto mess, and go with the Clean Development Scheme of the USA and Australia

Big Mal, mighty Big Mal, we’re not dopey at all.

Name one (1) dopey Tasmanian forest worker (or wood chipper as you may like to call them). We sell wood for a price, which we reckon covers the wood we’ve harvested and exported, and the carbon we’ve added to the atmosphere.

I see that some business groups in New Zealand and Germany have called for progress. This is a good thing. Kyoto is but an attempt at progress (a fine attempt in my view) but any prospect is a good thing, in my view. I am not wed to Kyoto at all. It has many problems. But I am yet to see anything better.

Big Mal, and the rest of the Nay Sayers, by what mechanism would the world see a reduction in greenhouse gas by, say, 2020? Do you even (honestly) want this?

Can you put your money were your mouth is?