Everyone supports spending other people's money, don't they? Here's a great idea for the author and everyone who supports his proposal: pay for it yourselves!

Peter Hume,

It's a pity you didn't think that one through.
two points ...
- "No man is an island, entire of itself;" this applies to actions and non actions alike.
- Isn't collective action and protection of all the point society? and supersedes the selfish recalcitrant interests of the minority?

Even Col's Baroness Valde Caeletis had to admit reality and support some socialist ideals over her professio ridiculum 'there is no such thing as community'
___________________________________________

Ian,

Your idea sounds great however, I tend to having spent years on re veg your idea sound simple and from your perspective it may even appear so however I fear both practicalities like logistics,other people, attitudes,nature and other associated disciplines would agree.

To wit I spent three years watering tending a patch of regen to stop gully erosion only to find a (suspected belligerent)adjacent neighbour poisoned them because it stopped a view of the sea.
In another patch local teenagers used the slopes for illegal dirt bike races. and in a bush propper site 4wd used the warning signs as leverage to unbog their 4WD.

How do you water a large patch untill the natural processes take over? Did I mention developers and recalcitrant land owners at the top of gullies? Oh yes there are the native animals that wander off their allotted territory. I know of one patch being cleared to rid a bush turkey and the odd snake...usually pythons.

Then there's bushfire protection, the edge effect, weed infestation feral animal control. This could take years, 5-6 electoral cycles.
Politically we can't guarantee consistent political will for more than one truncated cycle let alone multiple.
Sorry sir, it *IS* highly complicated

Ian these are your words in a previous article.

"In other words the basis for runaway global warming or catastrophic climate change, and the attempt to mitigate the effects of such through the implementation of an ETS and internationally binding agreements, are based on unverified assumptions, à priori notions and unreliable data."

In other words it is a load of BS.

Indeed the solution is easy. This country needs to look after the farmers and people on the land.

Just what do you propose if, every time an agreement is signed by the Rudd government in some far off country, the poor bloody farmers and people on the land have to wear it. This country could be a food bowl for the world if the government did something constructive. Like water collection at the top end.

The fuzzy BS they tout is demeaning and at best does not address anything important. Meanwhile the country is slipping away due to inaction. Take away the Native Vegetation Act, that would be a really good start. But please don't advocate putting other Acts in it's place, that goes beyond the pale.

The Rudd government wants to be aware, people are taking notice of these so called "climate change solutions". Most on the people on the land do not believe the global warming BS anyway. They know the their land and they know the climate and they care for their land accordingly. They know what they know because generations of them have been there.

Farmers are not bureaucrats sitting in a forum in Copenhagen deciding who will take over the food production for the world, on the basis of some hand fed global warming modelling computer statistics.

Apparently Kevin Rudd is willing to sell the country down the drain for what? A place on the UN when he is out of politics?

Give us one decent government that is willing to take care of this country first and I will be forever in their debt.

A simple first solution. The total solution will come from the people that live on this earth, so don't blame any body else. What have you done to contribute. Whingeing and whineing will not do a thing. So get off ya ass and do something for ya self.

At last, thank you Ian, a paper that addresses the ecological [im]balance in all spheres: soil, water, and atmosphere. All being damaged by the effects of deforestation. This has NOTHING to do with carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas induced warming. Wind, weather and rain patterns all change after deforestation and this causes soil moisture drying, erosion, leaching and even less rain. Agricultural practices and forestry urgently need to be altered so they operate in more sustainable ways. This will not be addressed by taxing CO2 emissions. Rather the ETS will send farmers broke and make them angry and recalcitrant.

We need a clever and fair tax deduction incentive for farmers on building carbon into the soils (mulch) to improve fertility and soil structure. This idea already exists, in its infancy, on reforestation of land with native vegetation. Some landowners are setting up BioBanking sites that will bring them an income and tax incentives for further improvement. Encouraging farmers to simply allow re-growth of natural bush and wild-life corridors along waterways, along ridgelines, in gullies - would be so easy through the tax system. After all, there were once tax incentives for clearing forest not so long ago. There were tax incentives for using super-phosphate fertilizer, for fencing and buying farm machinery that in some instances was never used. Reforestation can be done quite swiftly through the taxation system by allowing farmers rebates where their action in sustainability is clear and measurable. Essentially, it amounts to a stroke of the pen by government. Farmers will all take this action immediately if they can save on taxes for their business.

I once worked for a rice farmer in the MIA, west of Griffith NSW, mostly in driving tractors. He used to clear the irrigation canals by driving a big gutsy 4 wheel drive tractor into the rice paddy irrigation canals, and with a big rotary hoe on back, we'd chop the thick water weed choking water flow. Prior to this, the water just sat there evaporating and flow was not strong enough to be channeled to rice paddies and beyond. The rotary hoe would relieve the clog alright, induced by water weed, but after the treatment the chopped weed would float down stream to regenerate and clog canals, channels and rivers. In India this water weed is harvested to make paper.

Irrigation canals should be covered with a thin but tough plastic (polyethylene) film, like the big plastic sausage-like skin that farmers use to wrap hay and silage. Such plastic cover over canals would stop water weed growing and reduce evaporation to a minimum so that more of the water might be reused, and may even make it down the Murray to Adelaide. Again, the incentives for such practices could be easily made available to farmers, after verification, via the tax system.