Soylent Green is a 1973 science fiction movie depicting a dystopian future in which overpopulation leads to depleted resources, which in turn leads to widespread unemployment and poverty. Real fruit, vegetables and meat are rare, expensive commodities, and much of the population survives on processed food rations, including "soylent green" wafers.
Might prove not to be science fiction after all the way we're heading.

*The problem is far deeper that the topic posed.*

Sheesh Examinator, you will never get it. Just about every problem
is far deeper then 350 words. Sometime you'll need to learn
to focus on the big picture and discuss the little pictures later.

If you've ever been involved in large fires, you'll know that the
larger the firefront, the harder it is to stop it, as it can take
everything in its path, houses, people, you name it. If you think
that this is better then a few cows and sheep grazing, think again.

StG, great link, so thanks.

Examinator, have you noticed that the CSIRO carbon retention burn system only workes if done by aboriginal folk, on their land. The plan is they can claim carbon credits for it, but the stations can't. Great science there mate.

Then we come to top soil protection, by planting trees. Once you have the trees we can all starve to death. The bl@@dy trees don't supply any food. What's the point of protecting the top soil, if that protection prevents it being productive.

I am a believer in a reasonable tree cover on grazing lands. They can act as a nutrient pump, if kept to controlled density. Their roots can suck up nutrients that the grass can't get to. Their dropped leaves then return them to the upper soil. They can also help protect from hot dry winds, & frosts.

I bought a naked turf farm, & planted thousands, with the objective of keeping perhaps 30% of them. Many of my neighbours planted quite a lot.

We have ripped most of them out now. The writing is on the wall, that the damn fool greenies will get control of the trees on private land, so I won't have any that I'm not sure I'll want in 20 years.

We saw that green bull sh1t can kill in Vic, we won't let it won't happen here.

Great to hear the wide range of views; thanks to those with specific comments on specific industries., locations and methods .
The relevant link to sounder practice by StG and shadowminister lowers the hype over methane - which is clearly being used in the wannabes debate to bolster up the GG pressure.
Sure its a huge topic, but I, as a long time sustainability advisor can't take Wong seriously when her staff run off to try and find some sequestering sites when we know them already - the dearth of knowledge about the general context of individual sustainability questions is frightening.
Pleased to see so many contributors reminding anyone watching that sustainability is often an open question, at least, provided you respect each biosystem and soil involved .
Its not all doom and gloom mate, even for old Hanarahan. As the Pork pie American pointed out in the NYTimes article, extensive grazing can improve soils and has done so in most southern Victorian areas at the very least .
Are any of you concerned about our children and how they are so easily influenced by simple arguments? - arguments that deny them the pleasure of feeling good about how they live and use resources.

Hasbeen,

If you read the data FROM the CSIRO you will find they are also using the test for other areas too.
Pity about the trees clearly you have read the wrong literature then mixed it with your brand of fear of every party except the conservative.

I'd quote case from Adelaide hills (area of the big fire). Old time farmer had acreage wanted to develop (BS about sons coming home). One an accountant the other a lawyer, because it was in a catchment area the plan was denied (one structure per title and limited clearing). He tried to sue, lost. He would have sold his land for $700k at the time. Within 12 months he was killed in a car accident. The accountant son took the house pulled it down spent $300k building a mansion.

Sold it for $3.7 million, reasons....It couldn't be built out, rural enough for another lawyer to run horses in and around the trees.

NB he made 5 times the money because he had imagination.
The point....selected clearing of yours might have made it more salable to similar or rural environmental developer. One developer I know loves acreage with trees, he says it adds $100k to the houses.
If there is resident wild life, he's deliriously happy more $ again.
his words " there is a bloody big and growing market for cashed up wanna be greenies". He says his AVERAGE price per house and land is between 25-40% more than comparable nearby estates.

Examinator, do you just invent this stuff? Haven't you seen councils prosecuting people who remove dangerous, rotten trees? A man recently killed by a tree he didn't remove, after the council refused permission to so.

Our ratbag town planners [those twits again] are trying to get a bylaw to allow them to declare areas private open space. You will own it, pay rates on it, but will not be able to even clear fire brakes on it. One south east council have passed such a law, although it may have trouble standing.

One of these days we will have to ship these twits up to the rubber vine areas of the NT, with a machete each, so they can actually do something useful.

They now want to control the orientation & window sighting of all houses, to reduce power consumption, & save the world. Talk about Waho birds, & where they disappear.

Of course you know all this, but you agree with this state control of private property.

Your example is of no interest to me. I want to live on, & use my property. I have no desire to make money out of it. It's taken almost most of 18 years to get it to what I want.

It sounds the seed has all ready been laid, for that 3.7 mill mansion to be burned down in the next fire, with clearing restrictions. State control anyone?