And the landholders will get nothing from trees, soil or other vegetaion credits. Another win to the farm lobby.

Lorax, land owners were never going to get to use the credits for carbon sinks because veg managment laws mean that farmers, graiziers and traditional owners have had those rights stolen by government. If you truly believe otherwise you are indeed a Dr zeus charactor.

Read the CPRS Bill; landholders *were* eligible for to sell credits for an unprecedented range of offsets, including avoided deforestation. They were until the Bill was killed by the farm lobby amongst others.

I must be missing something... but I still fail to see the point in levying a tax on carbon consumption and then giving a tax concession to make up for it. Can somebody please explain to me where the incentive to reduce consumption lies? I must be simple or something!!

Michael, and having sold the credits, most likely at a time when they are financially vulnerable, they would be left with land of zero use or value in perpetuity. And with a continuing rates bill and a mounting fire hazard, in perpetuity. The CPRS and all its perverted IPCC clones, was anti-business from the start. It saw fit to hit me with a carbon bill every time I sold timber from the native forest we regenerated onto previously (compulsorily) cleared land, oblivious to the fact that the carbon in my wood is perfectly stable when it changes hands. They didn't give a toss for the fact that my major competitors were either 3rd world importers without the same cost penalty, or were tax subsidised clonal plantation monocultures that delivered a fraction of the habitat values that my forest does. More importantly, they didn't give a toss whether my timber was going to local battlers, building a modest house that just fits their needs or to urban barbi-worlders, building twice as much house as they will ever need, spending the most money they can possibly borrow, at higher repayments than their marriage will ever survive, out of wood that will last only half as long as mine.

a beef producer - the CPRS bill was favourable to forest sinks as plantations established after 1990 could be used to generate credits after 1 July 2010. Other schemes such as VCS or Greenhouse Friendly required plantings to be additional and you had to prove they were planted for ghg abatement which means most existing plantings are not eligible. Veg management laws work against the voluntary market but were complimentary with the CPRS. Under the CPRS some vegetation protected by veg management laws could have created carbon revenue as well, such as developers' offsets. Now there is nothing and you cannot be paid for the veg management.

It is a bit more complicated than that Lorax. Farmers could use forests as sinks but if they wanted to receive credits they had to sell the carbon to some-one. Any use of that carbon (eg grazing or picking up wood or branches coming off in a storm) would have to be compensated to the person giving the credits. It is not an easy source of money.

Ian Mott - make another assumption - perpetuity means 100 years. I wish my great grandfather had planted a few tress 100 years ago I would enjoy harvesting them now - but he was a selfish bastard who took everything he could and left us with a run down farm. The perfectly stable wood you have does break down and it takes a lot of energy to turn it into usable timber. The world need sustainable wood supplies and an end to illegal logging. It is good to know you know exactly where your timber goes - I expect that you have the Australian Forest Certification. And I expect that you are happy to go without the funding for hospitals and roads and schools that come form your derided barbi worlders? Calm down, wipe the froth from your chin and rejoin the real world. Just because your not paranoid doesn't mean their not out to get you.

Why not use existing legislation and laws on pollution and get really heavy with fines for the offenders. Up the mandatory levels so that we can get serious about actually reducing the dreadful stuff which is mucking up the air we breathe and the climate change which is happening because of some of it. I'm inclined to believe hundreds of scientists rather than a few who cast doubts (and at the same time make an absolute motsa out of their public speeches and such) We don't need an ETS or more tax - just a bit of guts to actually do something.

Just a question, how much are you willing to spend on your children's education, health, sport, clothes, food and so on? Bearing in mind that Australians are the worst climate gas polluters per capita in the world; how much are you willing to spend or sacrifice to make a fair contribution to ensuring they have a livable planet to inherit?