Interesting Issues About Planting Trees and an Unusual Alliance
There is a Bill before Government at present allowing an upfront 100% tax deduction on the costs of establishing a plantation. The Greens Senators put forward amendments to the Bill that would require plantations to remain in the ground for at least 100 years. The Bill as it stands allows investors an upfront 100% tax deduction on the costs of establishing a plantation. They also want g mixed native mixed species. Do these also qualify for carbon credits of is this double dipping?
They do echo some of my concern where I wonder what happens if they are burnt to the ground 15 years later and all that greenhouse gas goes into the atmosphere.
I get concerned when mono cultures of trees are planted without planning the ecology properly. This is why I donate to Trees for Life because they give local people trees grown from local seed. I don’t and never have counted this as carbon credits. I know that in an informal way, it offsets some of my carbon emissions but I also buy green power and minimise what I use without being too Spartan
My other concern is also echoed by the Greens when people buy up good food-producing land. What was interesting is that they Greens were supported by some of the Nationals who asked “Why on earth are we going to give a tax deduction to coal companies, who are receiving record prices and record returns, to go out there, buy agricultural land that is currently supplying the Australian supermarkets with cheap product, so that they can get a tax deduction and the Australian consumer can pay more for food?”
Technorati Tags: Interesting Issues About Planting Trees and an Unusual Alliance, Planting Trees, unusual alliance, alliance, Greens Senator
July 1st, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Your concerns about the tax treatments are well founded. The tax treatments are based on plantations that are not”intended for harvest” so does that mean I did not intend to harvest them when I got my tax deduction but then circumstances change, furthermore long term carbon sinks can be a multi generational committment and so succession of family farms is of some concern.
As for the concern of losing farming land as a practiioner in the field of carbon sequestraiton I always insist farmers to look at carbon as a part of thier farming enterprise, look at long term returns and managment obligaitons. I never advocate that a farm should be wall to wall trees but there is a nuge amount of country that should never have been cleared and ius not being revegetated as returns are too low. We have done an enourmasa amount of modelling to look at the comparative returns and risks between farming and sequestration and I cna affirm that carbon sinks as part of a total property plan is beneficial. I also urge farmers to go ito carbon agreements with thier eyes wide open, seek specialist advice and move cautiously.
There is a lot of misinformed individuals and businesses giving poor or incorrect advice, the carbon trading and carbon sequestration market is complicated and can be treacherous for new players.
There are a number of acccredited organisations out there who have gone through an applicaiton process to ensure concerns such as additioanlity, permanence, uncertainty and other eligibility ahve been addressed and independently audited. Thre are also a number of firms that do not seek accreditaiton because they can not satisfy the criteria, these firms also have limited ability to ensure the sequestrraiotn project and often have dubios calcualtion methods, sell carbon up front based on an expected sequestration, in tis manner they get the cash before they plant a tree and long before the tree has sequestered carbon, on top of this the carbon is generally overpriced and the landholders usually get little return and carry all the risk.
The most unfortunate aspect of this is that trees get a bad name, I recently heard a chap on radio say that trees do not sequester carbon they in fact emit it, that there is no science behind it and it is a fallacy that it affects the atmnosphjeric carbon. this gentelman was taking a simplistic and damaging and wrong approach. In truth forestry is a victim of its own good scince and can be considered a no regrets policy, the worst outcome we cna have is more trees in the ground.
The coal industry would do well to buy up some properties and reestablish native vegetaiton on them as they are marginal farms now and will get worse as climate change spreads, allow the landholders to move on with dignity, repair the bush and soak up carbon. If climate change is even as half as bad as reported we are going to need everything we can get, including trees and considering trees are th only proven and quantifiable method of taking carbon from the atmosphere ( dealing wiht historicla emissions) we should be ramping up establishment. New plantations will buy us time to develop and deploy other technologies. We must develop the agroforestry and plantaiton forestry at an increased rate to get a sustainable world timber supply to stop deforestation, which by the way everyone seems to agree adds to carbon levels in the atmosphere.
The accreditiaon process also deals with double dipping, there are more frigntening aspects to the industry in regard to unaccredited operatives double dipping etc.
Please no more simplistic uneducated and inflamatory commments
July 2nd, 2008 at 3:32 am
Great comment thanks!
I certainly have planted thousands of trees over the years but never for carbon credits. I think forests are a great idea for carbon sequestration BUT they need to be well managed.
I have also always thought of trees as a potential crop for farmers.
There is such a lot of muddled and also opportunistic thinking out there at present.
July 15th, 2008 at 6:47 am
[...] Interesting Issues About Planting Trees and an Unusual Alliance This is why I donate to Trees for Life because they give local people trees grown from local seed. I don’t and never have counted this as carbon credits. I know that in an informal way, it offsets some of my carbon emissions but I also … [...]