The problem is indeed complex but my criticism is that not enough recognition is paid to the know facts to craft an integrated and workable solution. Carbon improves soil structure and properties in water and nutrient holding capacity and structure. So we should aim to increase its content in the soil. Yes it is difficult to measure the different available components of carbon in the soil, the active, the inert and the long term between the two. But if the total is measured and trials done to calibarat observable difference in growth of plants then proxy measurement can be done cheaply by satellite and it is only necessary to measure at harvest when paymnets can be balanced out, just like settlement in selling a house. Next there is the landscape component. Slopes that are untrafficable by tractor should never have been cleared. So put them back into forests. Riever ways can be reafforested to provide the biodiversity corridors and protect banks. Keeping the vermine and weeds down will provide constant employment across Australia for all the unemployed that are going to happen with the financial crisis. What about the flat land I hear Tim cry. Hasn't he heard of alley farming, researched by Prof Snook in WA in 1948. Parallel lines of trees do not impead cropping operations but control the worst excesses of clearing. Then what about the intermediate slopes. Have you all heard of Keyline by PA Yeomans back in the 1970s? Again parallel lines to the Keyline, the contour of steepest slope. Ripping parallel to the keyline spreads and captures the surface water to allow it to maintain pastures, crops and trees and avoid flash flooding. The final issue is to ensure that the trees and biomass are sustained in an increasing level by harvesting into storage as structural timber, which is sequestered rather than paper pulp which is not. Managing the trees with thinning and pruning also provides employmnet in rural areas. The management of native forests can also be done with portable milling on site thus avoiding clear felling and the release of the stored biomass. This is method is more costly than mechanised harvesting on a large scale, but this is all going to change soon with fuel and finance costs. The price of carbon will also change the costs of harvesting outcomes so that timber is going to go up but the cost of labour is going to fall, as we keep breeding more of us, the laws of supply and demand apply! On ward with the debate!

A couple of things firstly, soil stored carbon is almost impossible to measure in any cost effective manner therefore audit costs are likely to outweigh any money received from a carbon investor. And second, as south west WA makes up at least one third of Australias wheatbelt area the sweeping statement about forests and reduced water flows into rivers is plainly wrong when you consider the problem in that part of the world is one of too much water in the soil as a result of poor dryland farming practice. Forests are needed to extract as much water out the soil as possible here to utilise excess fresh water before it becomes a salinity problem. Finally, given that most of the MDB was covered in either forest or woodland and supported a healthy river system prior to european settlement then the whole argument over forestry in the catchment has more to do with over allocation of an inflated resource due to poor, leaky and inappropriate agriculture across the catchment.