Doubts raised over trees for carbon plan

Doubts raised over trees for carbon plan : "'Providing carbon sinks is either important or it is not … If we believe greenhouse gases are a real problem then we should be encouraging this type of activity,' the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, Eric Abetz, said."

It must be a terrible trial for thinking, intelligent people to be in politics at the moment. I do wish people would think. The Greens had not questioned the sinks. What the Greens have suggested has been clearly articulated...they want to put in safeguards so that the sinks will actually work and be of benefit. I am surprised anyone who talked about doing something serious about carbon offsets would have left out what the Greens have asked to be included. This is just so sad and we really need to lift our game and educate people because we are swamped with twaddle. For the carbon sinks to work and be viable it is important:

1. They do not deplete vital water resources.

2. They do not harm or endanger the place where they are planted.

3. They are native trees.

4. They are actually planted and the trees agreed to be planted are actually planted.

5. The trees stay in the ground and are there for a long enough period to actually do some good. The Greens have suggested 100 years.

6. Sites for carbon sinks should not threaten our environment or current agricultural endeavours.

The idea ,in principle, is what the government seems to have suggested but the principle will not offset carbon..the detailed practice will.