"The Commonwealth [of Australia] has failed in an attempt to have a compensation claim by farmers fighting land clearing regulations dismissed.
"The group known as the Commonwealth Property Protection Association has filed a claim against the Commonwealth for compensation for lost carbon credits because of land clearing restrictions.
"The hearing will resume on July 19...
Read a bit more here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/21/1957942.htm
Helen
Very sympathetic with your view and the inherent difficulties. Especially for people of good will such as yourself. CO2 credits should be yours. And laws need to be amended. With the right approach one day that may happen.
Anyway some of us are seeing landholders interested in developing profitable functioning landscapes that may have a tree component. It appears that reduction in wind may be able to provide similar grass yields while providing a timber resource, and assessable biodiversity dividend with things like avian fauna, and perhaps hydrological benefits in some situations. These landscapes would be functional and not fully natural.
The evaporation aspect seems to be the key to putting trees back in the landscape. Producers are after research information.
My petulance with Ian is his total reluctance to develop these discussions anymore - when some of his colleagues seem to want to take up the challenge.
Luke,
The native vegetation laws in my State apply equally to graziers. Luke's comments, though stronger than I would have expressed, apply also to a significant number of landholders in the lower rainfall areas too. Whether they act on their expressed anger and frustration is another matter.
It is the philosophical rationale behind Australia's conservation laws that could do with exposure to wider comparisons.
In Australia, rural landholders have a raft of statutory created obligations towards native vegetation, soil conservation, riparian protection, biodiversity and natural and human heritage (historical, scientific and aboriginal, FOR WHICH THEY ARE EXPECTED TO PAY.
At the other extreme, in the EU, conservation on farms is a well supported area of agricultural subsidies. There, rural landholders are considered as providing conservation services to the wider community in soil conservation, biodiversity, clean water, etc, fOR WHICH IT IS REASONABLE THAT THEY BE PAID.
The USA, I understand, is somewhere in the middle. There, cost shifting conservatin laws which give landholders a strong financial incentive to "shoot, shovel and shut up", are being replaces with worthwhile financial incentives to preserve rare species, etc. Thus converting a liability into an asset. The result is that a lot of species have wider distribution than thought. It now pays landholders to admit to what is on their land.
Shiller may be able to provide more information on this.
But back to the subject. Our governments, though legislation, create statutory obligations, and stick the bill on landholders. Governments can also create tradable property - Co2 credits. Are these credits the property of those who are forced by legislatin to maintain, at their cost, the vegetation providing the carbon sequestration?
This question should go to law.
Maybe you should get out and talk to a few graziers then? 🙂 You've now exceeded your use by date and are part of the problem. Old paradigm, old rhetoric - time to move on.