An alternative to MIS

BEN QUIN
Thanks for the review John.

Could we also contemplate a model where tax subsidies were available for the integrated management of public native forests and the willing investors become party to the outcome?
Some time ago, I was shown an example of regenerated native forest, which had been progressively thinned to optimise sawlog production. The exact location eludes me but it was somewhere in the Florentine.

It was an impressive forest – diverse, majestic and sodden. However, my guide explained that the process of progressive thinning was not economically viable. The original work has been undertaken using public funds flowing after the Helsham enquiry.

How much does such integrated management cost? Given the economic opportunities now present in carbon and water, as well as premium sawlogs, firewood and woodchip residues, what multiplier could we have achieved for investors with the squandered MIS subsidies by taking this alternative approach?

BOB McMAHON
Magnificent work John. I guess the bad guys will stay very quiet on this one and there will be no rational refutation of your excellent forensic accounting.

I fear that the catastrophic mess created by Howard’s 20/20 Vision of 3.3 million hectares of tree plantations will be as nothing compared with what Rudd will unleash with his 35million hectares of the same. Prepare yourselves for a continental disaster similar to the Soviet schemes of planting cotton in central Asia that led to the draining of the Aral and Caspian seas and the resultant desertification.

Ruddsky’s carbon offset con is so similar to the huge social engineering schemes of the old Soviet Union, and it will, of course, be financed by the long-suffering taxpayer of this nation. It will be a massive transfer of wealth from the public purse into corporate hands. It’s like being raped and then receiving a tax invoice for services rendered.

These comments appear at the end of this article, HERE. Comment HERE