What should we expect but anti-farmer rage from the representitives of people who allude to farmers as "greedy bloody land barrons/capitalist pigs?"

Christine, farmers are the answer to reducing CO2. Please don't confuse "business as usual" farmer and carbon farmers. We still need to discourage high emmitting practices and encourage low emmitting and carbon sequencing practices.

Where are the offsets, Christine?

As a farmer in a landcare group we have planted thousands of trees but because we received a little financial help with the cost of the fencing and trees we are NOT entitled to use any of our tree planting to offset carbon. Not very encouraging for the future of tree planting as it is very hard and time consuming work especially in drought times.

Now with all the rain I see lots of trees growing due to regeneration.

Nature once again rules and perhaps the decision makers should realise that they cannot change the carbon footprint by throwing money at it. How about some common sense and a bit more support to the people working the land as there are fewer of them out there every day.

The headline is misleading - the Greens are so blinkered they can't see anything!

Mike – you forgot to add your company’s name for a free plug, and how much you charge for your carbon farming services. If you are going to push a commercial barrow mate at least be up front about it.

Mike & Merrang, you both seem to be on the revolution and evolution trail, as the carbon issue & possible enterprise unfolds. There are several vitriolic bloggers on this site but you guys are going right up the middle and are helping to heal a few wounds. How are you going with the food area versus forest area issue? One interesting idea & situation is" the food forest ", a mix of different food trees/plants, obviously of varying heights.

Well said Merrang, I agree 100pc. All efforts we have already made for the good of the environment over the past 20 years are to be completely ignored.

Considering that in the 1930s farmers were paid a bounty to clear unproductive land, I find it ludicrous that now trees planted for cropping must exist for 100 years before becoming eligible for carbon offsets (thanks for the info Cow Cocky, there was a report also that day on the ABC).

Majortom (an old Bowie fan ey?) I've heard of excellent food forest techniques being used in Virginia and at the base of Mount Kilimanjaro. Very good soil, a cool climate and very good rainfall seem to be a recquirement though. May be a way of the future though?

Farmers have carried the can recently in achieving Kyoto goals for Australia; receiving nothing for the effort and losing the agricultural productivity of the land (and trees) they own. They have also planted millions of trees. Why is it that the section of the community that can have an effect on carbon dioxide emmissions (sequestration) continues to be excluded without compensation, and yet the Australian government can pay Indonesia to protect its rain forests.

Common decency and morals start at home (Australia). Time to pay Christine, instead of stealing our property rights.

Mike 2 It won't be long till its just you and a lonely bunch that are unconvinced by man made climate change. Here is what Greg Hunt said "This is something that should be embraced on all sides. And as we speak, the Government is preparing its carbon farming initiative. We support that approach because it's about using soil carbons, it's about capturing carbon in trees... and doing real things to reduce emissions," he said on ABCTV's Lateline on March 23. "The important message that we can capture in our soils a reduction in global CO2 by improving the soil carbons, by improving the carrying capacity. So irrespective of where you stand on the climate debate, you improve the soil productivity, you improve the water retention, and this is one of the great opportunities and it's one of the reasons why I am fundamentally optimistic that with the right incentives we can reduce emissions, improve our water yield and improve our productivity."

So let me get this right.....they want to get rid of all this supposed carbon that's going to make the sky fall in, but when theres the opportunity to utilise creates within agriculture that already sequesters a hell of a lot of the stuff without having to do anything majorly different then its an issue because there's too many offsets?

Sounds to me like social engineering to maximise a supposed problem and keep the masses under a scare campaign.........and heaven forbid agriculture becomes a very profitable industry for the country!