[quote]According to one recent study, most ventures which drive forest destruction - whether logging or for agriculture - generate around $5 (£2.50) for every tonne of carbon released as a result of the forest loss.
Europeans are typically paying up to seven times that amount to offset the same amount of carbon.
And as emissions trading takes off, so the carbon price will rise. One estimate puts the value of greenhouse gas storage in some forests at a healthy $2,200 (£1,100) per hectare. [/quote]
This is not related to carbon emissions, but one of the traders that used to work for me was invested in Pine forests in rural South Georgia and made a killing off of it. Basically, I forgot the turn around time, but due to the fast growth rate pines he would cycle his plots of pine forests and sell a different plot of pines each year he had a sizable chunk of money coming in annually. From what he said, the first 5-10 years (I forgot the details) were rough since he had to pay taxes on the land without any income, but once the harvesting started he had it worked out where every year he would just sit back and collect a check. I was interested since acreage/taxes in that area are very cheap, but I made the jump to Taiwan instead.
forests can also generate other kind of resources as tourism… it all depends on how you invest and and they are kept…[/quote]
Last time I checked no-one visited fast growth pine acreage for tourism purposes. Esp since its privately held land and its free anyway to visit national parks.
depends on what kind of reforestation project you want…
eucalyptus and mimosas are also fast growing trees, but at a huge cost for the water resources.
A good reforestation project will also include leisure areas, where people can profit from them - if it is well done you can make a fortune from them. The bad part is that the investment needed is much bigger, as not only you need to plant trees, but to give infrastructure to the place.
As a Californian, I loooove Eucalyptus trees, but who the hell would buy one? For what?
Yes, HG, that Vermont tree farm is expected to gross US$20k/yr. Obviously one would need a supplemental crop to get by. . . and to pass the time out on the farm.
Well in California you seem to mostly burn those lovely Eucalypts, but back in their home country, folks are making money out of them.
[quote]The blue gum boom
First Published: 06/08/2006
Pip Courtney reporting on the state of play with A2 milk. Well, now to the vexed issue of tree plantations. It’s been described as one of the biggest tax minimisation schemes in recent years. I’m referring to the hundreds of millions of dollars invested in blue gum plantations. 750,000 hectares have been planted across southern Australia and now the blue gums are even spreading across the third-largest island in the country, Kangaroo Island. [/quote]
Other Eucalypts with farming potential include:
Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata), Sugar Gum (Eucalyptus cladocalyx) and Ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon), Flat Topped Yate (Eucalytus occidentalis) and She Oak species i.e. (Casuarina obesa) have potential for farm and specialty timbers in the medium rainfall areas - 450 - 600mm annual rainfall. There is a joint agency program currently encouraging investment on farms - the New Eucalypt Sawlog Program (NESI) established through the WA Government’s Action Plan for Tree Farming. Contact the Forest Products Commission for further information. This programme is being promoted through ‘Infinitree’.
Karri (Eucalyptus diversicolor), Flooded Gum (Eucalyptus grandis), Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna) and Southern Mahogony (Eucalyptus botryoides) have potential for solid wood production in the 800mm rainfall zone. Both the Casuarina species and Southern Mahogony are slightly salt tolerant.
I’m surprised karri trees are mentioned, as these a bloody huge. One local aboriginal word for these where they’re grown means “silent death,” as the upper branches tend to get rain sodden and then drop amazingly silently until they hit the ground.
Actually, I believe the difference is Australia has, or at least used to have, lots of giant old growth Eucalyptus. In California we don’t. It was all brought over after the Gold Rush, so they’re all still relatively small and my understanding is California Eucalyptus, unlike yours, is too young and twisty for timber. It’s also a nuisance since it sheds all its resinous bark in a pile at its base – perfect tinder for starting fires come the warm Santa Ana winds. But, they’re still beautiful and well loved by many.
BUT, when it comes to old growth, we’ve got the best in the world. Here’s my girl in Arcata, CA, two weeks ago inside a “small” burned out old growth redwood.
And here’s the rest of the forest: puny second growth, but still beautiful.
Btw, I used to go mtn biking down that very trail and many others just like it. Damn how I miss that.
I’m halfway through the 20 years I signed up with the plant-a-tree program, 全民造林運動
here in central Taiwan, and I’m getting a cheque for NT$10000 per year on half a hectare.
