Part of the problem with forestry is the way the media deals with it. It lumps it into the foreign investor category, and certain media don’t appear to like foreign investors

The latest head line – ‘European aristocrats buy large north island farms’,

This isn’t Downton Abbey, and we are not being invaded. The article also used the term ‘blue bloods’. Perhaps if we just had some standard language and fair reportage, half the battle around foreign money wouldn’t carry the noise that it does.

Two factors make this particular example even more ludicrous. One, obviously the new owners got investment office clearance, and this is under a labour/ nz first govt that is not overtly friendly to foreign money and has specifically tightened the rules around forestry.

And two, we are talking two bits of land to the total of $10 million, so it’s not like they’ve bought the North Island.

Anyway, the point of these purchases if anyone is interested beyond the xenophobic bollocks so much of the media feels it needs to pedal, is that they are converting the land to forestry, and in that is an issue for the times.

How much is too much forestry?

You might remember this story and its associated angst was around earlier in the year when the farmers decided that forestry was a simple out for land owners who wanted an easy investment and to get some carbon off sets, not to mention climate kudos along the way.

Their concern was that once you take pastoral land and convert it, it doesn’t go back, and what this country needs and wants is pastoral land, not a sea of pine trees.

Then the debate raged for a while as to what was more useful and valuable and that depended on who you talked to.

Both camps swore black and blue that each of their choices made more money per hectare and employed more people and supported more towns.

Then, to slightly complicate matters, this time last week the Prime Minister seemed to muddy the waters on this show by announcing all of this forestry money was good money and foreigners weren’t an issue and nor were forests - which is fine.

I like foreign money and given our size we need foreign money, but Shane Jones has an issue and is potentially looking to change the rules. The farmers have got to him and seem to have convinced him that forestry is getting out of control and we need some sort of limit or moratorium.

Which is ironic given he is the man of a billion trees, but as we have now learnt many times over from this government, what was once a stated position is by no means a positon for the long haul.

But here is my major worry: are we into trees for climate change? If we are into them for return, brilliant. If we are into them based on a PC obsession, then we will pay a very heavy price.

My gut is it is the latter. This is a bandwagon era and trees are an easy feel good, and if that’s the case, Shane Jones is doing us a very large favour.