Can you help me for both questions please

Part D: Climate Policy [5 points] Suppose that the Canadian government has decided to be proactive in the ght against climate change. In particular, the government has recognized that the non-timber values that forests provide for carbon sequestration are not being fully utilized within the competitive market for land. The government decides to import a climate policy adviser that recently graduated from UC Berkeley. Based on his superb training in natural resource economics, he recommends implementing a policy that incentivizes foresters to choose a rotation length that is equal to the optimal rotation length from society's perspective. After running some numbers, the advisor calculates that a site-use tax equal to $100 per parcel of land would incentivize foresters to choose a rotation length that is relatively close to the rotation length that maximizes society's NPV of forested land. i) [2.5 points] Is the advisor's policy a good recommendation? Is society better off with a site-use tax of $100 per land parcel? Explain. ii) [2.5 points] The government wants to be sure that they are getting what they paid for in a climate policy advisor, so they decide to get a second opinion by hiring a graduate from UC Davis that recently took a course in natural resource economics (most likely in the Spring of 2020). The consultant instead advises the government to implement a per-unit-volume subsidy on timber harvest equal to $2.25 so that the per-unit-volume price of timber for the forester is now p f + 2.25. Is the consultant's policy a good recommendation? Is society better off with a per-unit-volume subsidy on timber harvest equal to $2.25? Explain