Carbon Market Won't Save the Forests Or Stop Runaway Climate Change
Monday, December 7, 2009 at 03:54PM By Stephen Knight
Given the importance of deforestation to climate change it would be perfectly reasonable to ask why we don't just protect the world's forests. But reducing deforestation is no simple effort. Forests are being destroyed as a consequence of global economic forces (e.g. demand for timber, beef, soybeans, palm oil, etc). Slowing or eliminating deforestation means addressing these underlying drivers by making forests valuable as living entities, rather than solely for what can be produced when they're cut.
One solution, known as Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD), is being pushed as a key element for a new global agreement to fight climate change after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. The logic underpinning REDD is fairly simple. At present, the short-term economic gains from deforestation outweigh the long-term good of forest conservation. By investing up to £7.5 billion globally per year into saving forests, the economic balance is believed to change in favour of the latter. This money would be paid in the form of carbon credits, worked out in relation to national deforestation rates - the more a country saves, the more it earns.
This might seem like a good idea but such a scheme is fraught with problems. REDD simplifies the function of forest ecosystems to that of a carbon store. This undervalues them as water catchment areas, habitats for biodiversity and as the basis of indigenous and local peoples' livelihoods. Indigenous groups and forest communities are concerned they will not see benefits from REDD. Worse, some believe the mechanism could trigger a new wave of land grabs and evictions by parties seeking to capitalize on carbon payments. Indigenous groups and forest communities have long struggled against development interests seeking to exploit their traditional lands and resources. More than a billion people worldwide depend of forests for their livelihoods, so schemes such as REDD pose a huge threat to them if not managed properly. Another danger is that schemes to 'avoid deforestation' become a further means for rich countries to avoid responsibility for over-consumption and evade emissions cuts (e.g. they continue spewing emissions offset by 'avoided deforestation' carbon credits). There are also fears that a market-based mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions would crash carbon prices by swamping the market with cheap credits (e.g. making it cheaper for polluters to avoid genuine emissions cuts). This would reduce investment in low-carbon and renewable technologies, and cause developing countries to lose out on a massive investment in low carbon technologies. In essence, low carbon prices could derail global efforts to tackle global warming.
It seems quite clear that an unrestricted carbon market won't save the forests or stop runaway climate change. Forest conservation can be done much easier by a fund (e.g. Cool Earth) than by market cowboys racing around the world looking for cheap offsets.
What we need to examine are the factors driving deforestation, including the international trade in beef, soy and paper. We should first address those drivers rather than throwing money at companies cutting down trees, when we continue to give them incentives to do so. Financial incentives could also play a role, insofar as they support the recognition of land rights for indigenous communities or education projects. Such measures, which would cost far less than the proposed financing for REDD, could be of genuine worth in avoiding deforestation. But they are unlikely to show up on the balance books of a forest carbon-trading scheme whose main purpose seems to be providing Western countries with yet another escape from their responsibility to reduce emissions at home.
We must pressure our governments to drastically cut carbon emissions at home rather than buy offsets from abroad. We must encourage them to introduce stricter environmental policies that reduce the consumption of imported forest products (e.g. waste management strategies that reduce the consumption of timber and paper, setting higher targets and timetables for paper and cardboard recycling from the domestic sector). The UK is currently one of the world's largest consumers of timber and paper products.
We must hold businesses accountable. Corporations need to know that the public will hold them accountable for business practices that are socially or environmentally destructive. If you feel that a company's business practices are environmentally irresponsible, send the company a letter expressing your concern, or organize a boycott of the company.
We need better education across all levels of society. At the moment, many people are alienated from the knowledge of the consequences of their demands, and how their carbon heavy lifestyles contribute to deforestation and climate change (e.g. the excessive consumption of beef, paper and timber).
We need to look at the role of ecotourism and volunteerism. Although this results in more people trampling in beautiful places, it is a very forceful mechanism for conservation and also brings revenue to local people without selling their land for timber, cattle farming and soy production.
There are many things we can all do to help protect the world's forests and reduce carbon emissions and we cannot afford to be distracted by measures that provide no real solutions. The carbon market is not a 'magic bullet' to prevent further climate change, the growth in emissions or deforestation. The answer lies in changing our lifestyles and political systems and convincing others (individuals, businesses and politicians) to do the same.
Stephen Knight is the webmaster of Volunteer Latin America and the main contributor to the Latin Lounge
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Stephen_Knight
NOTICE - All Rights Reserved Except as Stipulated Below. PHOTOS MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM. Our reporters and journalists break or report stories and their sources and information are protected by the doctrine of free press as expressed in the First Ammendment, Reporters Privilege Statues, and also the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.This article if a feature or opinion piece is the opinion of the author or reports the news and opinions of others and is NOT INTENDED TO OFFER ADVICE. FOR OPINION STORIES: This story/article/feature may be an opinion piece — and should be treated accordingly — or reporting on the opinions of others, and should never be considered as a sole source of information or as a suggestion, instruction or prescription. FOR CRIME STORIES: always read the word "allegedly" in any story mentioning "suspects" or "persons of interest". FOR BUSINESSS AND MONEY STORIES: For money/trade and exchange stories, this magazine and its writers accept no responsibility for accuracy — always check with other sources for important decisions. FOR HEALTH AND LIFESTYLE STORIES: In the case of food/health stories, these facts have not been evaluated by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Information stated here should be NOT be considered as medical, health, psychological or behavior advice. All information in this story and on this site is provided for educational or entertainment purposes ONLY. Always seek the advice of experts, including doctors for medical opinions. Only a licensed medical doctor can offer medical advice. FOR EXPERT, ADVICE OR HOW-TO STORIES: Legal advice or other expert advice is best referred to experts in their respective fields. NO RESPONSIBILITY: The publishers and editors, authors, researchers, employees, heirs and assigns accept no responsibility whatsoever for any advice, facts, opinions in this story, nor for resulting actions of readers of this information. ALL READERS ACCEPT THAT THIS INFORMATION IS PRESENTED ONLY AS NEWS, EDUCATION, ENTERTAINMENT OR OPINION/INFORMATION AND AGREE IN READING THIS STORY OR THIS SITE THAT USE OF THIS INFORMATION IS SOLELY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE READER. Copyright by the byline author unless otherwise indicated. EXCERPTS from other magazines or media sources are posted under fair use doctrine, on the basis of no more than 5-10% of content with links and credit to source for the complete story. These are posted in the interest of providing interesting links (description as excerpt) with navigation to the source. Likewise, we encourage our many subscribers to excerpt with credit and links to our e-zines, up to 10% of content. To use more content than 10%, please contact the e-zine for permission. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED except as stipulated herein. IMPORTANT: this web content also includes a forum and comments function, which allows for posting from users not employed by this publication. We accept no responsibility for posts, content, language or accuracy of posts from outside parties but will attempt to correct any inaccuracies reported within the context of free speach. Where possible, spam, lewd or obscene comments WILL BE REMOVED.
Persona Corp. and Blogertize publishes several webzines, magazines, e-zines for news, entertainment and information, but cautions readers to read the NOTICE above:
• Advance Magazine
* Secure Network News
Sponsored Advertisers
Jameson Bank – Canada's "It's Taken Care Of" Bank
Amer.com – Technology for Life
Reader Comments