Post by smartarse on Nov 30, 2009 16:36:37 GMT 10
For the unitiated, REDD or Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation is one of the 'hot topics' for the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit in December.
Deforestation is important because it contributes about 20% of the worlds emissions of greenhouse gases. Also because forests and other carbon sinks are one of the only ways to actually draw carbon out of the atmosphere, rather than just avoiding to put out in the first place (which is what renewable energy does).
But under the Kyoto Protocol rules countries could count 'land use and land use change' for their own emissions targets, but you could not use sell offset credits internationally that were generated through avoided deforestation. So Australia is able to meet its Kyoto target (of 108% of 1990 levels emissions) largely because of bans on land clearing in Queensland, but if Brazil prevented all logging of the Amazon it would not count towards Brazil's (non-binding) goals.
Its important to make a distinction here - if you planted trees then that reforestation could count, but simply preventing the logging of a forest did not count.
The reason why it matters is because there is obviously a strong financial incentive to cut down forests (you can sell the wood) but there is currently no financial incentive to keep a forest.
For more on the pro-REDD perspective, see this cover story from a recent edition of Time:
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1940544,00.html
But its not a simple issue, many environmentalists, and even some developing countries (like Brazil) are oppossed to REDD. Their reasons are many and varied, but heres a quick sketch.
(1) in practice its impossible to say that deforestation has been 'avoided' just because a particular area of land has been declared a no-logging zone - the logging may simply move to another area that might not previously have been logged. Thats called 'leakage'.
(2) Putting a price on a rainforest is a bad way to protect it. You might be able to put a price on the carbon it stores, but what about the 'value' of the species and the biodiversity, what about its value in the water cycle, what about its value to indigenous peoples? Price of international carbon permits is really low, so using this as a proxy for the worth of a forest is a gross underestimate.
(3) Apropos of number 2, the impact on indigenous peoples is often not taken into account - especially when you look beyond mere deforestation and consider land degredation (included in REDD) - what you're really talking about isn't a ban on logging, you're talking about regulating people's lifestyles - the forms of agriculture and susbistence living that mostly indigenous people get from the land. Since most indigenous land tenure is traditional, not legal, they are often dispossessed when rights are assigned to a REDD company.
For more on the anti REDD case see this from the current edition of Mother Jones (which is awesome and more people should read it):
www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/11/gms-money-trees
Finally if you still don't get it, and you want to know more about what REDD is and how it would work, see The Little REDD Book (cute title)
www.globalcanopy.org/main.php?m=117&sm=176&t=1 which is a guide for policy makers and interested parties to the UN climate talks.
Deforestation is important because it contributes about 20% of the worlds emissions of greenhouse gases. Also because forests and other carbon sinks are one of the only ways to actually draw carbon out of the atmosphere, rather than just avoiding to put out in the first place (which is what renewable energy does).
But under the Kyoto Protocol rules countries could count 'land use and land use change' for their own emissions targets, but you could not use sell offset credits internationally that were generated through avoided deforestation. So Australia is able to meet its Kyoto target (of 108% of 1990 levels emissions) largely because of bans on land clearing in Queensland, but if Brazil prevented all logging of the Amazon it would not count towards Brazil's (non-binding) goals.
Its important to make a distinction here - if you planted trees then that reforestation could count, but simply preventing the logging of a forest did not count.
The reason why it matters is because there is obviously a strong financial incentive to cut down forests (you can sell the wood) but there is currently no financial incentive to keep a forest.
For more on the pro-REDD perspective, see this cover story from a recent edition of Time:
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1940544,00.html
But its not a simple issue, many environmentalists, and even some developing countries (like Brazil) are oppossed to REDD. Their reasons are many and varied, but heres a quick sketch.
(1) in practice its impossible to say that deforestation has been 'avoided' just because a particular area of land has been declared a no-logging zone - the logging may simply move to another area that might not previously have been logged. Thats called 'leakage'.
(2) Putting a price on a rainforest is a bad way to protect it. You might be able to put a price on the carbon it stores, but what about the 'value' of the species and the biodiversity, what about its value in the water cycle, what about its value to indigenous peoples? Price of international carbon permits is really low, so using this as a proxy for the worth of a forest is a gross underestimate.
(3) Apropos of number 2, the impact on indigenous peoples is often not taken into account - especially when you look beyond mere deforestation and consider land degredation (included in REDD) - what you're really talking about isn't a ban on logging, you're talking about regulating people's lifestyles - the forms of agriculture and susbistence living that mostly indigenous people get from the land. Since most indigenous land tenure is traditional, not legal, they are often dispossessed when rights are assigned to a REDD company.
For more on the anti REDD case see this from the current edition of Mother Jones (which is awesome and more people should read it):
www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/11/gms-money-trees
Finally if you still don't get it, and you want to know more about what REDD is and how it would work, see The Little REDD Book (cute title)
www.globalcanopy.org/main.php?m=117&sm=176&t=1 which is a guide for policy makers and interested parties to the UN climate talks.