An interesting presentation by Brian Donahue.
An interesting article on the work of David Foster at Harvard Forest.
From the Macau Times:
Including forest protection measures in carbon markets would cause carbon prices to crash, and could undo efforts to rein in global warming, according to a Greenpeace report released earlier in the week.
Prices in a future carbon market would plummet by 75 percent, making it cheaper for industries in rich nations to buy deforestation offsets than reduce their carbon output at home, a study commissioned by the green group found.
It would also starve developing countries of investments for clean and renewable technologies, said the report, released on the margins of climate talks under the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change.
“Cheap forest credits sound attractive, but a closer examination shows they are a dangerous option that won’t save the forests or stop runaway climate change,” said Roman Czebiniak, a forest expert at Greenpeace International.
Negotiators from 175 nations have gathered here to hammer out a climate treaty – slated for completion by year’s end – to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which runs out in 2012.
Finding a way to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries – an effort known as REDD – has emerged as a key element in the negotiations.
The continuing destruction of tropical forests accounts for 20 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, and it will be virtually impossible to curb global warming unless forests are protected, scientists say.
Brazil and Indonesia each account for about one third of forest-related emissions, making them the world’s top carbon polluters after China and the United States.
“There is broad consensus now that the post-2012 agreement will include some sort of incentives for tropical countries to reduce their deforestation,” said Steve Schwartzman, a forests expert at Environmental Defense, an advocacy group based in Washington D.C.
But sharp differences remain on whether these aims are best achieved primarily through market mechanisms, including a future global carbon market, or varvious forms of public funding and grants.
“Forests are the wild card in these negotiations – it could be used to bring us closer to our goals, or to water them down,” said Czebiniak.
Currently, the largest functioning carbon market operates within the European Union. The market has proven fragile, and has been hit hard by the economic crisis and the drop in oil prices.
The Greenpeace report argues that flooding carbon markets with offsets would devalue carbon even further, and make it too easy for the industrialised world to avoid making necessary energy reductions.
“Of the many options for forest financing currently on the table, this one ranks as the worst,” said Czebiniak.
From an article in the Guardian:
International proposals to protect forests as a way of tackling climate change could displace millions of indigenous people and fail to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, environmentalists warn.
In a report to be published on Thursday, Friends of the Earth International (FOE) will argue that current plans to slow the decline of forests by making rich countries pay for the protection of forests in tropical regions are not fit for purpose, as they are open to abuse by corrupt politicians or illegal logging companies in the parts of the world where the money will end up.
Forests lock up a significant amount of carbon and cutting them down is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, currently accounting for around 20% of the world’s total.
Deforestation also threatens biodiversity and the livelihoods of more than 60 million indigenous people who are entirely dependent upon forests.
Working out a way to protect forests will be one of the key issues for next week’s UN climate change summit in Poznan, Poland, which marks the start of global negotiations to replace the Kyoto protocol after 2012. Government representatives at the meeting will consider adopting the “Redd” mechanism to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries, which is based on the idea that richer countries could offset their emissions by paying to maintain forests in tropical regions.
A group of us in Southern New England have recently sent a preproposal to the U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities to create a Forest Enterprise Zone in New England.
The history of the U.S. Endowment and the money that made it possible:
In 2005, a number of forest professionals in Massachusetts develop a statewide (and eventually regional-wide) vision for forest protection and management. It is interesting in 1) it’s analysis of forest issues at the urban, suburban, and rural levels, and 2) it’s approach of innovative partnerships and economic mechanisms.
Eric Sprague, of the Bay Bank initiative, and I spoke this afternoon and he made me aware of the U.S. Endowment for Forestry & Communities. It’s an interesting new organization….here is their weblog (with link to the website).