[Pen-l] How can deforestation be stopped?

[ehrbar <ehrbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Below is an interesting article (from Forbes, December 2008,
discovered by Chris Keene, a Green activist from Norwich, UK) about
deforestation and the problems with stopping deforestation.  If we
want to help developing countries to adopt a green development path,
we not only have to give them the equipment and technology to generate
renewable energy instead of relying on fossil fuels, but we also have
to find a development path without deforestation.  Is deforestation
driven by population growth?  This is just a guess on my part, does
anybody know what would be involved if we tried to stop deforestation?

Here is another issue relating to population growth: if you do what
seems the most fair and equitable, namely, allocate emission rights in
proportion with population, then you create the incentive for
population growth.

Nobody wants to talk about limiting population growth, well, people
don't even want to talk about limiting economic growth and
transitioning to a steady state economy.  I am not surprised, because
a steady state economy is not possible under capitalism.
Nevertheless, conditions are such that we have to begin this
discussion.

Hans G. Ehrbar



http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/22/climate-change-forest-oped-cx_ao_1222oxley_print.html 


Commentary
An Unlikely Solution For Climate Change
Alan Oxley, 12.22.08, 5:04 PM ET


Tucked away in a voluminous assessment released last year by the United 
Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there's an 
incredibly cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It's in the chapter on forestry.

Given the global economic crisis, the cost of "going green" is--not 
surprisingly--becoming an increasingly prominent factor as international 
regulators consider drafting environmental policies. This shift in 
priorities was evident in the latest round of U.N. climate talks, which 
ended last Friday in Poland.

After two weeks of negotiation, it looked as if participants were no 
closer to consensus on the terms of the treaty that will replace the 
expiring Kyoto Protocol, the 1992 agreement that requires most developed 
nations to reduce their carbon emissions. Issues of cost are one of the 
main reasons for this stalemate on emissions caps. One solution? Build 
new forests.

The IPCC report notes that if governments worked to exploit the natural 
capacity of forests to absorb carbon dioxide--and deliberately aimed to 
increase that sink--as much as 40 to 50% of human carbon emissions could 
be offset. That's remarkable. But even more astounding is the fact that 
this extraordinary possibility has been largely ignored.

Instead, the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), Greenpeace and the 
European Commission have sought to join their long-standing campaign to 
halt commercial forestry worldwide with any new global contract to halt 
emissions. These organizations argue that, if developing countries in 
tropical regions cease harvesting natural forests for lumber and other 
resources, emissions will be reduced by around 20%.

But this result is less than ideal. As the IPCC report shows, the 
alternative--to actively build forests worldwide--would more than double 
that rate of absorption and do so at lower cost.

The counter-argument is that there's a human cost to the forestry 
strategy; namely, it will impoverish people living in tropical 
developing countries.

According to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), most forest 
land in these countries is cleared to free up land for agricultural 
production, create living space or to obtain wood for fuel. By imposing 
blanket restrictions on deforestation, Western groups like WWF and 
Greenpeace are sentencing developing nations to a drop in their food 
supplies as well as stunted economic development.

This kind of collateral damage exposes one of the subtle downsides of 
the Kyoto Protocol. As the WWF noted in a recent report, green activists 
don't embrace strategies like forestry regrowth, which expand carbon 
offsets. Even though this kind of initiative often offers the best 
benefits for both the environment and the economy, environmental groups 
are often reluctant to consider them because they ease the pressure on 
business and industry to reduce emissions by other means--like switching 
away from fossil fuels as a source of energy.

In other words, green activists aren't motivated purely to reduce 
emissions; they're also angling to close down traditional energy 
industries. And if the poor get hurt in the process, it would seem the 
end justifies the means.

But the economic crisis changed all that and rendered these ulterior 
political motives unrealistic. Now it's not just the economic well-being 
of people in developing nations that's at risk from anti-industry 
climate policies.

Apprehension is also growing among Italians and Germans. Their leaders 
worry that local companies will not be able to bear the heavy costs of 
the low emission targets the European Union plans to set in a new 
agreement. Pressure from German business and unions has forced German 
Chancellor Angela Merkel, one of the architects of the Kyoto Protocol, 
to put her country's economic interest ahead of green ideals.

With businesses and families alike facing a shortage of cash, it's time 
to consider expanding carbon offsets. That means seriously considering 
the significant role sustainable forestry stands to play in the fight 
against climate change.

In the words of President-elect Barack Obama, "The time for change has 
come." And when it comes to global negotiations on climate change, that 
change will mean measuring the effectiveness of green initiatives by 
their benefit to both the environment and the economy.

Alan Oxley is chairman of World Growth International, a U.S.-based free 
market non-governmental organization, and the author of a new report on 
how forestry can combat climate change while bolstering the economy.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l