Why Forest Loss Must Be Stopped
posted by: GinaMarie Cheeseman 48 days ago
Forests are the “largest terrestrial store of carbon” according to the World Wildlife Federation (WWF), and deforestation is responsible for an estimated 20 percent of current greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Every year, 32 million acres of forest are lost, equivalent to 36 football fields a minute. Globally forests contain an estimated 283 gigatons of carbon.
A WWF policy paper on deforestation released this year lists recommendations for stopping deforestation. The first priority needs to be “immediate and substantial capacity building in key host countries,” according to the policy paper. Any market-based offset program should include a Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) program. Another priority is “substantial funding for capacity building and pilot programs” this year.
Stopping forest loss and degradation is the most cost effective method of mitigating climate change, according to a Swedish report, Gold in Green Forests, issued by WWF-Sweden. “Sweden should follow the examples set by its northern neighbors in developing systems to halt deforestation,” said WWF CEO General Lasse Gustavsson.. “One Swedish krona to stem deforestation results in the same emissions reductions as five kronor for the controversial carbon capture and storage technique.”
“Time is passing and the possibility of reaping the positive climate effects that a stop in the loss of forests entails is decreasing rapidly. Complex social, economic and ecological are involved which is why a global cooperation for REDD must be carefully prepared,” said Stefan Henningsson, Climate Director, WWF Sweden.
The Commission on Climate and Tropical Forests, a bipartisan commission, released a report last week which called for $1 billion before 2012 to slow deforestation in developing countries, and $14 billion annually by 2020. Private sources would supply at least two-thirds of the funding.
"Slowing deforestation is the most cost-effective choice of all the carbon emissions curbing actions," said John Podesta, the commission's co-chair. "We need to protect our forests. Our common future depends on it."
Read more: global warming, forest loss
comments
Forests are not just "carbon stores" but are home to indigenous peoples and native species; and the plants themselves have an intrinsic value. It is necessary to avoid tropical timber and furniture made from it. Palm oil is more difficult to avoid since it is often incorrectly labelled as "vegetable oil". It is unacceptable that products aimed at vegans and other caring consumers contain it. Perhaps one can write to companies that sell or use tropical timber or palm oil in products; even just one such letter or e-mail when the opportunity arises. There are campaigns on forest issues at www.forests.org
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
It is not only those hacking down trees who are causing deforestation. Many of Europes forests are being rapidly depleted through the atmospheric pollution, stemming from power-generation, industrial and transport emissions, that is killing the trees. Action needs to be taken quickly before the destruction become irreversible.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
In other words, Brasil is making a lot of money now by cutting down their forests, so we need to give them even more money to get them to stop. I think the 2016 Olympics award should have been tied to their proven environmental cooperation!
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
Anything released via WWFN is contaminated. This outfit has amassed huge tracts of land worldwide, which it aims to 'return to nature'. Lovely, oooh - except that we humas (a truly endangered species being hunted and slaughtered by the likes of Elitist WWFN) are to be herded into 'sustainable communities' i.e. concrete cages known as cities - prisons. This is all the better to manage and control the depopulation agenda (aka genocidal slaughter) of us 'useless eaters'. Has anyone spotted the contradiction of carbon tax emissions on the one hand and saving the Earth's carbon producing forests on the other? Yes, carbon is essential to life. Those responsible for the end of deforestation are those who profit from deforestation. Confused, you will be. By taxing people for their 'carbon footprints' (huge joke) they are being taxed for breathing - the cost of living has never been so high for all but the psychopaths running the WWFN etc. In 1976 The Club of Rome hit upon the best method to radically reduce the human population permanently - this was 'global warming/climate change'. Working isn't it? It's an enormous hoax which threatens to annihilate the entire species leaving only the Elites with free will and the right to reproduce. Ghastly prospect but becoming reality through programming and ignorance. Oh, by the way, WWFN were at the centre of the Rwhanda massacres - that's what they use the land for - programming assassins. WWFN murder people under the guise of 'poaching'.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
Stop eating hamburgers too, because lots of that cheap meat comes from cows framed on cleared Amazon forest land, but not only hamburgers, since so much of the soy beans used to make soy milk, tofu, and all sorts soy derived products, (plus so much soy proteins are added to everything, if you read the labels) are grown in Brazil on land that has been cleared just for it, and which used to be virgin Amazon forest. So EVEN THE VEGANS ARE RESPONSIBLE!
Since the 60s at least, many people have been saying stop cutting the forests, for they are the lungs of the Earth. When will it stop ?
And that so called "sustainable management" of forests in fact keeps cutting more and more trees anyway while giving people good conscience about it. What hypocrisy.
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
will all be gone,we use up everything,stop,can be stopped we'll be sorry
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
Lisa, you are NOT dense, this stuff is pretty complex and when I went to look it up the answer didn't come easy! I think it has to do with changing the value put on forests to make them too valuable to cut down, and valuable enough to dedicate new land to plant more. If someone can explain better - please come to the rescue!
In the paper, they give a description rather than an actual definition: on page 3 of the WWF report linked above-
Capacity Building: Forest carbon investments must be targeted to activities that produce real, measurable, reportable and verifiable reductions to ensure that climate benefits are achieved. To meet these standards, key investments in host country capacity must be made now. It is particularly important that institutional and land tenure improvements be funded and assured before any market-based program is begun. Otherwise, REDD activities would be deceivingly inexpensive, as they will not include the cost of constructing the capacity necessary to manage national REDD programs, thus jeopardizing the integrity of emissions reductions. Host country national frameworks are important to ensure that sub-national activities are managed in a way that produces emissions reductions that are permanent while protecting against deforestation avoided in one area moving to another (“leakage”).
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
I am sorry, call me dense, but what is "capacity building" in this context?
send green star | flag as inappropriate
why is this inappropriate?
Facebook account:
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
1273026