Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiForests and the Planet
A major shortcoming of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate change was its failure to address the huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions caused by the destruction of the world's rain forests. A proposal that rich nations be allowed to offset some of their emissions by paying poorer counties to leave their rain forests intact was shot down after European environmental groups objected. They argued that it would allow rich countries to buy their way out of their own obligations. The planet has been paying for that colossal blunder ever since.
Deforestation accounts for one-fifth of the world's greenhouse gases - about the same as China's emissions, more than the emissions generated by all of the world's cars and trucks. And the world is doing far too little to stop it. An estimated 30 million acres of rain forest disappear every year, destroying biodiversity and pouring billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
The global warming bill now working its way through the House seeks to change this destructive dynamic in two ways. It sets up a carbon trading system that is expected to raise upward of $60 billion annually through the sale of pollution allowances. Five percent of that would be set aside to help prevent deforestation, either through a special international fund or as bilateral grants to poor countries.
In addition, the bill would allow for the kinds of offsets proposed and rejected in Kyoto, Japan. For example, a power company having trouble meeting its emissions limits could satisfy some of its obligations by paying to reduce deforestation elsewhere in the world.
The economics make sense. It is a relatively inexpensive way for industrialized nations to get credit for reducing global emissions while they make the necessary investments to control their own pollution. And it is a good deal for poor countries. The World Bank estimates that an acre of rain forest converted to crops is worth $100 to $250. It's worth far more under a system that puts a value on carbon. An average acre stores about 200 tons of carbon; assuming a low price of $10 a ton, that acre is suddenly worth $2,000.
A big effort will still be required to resist the loggers, miners, ranchers and politicians who have had their way with the rain forests for years. And any plan must include safeguards and inspection mechanisms to ensure that the allowances and offsets are being used properly.
But with the rain forests shrinking and the planet warming up, it's crucial to get the right incentives in place - first as part of broad climate change legislation in the United States, then as part of a new global treaty that the world's nations hope to negotiate in the fall.
23 Comments so far
Show AllThe hell with trees, the only use trees have is that trees are a cheap resource that can return large profits and the intelligence to cut one down is minimal for those cash strapped looking for a big pay day.
Besides, the more trees that are cut down means that much more room for keeping the 'unfettered' growth of humans on this planet on an even keel as humans are so MUCH more important than trees of any kind.
So, don't buy NYT or any major print news. They are all made from trees.
Is anybody planting trees yet?
I am. Out in my vegetable garden wild tree seedlings are coming up all the time, like weeds. So I have some little pots I stick them in, and now, besides having a productive vegetable garden to feed my family and friends with, I have a native tree nursery.
I got the pots second hand from landscaping jobs, so they were free. And the trees were all free of course. I've already planted dozens of these trees back into the ground around our home and sold many of them at the farmers market and to neighbors.
So what would have been a mowed lawn to most Americans, is a vegetable garden and tree nursery producing hundreds of dollars worth of free food and trees that are already sequestering carbon while producing fresh oxygen, shade and nesting sites for birds.
The power to create change is in our hands. I'm living proof of that. I hope my efforts here bear fruit and I inspire at least one reader. Go plant a tree today! Peace.
As much as I love trees, I actually kill far, far more trees than I plant. I've planted a lot of walnut trees, but now the squirrels plant many more than I can handle in my gardens. In my shade garden, the worst 'weed' I have are cherry tree seedlings. I pull out about a thousand a year. I consider box elder to be a less desirable tree and I destroy a hundred or so every year. Buckthorn are a true plague in my forest and I kill hundreds every year, with thousands remaining.
Yup,
Living in the eastern US, I've always taken it for granted that trees grow like weeds - i'm constantly pulling up Siberian elm and silver maple sprouts from may garden - pest trees.
The issues is not trees, but promoting the most valuable native kinds. My back yard hardly has a native or non-nursery variety tree growing in it.
I understand, and in reality, I probably do the same. But One thing I do know, I've planted close to if not exceeding 100,000 trees. Much of that was in the days when I was working on reforestation projects. In 1990 alone I planted 22,000 trees.
Good for you - I always loved the story of Johnny Appleseed. I imagined him walking along roads and long after he had passed the trees blossoming behind him.
Joe
Thanks Joe! After your comment I can hardly resist the urge to share some lyrics from a local Celtic folk band out of Missoula, Montana known as Velcro Sheep. They have a song called *Johnny Apple Seed Was A Pothead* and the chorus goes like this:
"Johnny Apple Seed was a pothead
A pothead through and through
I'm following in his footsteps
Now I'm a pothead too
Johnny Apple Seed was a pothead
A pothead all the way
A day without pot on my head
I'd hardly call a day"
-Dan Funsch, Velcro Sheep, On The Lamb
They usually perform at benefits for local environmental orgs, or at local pubs. Everyone is sitting or standing around, pint of locally crafted beer in hand. They get the whole crowd to sing along, and a good time is had by all. This song naturally inspires a few people in the crowd to light up some locally grown "incense" ;)~
So now you know what I'm doing when I'm not out planting trees :)
I think CD brought this one for us to sharpen our canine teeth on. The NYT editors have no room to talk about anything.
I'm glad the NYT is bringing this up, but I wished they had directly mentioned two of the leading causes of deforestation: paper production and animal farming. This would signal to readers that their personal choices as far as paper choice and dairy and meat eating are connected to what happens to the forest. A combination of political/cultural AND personal actions is what can change things.
As far as paper goes, there are a multitude of tree-free options that could be further developed, and post-consumer content is important.
As far as meat-dairy eating, any person who is committed to reducing Global warming - whether they choose to eat meat-dairy or not - must spread the word about the connection between animal farming and greenhouse gasses (via forest destruction for grazing, animal transport, fertilizer use, as well as direct animal offgassing, etc.). That's not the same as telling people what to eat or not to eat. It's just laying out the facts. Obviously, it's up to individuals to make the choice of what to eat. And it's true that local, small scale animal farming does not carry the same destructive effect as large-scale animal farming. But the vast majority of meat consumption is not from tiny local organic farms, and, for the sake of the planet, people should be informed.
I have noticed that the meat eating-global warming connection is often left out of the discussion even by individuals and organizations that otherwise boldly advocate a broad spectrum of vital changes. I've wondered why this is so. It seems to me there is a resistance to bringing it up becuase talking about what people eat is so personal and so often emotionally charged. I also think that people who do eat meat don't want to appear hypocritical in letting people know of the environmental consequences of meat-eating. And perhaps many are very attached to meat-eating and find the information threatening on some level. These are observations, not excuses.
To address one of these, I think that just like there are many environmentalists who still drive cars to some degree while continuing to work for the decreasing fossil fuel use, there is room for people who eat meat to inform others about the connection between commercial meat growing and greenhouse gasses, because this information may reach people who are able and willing to reduce or elimiate meat eating, and thus reduce greenhouse gasses! :-)
Who's going to demand property rights in hell.
Yes, it is very easy for the NYT or any corporate news source to say protect the rainforest over on some other continent so as not to offend the timber industry (or risk losing corporate advertising dollars) or the agencies destroying the temperate rainforests on public lands in the Northwest or the Northeast.
The forests in the Northwest have the ability to store (or release) as much if not more carbon per acre as any forests in the world. Scientists have measured more than 1000 tons of carbon per acre in some ancient forests groves. When logged (which is still occurring on public and private lands) these same forests release about 1/3 of that carbon in the first 5 years. However, the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, the state forests agencies are still attempting to cut down what little is left of the native forests as fast as they can. At the same time timber industry owned lands are decimated with clear-cuts and poisons non-stop.
Citizens, scientists and news media sources need to demand that the destruction of the North America’s native forests be stopped at the same time they are demanding the cessation of the logging of the tropical rainforests.
To read more go to www.eco-advocates.org
GollyGee Thank you for relaying the info about the Ash trees.
It is very depressing if true.
Astute observations, clearcut.
Joe
Most of the world's forest carbon is sequestered in the taiga, primarily in Canada and Siberia.
Sadly the problem is not confined to the 3rd world or rain forests, or the intentional depredations of man
The Emerald Ash Borer, an invader from Asia, is already cleaning out the ash trees in MI, IL and WI. It was found here in MN recently.
The borer will kill virtually all North American ash trees, the most plentiful of our hardwood trees, and none are resistant. I understand WI and MI are expected to lose 400 million trees each, MN nearly a billion. A billion. (for comparison, there were 2 million dutch elms lost to blight. Five-hundred times as many ash will disappear.)
No one can estimate how many ash are in Canada, but there are lots and they are as good as dead.
Expensive yearly treatments of insecticide can stave off the borer for a few of the trees, but eventually the insecticide itself weakens the tree and it dies.
So first douglas firs go in the West, then the pines. All the ash trees in the Midwest and the East go. The dutch elms are already gone, so are butternuts and chestnuts, and another borer is going after the oaks. How will the lost of a continent's forests affect global warming?
But of course the New York Times worries about the loss of trees in the Amazon Basin.
Delusional nation.
GollyGee,
Good of you to bring it all home.
"I'm not one to get worked up over gross material matters, but this rankles my ass." (Freewheeling Frank,I think, Zap comics -for those who remember)
This depredation may not be intentional, however, the cause was human -intercontinental, transoceanic shipment of green wood resulting in importation of invasive alien species.
Not to be overly technical,but for the sake of accuracy, elms mostly affected are the American Elm (Ulmus americana); the disease is dutch, the fungus first observed in the Netherlands.
As consolation prizes go, at least the emerald ash borer is a very beautiful bug.
Is it possible to keep a few endangered trees growing isolated in a greenhouse? Then they could be seeded or planted back into the wild after the plagues are over? Is anyone doing that?
Joe
Seeds keep coming up for a long time. Elms continue to proliferate, but in time they surcome to the blight. The U of Minn is working on screening various elms for disease resistance. Perhaps we could save a few bucks by eliminating these programs and putting the workers on welfare? (That last sentence is aimed at some of the short-sighted penny pinchers who troll through this site.)
...
I think we're finally learning that a wide variety of trees is most important. I plant all kinds of different and unusual trees on my SE MN land. I guess I'm lucky in that I think I have but one ash. Basically, I never thought they were all that special looking. I do worry a bit about my oaks.
Lets see, here in the central and southern Appalachians, the following trees have been are are being, wiped out or greatly reduced:
1. American Chestnut -
A formerly monstrous tree - I have been told the eastern hardwood forests today look nothing like they did when it was around. As a kid, in the woods near my home, I recall seeing huge decaomposing logs that were far bigger than any living trees, and this lone huge dead bleached remnant trunk that reached as high as the the tops of the the biggest oaks.
2. American Elm -
The most handsome of hardwood trees with its vase-like form - at home in both city parks and wild forest. Now mostly gone. In the 1980s while on the job investigating the site of a Loudon County, Va landfill expansion, I saw a beautiful big stand of 100 ft tall Amercan Elms which had mysteriously avoided the Dutch Elm Disease - but they were right where the expansion was to go. They are long gone now.
3. Eastern Hemlock -
The woolly adelgid has wiped them out, or is quickly wiping them out in most places below the Mason-Dixon line and below 4000 feet. Their loss has destroyed both the ecosystems and aesthetic beauty of the Appalachian hollows. There is no other tree to fill their niche. Even MTR mining's hollow fills are small change compared to the ecological impact of the loss of the the Hemlocks.
4. Fraser (Balsam) Fir -
Wiped out of all the high elevation spruce-fir forests in Smoky and Blue ridge Mts.
5. Flowering Dogwood -
While not expected to go extinct, it will be be largely wiped out from all but dry south facing hillsides due to dogwood anthracnose - a fungal disease
6. White Ash - from the Emerald Ash Borer
7. All species of Oaks -
They recovering a bit from the first Gypsy moth infestation in the 1980's - which completely deforested many ridges in Pennsylvania and Virginia. But now, the gypsy moth is back - along with a mysterious Oak die-back disease.
Oh, but a new 12 level teak deck would look so nice in my back yard. Even coumarou would do.