Category: environment
Brazil proposes a fund to reward developing countries to cut their rate of deforestation. Others regard trading “avoided deforestation” certificates as carbon-credits as a better alternative.
Stop stop the chop chop: Trees and how to save them
Nov 2nd 2006, from the Economist print edition.
Also available online with a subscription. Click here
FEW things on earth seem as defenceless as a forest. To many people, it is worthless unless harvested for its trees or destroyed to create farmland. Tropical forest is vanishing at a rate of 5% a decade, wrecking habitats and releasing 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, a fifth of global greenhouse emissions.
Most tropical forest is in poor countries, so giving it monetary value may be the best way to save it. Efforts to do that are accelerating. At a United Nations meeting on climate change in Kenya next week, Brazil is expected to propose a fund to reward developing countries that cut their rate of deforestation. This is a change of heart: till last year, Brazil had resisted the idea of taking cash in return for keeping trees intact.
Brazil's idea relies on contributors' goodwill. The only penalty for countries that cheat would be the loss of future incentives. Some think it might be better to trade certificates in “avoided deforestation” in the global carbon-credit market, through which polluters in rich countries can pay others to reduce emissions.
The economic value of chopping down trees varies widely, the World Bank notes in a new study. Pasture in the Amazon is worth as little as $200 a hectare. At the current price of carbon credits (which is volatile) the same area of dense rainforest would be worth around $7,500, says Kenneth Chomitz, the report's main author. So the gains from clearance are often much less than the cost to the planet of the carbon released by burning or rotting trees. Thus it may make sense for rich polluters to pay, via the market, for the forests' upkeep.
Sceptics say “dumping” forests on the world's carbon market would lower the price, thus reducing the incentive for rich countries to use greener power—unless emission targets were toughened, which would tighten the market. Other greens say countries should be paid for providing “eco-services”—like biodiversity—and not just for avoiding destruction.
But even if the effect of “cash for non-deforestation” is short-term, it is worth having: it could buy time to develop non-fossil fuels.
In any case, Brazil is already making progress. Deforestation in the year to August dropped 30% to 13,000 square kilometres (5,000 square miles). Last year's fall was similar. One (changeable) factor is a strong currency, which depresses prices for farm products. IPAM, a think-tank, also credits tougher state action against land grabbing and corruption.
All this will boost Brazil's case as it sets out to convince other countries it can reliably deliver exactly what they say they need—intact forests.
------------------------------
Personal response
photo from this page , source uncertain Humans have imposed a plethora of changes on our planet. Transforming barren land into prosperous is sensible; but relentless, short-sighted development has had its ramifications on the environment – 80% of the Earth’s natural forests have been destroyed (see endnote 1). It is a question of finding a balance.
It’s the economy, stupid (see endnote 2)
Chopping trees down and selling their wood is quick and easy money. I do not blame the poor and hungry when desperation forces them to do so to fill their grumbling stomachs – and that of their children. But the greedy (like big logging companies) who deforest in astronomical volumes to fatten their wallets should be condemned. I may not fully understand the unique situation of some, for whom there is no alternative livelihood to logging, but all I can say is this: don’t be greedy.
We, at the other end of the wood trade, are also to blame. It is our insatiable demand for paper and wooden furniture that makes the tree-killing business so profitable and attractive.
We ought to do better
Considering that forests are a pillar of our very existence, blessing us with oxygen, fertile land, wood, and much more, removing them is illogical and shocking. All that deforestation for short-term material benefits has long-term consequences.
And utility isn’t the only impetus to conserve. It is selfish and egocentric to regard the forests as our own property (hence we have every right to do as we please with it, as the argument goes). No. Forests are the common property of past, present, and future generations of all living things on this earth. Morality dictates that we avoid depriving others – including our descendants – of this vital resource.
Light at the end of the tunnel
I am no expert in this, but I feel a fund to reward developing countries that cut their deforestation rate and trading “avoided deforestation” certificates as carbon credits (see endnote 3) are both feasible solutions. Here’s how they work:
The economic inconsistency fundamental to deforestation is this: the value of trees is intangible; hence they don’t have an attached monetary value (a “price tag”). In terms of dollars and cents, trees are free – hence the incentive to cut them down and monetize them.
Both solutions would address this economic inconsistency by attaching a monetary value to trees (you have to pay to deforest). Hence economic self-regulation can occur: making deforesting more expensive reduces the profitability to deforest, hence less deforestation occurs, and wood products become more expensive, reducing demand. All in all, less trees will be cut down.
At the very least, these proposals are a step in the right direction, indicating a newfound commitment to overcome the collective action problem (see endnote 4) and stop deforestation.
Is it too late?
We often take things for granted – until it is too late. Hopefully, it isn’t too late to save the trees, but we must act immediately, for, with each ticking second, we are more likely to have crossed the path of no return.
--------------------------
English online blog of personal response to current affairs.
Portfolio submission 1 for Term 1
Nigel Fong (3C / 6)
19 February 2007
Word count: 498, excluding endnotes & bibliography.
Endnotes & Bibliography
1. Forest Holocaust, (n.d.). Retrieved 17.2.2007, from National Geographic: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/eye/deforestation/effect.html Click here
2. Phrase originates from Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 US presidential campaign against George H.W. Bush.
3. See Kyoto protocol for background information on carbon credits
4. Collective action problem (background information): When the benefits of doing something are dissipated among everyone, but the cost is concentrated on one party, there is no impetus for that party to carry out that action. This results in a lot of foot-dragging. A perfect example of this would be the crazy amount of foot-dragging by nations in solving global environmental and trade problems. The collective action problem is overcome when the detriments of inaction are so severe that all parties involved get together and act collectively.
