Experts say a possible fix for this so-called international leakage is to spread the use of REDD. If more countries are able to cash in on their forests by protecting them and selling carbon credits, they are less likely to be lured astray by loggers.
With that in mind, Lowering Emissions in Asia's Forests, a program funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, recently began coordinating countries in the Lower Mekong Basin, where similar types of forests grow, to share their lessons learned. Luke Pritchard, adviser for the program, said the idea is to avoid "reinventing the wheel" and to help these countries adapt REDD faster so more forests can be saved in a shorter time.
"There is a greater sense of emergency now with climate change," Pritchard said. "When we look at 12 to 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions coming from this sector, there is no way that we can have a comprehensive climate change strategy unless forests play an integral role on that."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentThe article asks: “If rich nations need to meet emission reduction targets, why don't they do so by paying poorer nations to protect their forests?”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnswer- one issue is reducing actual emissions while the other is a bologna form of accounting that does not actually reduce emissions, but gives countries a way of pretending that they are reducing emissions.
How many American readers believe it is a worthwhile idea to have our taxes raised even more than they will be anyway in order to send money to Asian countries so that they do not poorly manage their own forests?
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes your answer apply to military spending -- which much of it can be considered a subsidy to the defense of other nations? Should the US continue to be the world's police force allowing other nations to piggyback? Compare our expenditures on the "War on Terror" to rest of world. Also, the size of expenditures and expenditures per GDP (and per capita) should be compared.
Many might say that's a false equivalency because our military power is linked to our global leadership. Hmmm...
Priorties are interesting. If the people of a certain ideological slant had different priorites, the "War on Climate Change" would be in our lexicon. Yes, interesting priorities... since those same people consider us to be a Christian nation.
Similar arguments could be made regarding health care spending.
Easy answer, no. Not cutting down forests will save forests. This ridiculous belief in government regulation and trading of so called pollution rights will do absolutely nothing except at best allow politicians to make the claim they are doing something for votes or money but otherwise all that will happen is some nations will hand over money and the countries with forests will still cut down the trees anyway to sell to whoever will buy. Waste, not following agreements and in general doing whatever they can to line their own pockets is sort of par for the course for banana republics, third world dictators and in general countries run by thugs or chiefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCramer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is interesting that you link the two issues in any way since they are unrelated. If you ask does the US waste money on defense spending, I would answer yes, but that has nothing to do with the article. If people around the world had different priorities many things would be different and maybe there would not be 7 billion humans exploiting the planets resources. All of which has ZERO to do with US taxpayers having to pay more to send funds to another independent nation.
Cramer: Military spending is never accounted for, its money for the taking by the super corrupt. The USA chose to attack the ignorant nation of Afghanistan, when they were attacked by the theocratic Saudi Arabian nation in their jihad to spread Islam across the world. This demonstration of religious might turned people to religion world-wide.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn honest response would have been a nuclear attack on the religious centres of Saudi Arabia. No further world takeover from Islam would have followed.
Sadly in the free states, religious groups, though they have lost their following, strategically place their representatives as candidates for political positions and encourage their congregations to support them. They wield disproportionate power without the massive followings they once had.
In Australia "The Lyons Forum", a group of parliamentarians represent the Christian churches. Mr Tony Abbot, a failed priest, was health minister and for three years refused to sign into legislation the morning after pill. Parliament and The Therapeutic Goods Administration had passed all the necessary legislation. Dozens of young mainly Christian girls committed suicide as a result. Only one evil representative of the most evil organisation on the planet "Religion" held our nation to his perverted depraved thought process.
Another point. The church claims abusive priests are acting on their own accord. Not true, the church takes children in their early early teens into seminaries, and converts them into sexually abusive mysogenic adult priests.
As previously stated the environment will always play second fiddle to economics. Rich nations always forget that a lot of their wealth has been build on the explotation of poorer nations....its the human way. Always has been and sadly I see this behaviour continuing. Only when the economies of the rich are threatened and hurting will they react to try and save themselves....will it be too late?? Are we too stupid/arrogant/greedy?? Time will tell.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about the poorer nations simply manage their own affairs. Maybe they should consider the term forest management and not blame other nations if THEY cut down to many trees
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this