CUTTING COSTS: Cattle in a clear-cut portion of the Amazon rainforest.
Image: iStockPhoto/Thinkstock
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that cutting and burning trees adds more global warming pollution to the atmosphere than all the cars and trucks in the world combined?— Mitchell Vale, Houston
By most accounts, deforestation in tropical rainforests adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world’s roads. According to the World Carfree Network (WCN), cars and trucks account for about 14 percent of global carbon emissions, while most analysts attribute upwards of 15 percent to deforestation.
The reason that logging is so bad for the climate is that when trees are felled they release the carbon they are storing into the atmosphere, where it mingles with greenhouse gases from other sources and contributes to global warming accordingly. The upshot is that we should be doing as much to prevent deforestation as we are to increase fuel efficiency and reduce automobile usage.
According to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a leading green group, 32 million acres of tropical rainforest were cut down each year between 2000 and 2009—and the pace of deforestation is only increasing. “Unless we change the present system that rewards forest destruction, forest clearing will put another 200 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere in coming decades…,” says EDF.
“Any realistic plan to reduce global warming pollution sufficiently—and in time—to avoid dangerous consequences must rely in part on preserving tropical forests,” reports EDF. But it’s hard to convince the poor residents of the Amazon basin and other tropical regions of the world to stop cutting down trees when the forests are still worth more dead than alive. “Conservation costs money, while profits from timber, charcoal, pasture and cropland drive people to cut down forests,” adds EDF. Exacerbating global warming isn’t the only negative impact of tropical deforestation. It also wipes out biodiversity: More than half of the world’s plant and animal species live in tropical rainforests.
One way some tropical countries are reducing deforestation is through participation in the United Nations’ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) program. REDD essentially works to establish incentives for the people who care for the forest to manage it sustainably while still being able to benefit economically. Examples include using less land (and therefore cutting fewer trees) for activities such as coffee growing and meat and milk production. Participating nations can then accrue and sell carbon pollution credits when they can prove they have lowered deforestation below a baseline. The REDD program has channeled over $117 million in direct financial aid and educational support into national deforestation reduction efforts in 44 developing countries across Africa, Asia and Latin America since its 2008 inception.
Brazil is among the countries embracing REDD among other efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Thanks to the program, Brazil has slowed deforestation within its borders by 40 percent since 2008 and is on track to achieve an 80 percent reduction by 2020. Environmentalists are optimistic that the initial success of REDD in Brazil bodes well for reducing deforestation in other parts of the tropics as well.
CONTACTS: WCN, www.worldcarfree.net; EDF, www.edf.org; REDD, www.un-redd.org.
EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.
See what we're tweeting about
28 Comments
Add CommentBottom line...taxpayers in western nations should send money to support corrupt tinpot dictators in basketcase countries...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo thanks.
Second-best joke that I'e heard today. Thanks for making my life more fun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know why they do it. I have discussed the issue with some of my colleagues, and they can come up with no sane reasons.
Exactly. Amazing how these socialist warmists always conclude the answer to all problems is theft of money from the American people via taxes and handing the money over to countries with medieval outdated ridiculous cultures run by thugs or to pet corporations run by the warmists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor me, the question is not “Do I believe in man-made climate change?” but rather “What evidence do we have that man’s actions are causing climate change and what does that mean?”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe know this:
• CO2 levels are rising – from 280 ppm pre-industrial to 400 ppm today
• This is man-made – natural carbon flows are larger, but were balanced before we upset them
• Arctic ice is melting
• Antarctic ice growth is noise level and within the margin of error
• Glaciers are melting
• We have seen satellite data over time proving that CO2 has increased re-radiation back to earth
• Growing season boundaries have moved 150-200 miles north in the US in recent years
• CO2 levels were higher in the far distant past – sea levels were also as much as 30 feet higher
I find these facts to be compelling although I would like nothing better than to be proven wrong since we have many other significant issues facing both the country and the world.
A common meme among carbon apologists is that scientists and others have a financial incentive to perpetuate a climate change “myth”. I am more persuaded that a small army of vocal skeptics are defending a world-wide industry that stands to lose $20 trillion in stranded assets if steps are taken to reduce carbon emissions.
The argument that the US will be at a commercial disadvantage (particularly with China) if we do anything to reduce carbon emissions can be countered as follows:
• The US and China are roughly even with about 11% of total energy from renewable sources
• If China falls behind, levy a carbon tax on Chinese imports to provide both US revenue and an incentive for China – or any other country – to improve its performance.
if warmist = socialist
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthen denier = romneyst
(romneyst: slang for sore loser)
You say socialist like it's a bad thing!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGet real. The USA is not going to impose a carbon tax on China and in the process kick itself in the ass. The days of western countries determining carbon policies or anything else for China are over.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Priddiseren
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrue...notice the re-elected President didn't win Michigan and Ohio by promising less auto production and an increase in fuel taxes.
'We'll add a surcharge to new vehicle sales...add a dollar a gallon to Grandma's gas...and send those increase revenues off to Peru and Angola."
Ain't going to happen.
@Prid:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs usual, your points are unfounded and naive.
On a separate, but related topic: What would you consider an appropriate amount to invest in countries that we currently reap the majority of resources from? We are already doing so (in the free-market design), and, in the process, indirectly degrading the environments of what we call the "Third World" in order to continue upon our insatiable need for useless crap.
Would you not, instead, want to have a little political clout if your government were to invest in environmentally sound technology in order to have a potential monopoly on the future of energy (considering it must me sustainable)?
BTW:
I have no clue as to where you assume that the American tax payer is funding "tin-pot" dictatorships in the name of climate change mitigation. It is, rather, the other way around. The only ones that we have supported have been the ones who have interests in fossil fuels.
You get real. I did not say that we could dictate policy to China, just that we can create a level playing field so that our manufacturers are not at a disadvantage. Although carbon emissions are rising rapidly in China, I don't think it will be necessary to impose sanctions since China became the biggest investor in wind and solar technologies in 2010 and has aggressive programs in clean coal technology and fast neutron reactors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChina's carbon emissions are expected to stabilize around 2030.
and it's no good mailing SciAm about this one-sided censorship against AGW supporters. There is no direct link to the online editorial staff, if you contact the webmaster he can't/won't redirect you either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen a legit comment is removed you are never given an explanation.
Where do I know this kind of behaviour from?
---
Here's the funny bit: no one can complain that this comment contains any abuse or false information (I can prove what I write) or personal attacks. And yet it will also be removed within 24h. By whom? And why?
shoshin, your comment is biased, wrong and insulting and I have informed SciAm of your utterly disgusting comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd as for the incredibly offensive, unconscionable, and ignorant Shoshin?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThx for the insight, JC.
While Shoshin's comment #15 is rude and somewhat disgusting, he is not using it to bully any other particular commentor. When I read comments which are aimed at one person and meant to belittle or bully that person, I report them myself. I apply this standard to both sides of the argument and try to hold myself to that same standard. If I fail in that endeavor, I invite any I have offended to please report me. Thank you all and good evening.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat would be a personal attack. Considering SciAm's comment removal procedures over the last weeks, especially on this article, anything considered a personal attack by an AGW supporter is near instantly removed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason why this strategy is not used the other way round is possibly due to a number of factors:
- deniers' comments are deemed too obviously wrong to be dealt with,
- deniers hit the "reply abuse" button at the slightest opportunity where AGWers practically never use it,
- AGW supporters are considered welcome targets (naw, just kidding)(naw, just saying so to cover myself in case it is so),
and finally,
- some people at SciAm have lost the plot?
Postman1:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"While Shoshin's comment #15 is rude and somewhat disgusting, he is not using it to bully any other particular commentor."
It's not a matter of bullying, it's a matter of using fiction to deeply insult whole nations wrongly, i.e. the readers/subscribers from other countries, and quite intentionally from countries with old cultures, rather more balanced budgets, better educational systems etc. IOW, it's pure insult directed "ad nationem" where nation stands for moral representative of millions of people.
"When I read comments which are aimed at one person and meant to belittle or bully that person, I report them myself."
Yes, we figured that out in the meantime. I had until yesterday never ever reported anyone, I always let those comments speak for themselves. But I've now found out that deniers use that "report abuse" button for the strategy of eliminating AGWers.
Which in itself I mind, but not terribly. What I find utterly irresponsible is that SciAm has fallen for that, has permitted it, has in the end allowed the deniers to take over the comments sections. THAT I do mind and it's the reason why I've downgraded SciAm to the lowest rung of my respect and the reason why I will generally not comment anymore.
SciAm has shot itself in both feet by allowing this strategy to work AND STILL APPLYING IT WHILE HAVING BEEN INFORMED ON SAID STRATEGY.
Like research based on factually wrong assessment, SciAm has failed in its very core, intellectual credibility.
Although denier comments which as a rule never use verified, solid data and near always try to impose their opinions as sole truths would show that this is not a consideration where they are concerned.
---
Based on what I see today, SciAm has removed all AGWer comments that countered deniers' attacks whereas all the insulting comments by deniers attacking Western nations in general and smaller than the US countries in particular have been left online.
I only came back to show where SciAm stands today intellectually. My point proven I will again stop commenting.
I reported your comment as abusive because it is clearly insulting, it is degrading whole sections of society without any reason or proof offered, you use sexist language to bully off people whose opinions you don't like while at the same time you do not offer a single proof of the accusations you level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd to cite an actor out of context to diss a whole field of scientists is simply beyond despicable, a blunt insult leveled at a whole body of knowledge which you manifestly don't understand but attack permanently with foul, and not the least, devoid of any trace of humour or social awareness, vocabulary to push an agenda that has been even half abandonned by the US political extreme-right.
Language and opinions such as yours... in short, I've reported your abusive comment.
On a personal note:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat I despise particularly is that those commenters here who always scream against government interference, too much police, not enough freedom, who always want to say anything they want without as a rule never backing up, those exact people have been found out to permanently use the "report abuse" button to get every comment removed they don't like.
I equally despise SciAm for having fallen for this, playing in the hands of AGW deniers and socio-political extremists and leaving AGW scientists look like cheaters.
And now that for a single day I have use this same strategy I notice two things which I find absolutely repulsive:
- now that it is an AGW supporter complaining about foul language, personal attacks and general insulting, not one of those anti-AGW comments has been removed;
- and those who claim to hate government interference, clamour for the right to say anything that crosses their untainted-by-facts opinions, are the very first to protest that I "reported" their offensive comments as "abuse", even quoting a completely irrelavant to the article person to excuse their own language.
At the very first opportunity when their strategy is used against them the anti-regulators scream blue murder and want their counter-attackants regulated.
How hypocritical is that?
@Shoshin:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou may have some prejudice regarding a certain group of people (It's nothing less than expected); strange that you equate that I am part of the same group, as we have never met.
It is funny that you make almost identical statements in posts that relate to different topics.
I find it more hilarious that you focus on my delivery, not on the facts of my argument. Sean Penn is merely an unfunny Charlie Sheen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you dispute that eco-corporations are responsible for deforestation and forcible eviction of indigenous people?
Yes or no.
And report away. Your threats at censorship mean nothing to me. You're just upset that you can't get the SCIAM editors to censor someone you don't happen to agree with.
Get over yourself.
jct You said "I only came back to show where SciAm stands today intellectually. My point proven I will again stop commenting."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen you make two more comments, so, my question regarding your statement is: When?
As I stated previously, bullying and personal attacks,should not be acceptable on any respectable site. On other articles, I have seen many skeptics comments disappear, so it is not one sided. I think the general rule of thumb should be: Keep it clean, on subject, and no personal attacks. Is that so hard to comply with?
postman1:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Then you make two more comments, so, my question regarding your statement is: When?"
Tying up loose ends. I know you are working towards getting people like me disgusted from commenting on SciAm because we use facts to counter your opinion terrorism.
Regardless of which it is none of your business and I don't owe the likes of you no explanation whatsoever.
"As I stated previously, bullying and personal attacks,should not be acceptable on any respectable site."
In which case SciAm must remove nearly all denier comments here as they are clearly intended to bully AGWers into shutting up. And to insult foreign nations with a better and older culture and a more balanced budget and a healthcare structure is not exactly civilized either. Guess what country's infrastructure is worse than Malaysia's?
Don't even attempt to put yourself on the pedestal of honesty and righteousness, you are culturally and intellectually disqualified for that.
"On other articles, I have seen many skeptics comments disappear, so it is not one sided."
That is not a proof of anything.
"I think the general rule of thumb should be: Keep it clean, on subject, and no personal attacks. Is that so hard to comply with?"
Get your friends to comply. I've rarely if ever seen AGWers be as insulting or biased as deniers in their comments, notwithstanding the facts that AGWers use facts. It's really the first presidential debate all over. It's the heartland institute going crazy because someone used their usual tactics to prove that they are lying and cheating. Has heartland institute ever started legal proceedings against Gleick? No! Why not?
One difference is obviously money. Half the commenters from one side are paid spinners whereas the other side are are pundits or scientists.
Still, and don't believe that this means I like your type, the main responsibility goes to online SciAm for letting all the insulting comments from the deniers stand whereas it is overeager to remove AGWer comments, especially when those are from researcher who have in the past proven SciAm staffers' blog entries wrong.
---
Finally, to write that bullying and personal attacks should not be acceptable, then to see how SciAm leaves them on when they are from deniers, and then rereading your and your friends' comments here... hypocrisy has a name now.
The simple solution to this problem is to pyrolyse all the biomass. See 'biomass pyrolysis' on wikipedia or look up www.eprida.com.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBig combines are now investing heavily in this technology as it is economically viable.
Pyrolysis can produce hydrogen and biochar or biofuels and is carbon negative.
www.pyreg.de
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe the site is also available in English
remembered this a bit late - googled "wood gas car" - result:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/01/wood-gas-cars.html
How do you know what actually happens?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith the United Nations reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation program reducing deforestation by 40% in Brazil, we should be very happy to hear that one organization can have such great impact. This organization is only going to create more beneficial ideas in order to maintain low carbon-emissions in order to maintain a greener earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAvery Anderson
The United Nations? You must be joking. If there is one administration that is permanently ten years behind it's the UN. Corrupt, lazy, incompetent and wasteful. If there is one non-governmental group I deeply disrespect it is the UN.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this