Carbon Market Won’t Save Forests or Stop Climate Change
Saturday, July 25th, 2009This article explains how using market/financial incentives to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases from deforestation and forest degradation is fundamentally flawed. It argues that we need to address the underlying factors driving deforestation if we are to protect the world’s forests and prevent further climate change.
Given the importance of deforestation to
climate change it would be perfectly reasonable to ask why we don’t just
protect the world’s forests. But reducing deforestation is no simple effort.
Forests are being destroyed as a consequence of global economic forces (e.g.
demand for timber, beef, soybeans, palm oil, etc). Slowing or eliminating
deforestation means addressing these underlying drivers by making forests
valuable as living entities, rather than solely for what can be produced when
they’re cut.
One solution, known as Reduced Emissions
from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD), is being pushed as a key element for
a new global agreement to fight climate change after the Kyoto Protocol expires
in 2012. The logic underpinning REDD is fairly simple. At present, the
short-term economic gains from deforestation outweigh the long-term good of
forest conservation. By investing up to £7.5 billion globally per year into
saving forests, the economic balance is believed to change in favour of the
latter. This money would be paid in the form of carbon credits, worked out in
relation to national deforestation rates – the more a country saves, the more
it earns.
This might seem like a good idea but such a
scheme is fraught with problems. REDD simplifies the function of forest
ecosystems to that of a carbon store. This undervalues them as water catchment
areas, habitats for biodiversity and as the basis of indigenous and local
peoples’ livelihoods. Indigenous groups and forest communities are concerned
they will not see benefits from REDD. Worse, some believe the mechanism could
trigger a new wave of land grabs and evictions by parties seeking to capitalize
on carbon payments. Indigenous groups and forest communities have long
struggled against development interests seeking to exploit their traditional
lands and resources. More than a billion people worldwide depend of forests for
their livelihoods, so schemes such as REDD pose a huge threat to them if not
managed properly. Another danger is that schemes to ‘avoid deforestation’
become a further means for rich countries to avoid responsibility for
over-consumption and evade emissions cuts (e.g. they continue spewing emissions
offset by ‘avoided deforestation’ carbon credits). There are also fears that a
market-based mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions would crash carbon
prices by swamping the market with cheap credits (e.g. making it cheaper for
polluters to avoid genuine emissions cuts). This would reduce investment in
low-carbon and renewable technologies, and cause developing countries to lose
out on a massive investment in low carbon technologies. In essence, low carbon
prices could derail global efforts to tackle global warming.
It seems quite clear that an unrestricted
carbon market won’t save the forests or stop runaway climate change. Forest
conservation can be done much easier by a fund (e.g. Cool Earth) than by market
cowboys racing around the world looking for cheap offsets.
What we need to examine are the factors
driving deforestation, including the international trade in beef, soy and
paper. We should first address those drivers rather than throwing money at
companies cutting down trees, when we continue to give them incentives to do
so. Financial incentives could also play a role, insofar as they support the
recognition of land rights for indigenous communities or education projects.
Such measures, which would cost far less than the proposed financing for REDD,
could be of genuine worth in avoiding deforestation. But they are unlikely to
show up on the balance books of a forest carbon-trading scheme whose main
purpose seems to be providing Western countries with yet another escape from
their responsibility to reduce emissions at home.
We must pressure our governments to
drastically cut carbon emissions at home rather than buy offsets from abroad.
We must encourage them to introduce stricter environmental policies that reduce
the consumption of imported forest products (e.g. waste management strategies
that reduce the consumption of timber and paper, setting higher
targets and timetables for paper and cardboard recycling from the domestic
sector). The UK is currently one of the world’s
largest consumers of timber and paper products.
We must hold businesses accountable.
Corporations need to know that the public will hold them accountable for
business practices that are socially or environmentally destructive. If you
feel that a company’s business practices are environmentally irresponsible,
send the company a letter expressing your concern, or organize a boycott of the
company.
We need better education across all levels
of society. At the moment, many people are alienated from the knowledge of the
consequences of their demands, and how their carbon heavy lifestyles contribute
to deforestation and climate change (e.g. the excessive consumption of beef,
paper and timber).
We need to look at the role of ecotourism
and volunteerism. Although this results in more people trampling in beautiful
places, it is a very forceful mechanism for conservation and also brings
revenue to local people without selling their land for timber, cattle farming
and soy production.
There are many things we can all do to help
protect the world’s forests and reduce carbon emissions and we cannot afford to
be distracted by measures that provide no real solutions. The carbon market is
not a ‘magic bullet’ to prevent further climate change, the growth in emissions
or deforestation. The answer lies in changing our lifestyles and political systems
and convincing others (individuals, businesses and politicians) to do the same.
Stephen Knight is the webmaster of Volunteer Latin America
Introduction to affiliate marketing programs
All the best
EJ member, Natural-Friends, the UK’s very first ‘green’ friendship and introduction agency are offering an additional 30 days free of charge on all memberships until 30th November.