Climate Change

7° London Hi 11°C / Lo 6°C

Deforestation: The hidden cause of global warming

In the next 24 hours, deforestation will release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as 8 million people flying from London to New York. Stopping the loggers is the fastest and cheapest solution to climate change. So why are global leaders turning a blind eye to this crisis?

By Daniel Howden

The accelerating destruction of the rainforests that form a precious cooling band around the Earth's equator, is now being recognised as one of the main causes of climate change. Carbon emissions from deforestation far outstrip damage caused by planes and automobiles and factories.

The rampant slashing and burning of tropical forests is second only to the energy sector as a source of greenhouses gases according to report published today by the Oxford-based Global Canopy Programme, an alliance of leading rainforest scientists.

Figures from the GCP, summarising the latest findings from the United Nations, and building on estimates contained in the Stern Report, show deforestation accounts for up to 25 per cent of global emissions of heat-trapping gases, while transport and industry account for 14 per cent each; and aviation makes up only 3 per cent of the total.

"Tropical forests are the elephant in the living room of climate change," said Andrew Mitchell, the head of the GCP.

Scientists say one days' deforestation is equivalent to the carbon footprint of eight million people flying to New York. Reducing those catastrophic emissions can be achieved most quickly and most cheaply by halting the destruction in Brazil, Indonesia, the Congo and elsewhere.

No new technology is needed, says the GCP, just the political will and a system of enforcement and incentives that makes the trees worth more to governments and individuals standing than felled. "The focus on technological fixes for the emissions of rich nations while giving no incentive to poorer nations to stop burning the standing forest means we are putting the cart before the horse," said Mr Mitchell.

Most people think of forests only in terms of the CO2 they absorb. The rainforests of the Amazon, the Congo basin and Indonesia are thought of as the lungs of the planet. But the destruction of those forests will in the next four years alone, in the words of Sir Nicholas Stern, pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than every flight in the history of aviation to at least 2025.

Indonesia became the third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world last week. Following close behind is Brazil. Neither nation has heavy industry on a comparable scale with the EU, India or Russia and yet they comfortably outstrip all other countries, except the United States and China.

What both countries do have in common is tropical forest that is being cut and burned with staggering swiftness. Smoke stacks visible from space climb into the sky above both countries, while satellite images capture similar destruction from the Congo basin, across the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic and the Republic of Congo.

According to the latest audited figures from 2003, two billion tons of CO2 enters the atmosphere every year from deforestation. That destruction amounts to 50 million acres - or an area the size of England, Wales and Scotland felled annually.

The remaining standing forest is calculated to contain 1,000 billion tons of carbon, or double what is already in the atmosphere.

As the GCP's report concludes: "If we lose forests, we lose the fight against climate change."

Standing forest was not included in the original Kyoto protocols and stands outside the carbon markets that the report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) pointed to this month as the best hope for halting catastrophic warming.

The landmark Stern Report last year, and the influential McKinsey Report in January agreed that forests offer the "single largest opportunity for cost-effective and immediate reductions of carbon emissions".

International demand has driven intensive agriculture, logging and ranching that has proved an inexorable force for deforestation; conservation has been no match for commerce. The leading rainforest scientists are now calling for the immediate inclusion of standing forests in internationally regulated carbon markets that could provide cash incentives to halt this disastrous process.

Forestry experts and policy makers have been meeting in Bonn, Germany, this week to try to put deforestation on top of the agenda for the UN climate summit in Bali, Indonesia, this year. Papua New Guinea, among the world's poorest nations, last year declared it would have no choice but to continue deforestation unless it was given financial incentives to do otherwise.

Richer nations already recognise the value of uncultivated land. The EU offers €200 (£135) per hectare subsidies for "environmental services" to its farmers to leave their land unused.

And yet there is no agreement on placing a value on the vastly more valuable land in developing countries. More than 50 per cent of the life on Earth is in tropical forests, which cover less than 7 per cent of the planet's surface.

They generate the bulk of rainfall worldwide and act as a thermostat for the Earth. Forests are also home to 1.6 billion of the world's poorest people who rely on them for subsistence. However, forest experts say governments continue to pursue science fiction solutions to the coming climate catastrophe, preferring bio-fuel subsidies, carbon capture schemes and next-generation power stations.

Putting a price on the carbon these vital forests contain is the only way to slow their destruction. Hylton Philipson, a trustee of Rainforest Concern, explained: "In a world where we are witnessing a mounting clash between food security, energy security and environmental security - while there's money to be made from food and energy and no income to be derived from the standing forest, it's obvious that the forest will take the hit."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Whats it worth
[info]jona123 wrote:
Wednesday, 21 January 2009 at 09:30 am (UTC)
The article on the despair of the Brazilian Minister Marina Silva says it all. How can the lowly relatively cheap tree compete with the ranching, the mineral mining, the cash cropping? Well it cannot. Is the rest of the world willing to compensate, not for the tree but for the loss of economic potential that it sits on. The appeal to carbon trading just misses the point. The Brazilians perhaps do not want to all walk quietly in the forest with a few paltry coins in their pocket while the rest of the world enjoys a cheap carbon sink and the high carbon life style.
[info]bijadi123 wrote:
Friday, 6 February 2009 at 04:43 pm (UTC)
Unfortunately politicians are not scientists.It would be so easy for the richer nations to subsidise the maintenance of tropical rain forests.The benefits would be much greater than CO2 emissions, and in truth, no financial cost in the long term.Why are we governed by big business and idiots?
Deforestation
[info]foxyladystar wrote:
Tuesday, 10 February 2009 at 02:52 pm (UTC)
It is alarming to consider that 2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide will be pumped into the atmosphere each year as a result of deforestation of tropical rainforests. And that each year 50 million acres of rainforest is removed from earth. It is important for people to ensure that they only use sustainably grown and harvested wood and other crops including widely used cash crops such as tea, coffee and sugar. To post your comments about deforestation and climate change see www.ourfurureplanet.org

Foxyladystar
Other sources of renewable energy, plus a myriad of other products
[info]righton813 wrote:
Monday, 2 March 2009 at 02:26 am (UTC)
If the undereducated, greedy politicians would untie the hands of scientists, engineers and farmers, there is a plant that grows everywhere except the North and South Poles, requires no water or fertilizer, grows quickly, and like any other green plant, cleans the air. I'm talking about Hemp, aka Cannabis aka pot. (Marijuana was a word invented by the American government to demonize the plant. This was around the end of Prohibition, so that the liquor industry would have no competition). Cannabis is a raw material for fuel oil, protein food for humans, fiber for clothing, and on and on. The plant has so many uses, it is even good as a rotation plant for farmers to give the land a rest. Now that doctors are prescribing it for Multiple Sclerosis and other illnesses legally, the DEA is still arresting patients with legal prescriptions. The war on drugs is a dismal failure, a waste of money, incarcerating non violent Americans while allowing violent illegal aliens to run free and undocumented. Illegal cannabis has ruined so many families' lives. Because it is a felony, it ruins the records of some young people who wanted to be doctors and other careers where felons are not allowed. As a free country, we jail the wrong people and keep programs going that are failing. Alcoholics whose livers are affected do not recover. There is no proof that cannabis hurts anyone. It is also a wood-like product that can substitute for the raw materials that are ravaging the forests that the Earth needs.
deforestation
[info]abc_h wrote:
Tuesday, 3 March 2009 at 11:06 am (UTC)
I HAVE SAID THIS FOR YEARS,AND, NO ONE LISTENS..IT IS JUST ANOTHER WAY OF RAISING PRICES ,WITHOUT HAVING TO PLANT MOER TREES..MORE TREES LESS GLOBAL WARMING,AND, LESS ILLNESSES ie BRETHING PROBLEMS.
.LOWERING TRAFFIC SPEEDS CAUSES QUEUSE AND MORE CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE THE AIR..PLANT AT LEAST 10 MILLION MORE TREES
Deforestation
[info]stephenchpl wrote:
Wednesday, 8 April 2009 at 12:23 am (UTC)
If there is no profit in it, governments, nations and politicians will never lift a finger to stop or slow down
deforestation. By doing nothing today to slow down CO2 emissions today makes me wonder if they really care about the world they are creating for their children.

-Stephen Personal Injury Lawyer NJ
my opinion over deforestation.
[info]esterziita wrote:
Friday, 17 April 2009 at 03:23 pm (UTC)
in my opinion i just think that it's wrong to be doing all this. cutting down trees only for our usage.us the people depend to much on many things yet we dont thin about the consequences. we are ending with our own world causing to much pollution killing habitats. Everytime theres a tree cut down believe it or not we are destroying habitat. We should just find other ways to get our needs. Trees are very important they do give us oxygen, and if you think about it what are we doing with our oxygen?cutting it down?...
The solution
[info]avraamjack wrote:
Monday, 18 May 2009 at 06:08 am (UTC)
Rainforest land can be bought by the millions of acres for a few dollars an acre.

You could probably buy it all for a few dozen billion and pay people to take care of it for a few dozen million per year.

Cheap.

.
Ignoring the carbon dioxide nonsense
[info]clothcap wrote:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 at 02:36 pm (UTC)
I'm late to comment here, but better late than never.

Scientists found a "teleconnection" between W. African coastal deforestation and US midwest weather. I've read papers that discuss a similar connection to increased Atlantic storm intensity.
South American deforestation is believed responsible for drought in South and Central America.
Coastal deforestation is believed to be responsible for much of the death toll from the Indonesian tsunami.
Greenland forests are believed to have dramatically slowed ice advance.
Etc.

I think forests have a much greater impact on climate than anyone is prepared to cede. They bring humid air from oceans by causing convection currents. They cause clouds to form. They maintain the humidity of equatorial regions that keeps the climate bearable. Climatically, probably much more. On a local scale they take pollution from soil, the roots hold back water and so avoid flooding, avoid soil erosion and they catch a lot of muck from the air, (see roadside trees for evidence of that). Planting trees just about anywhere is a good idea.

The disreputable UNEP has a saving grace. They are promoting a tree planting campaign, the target was 7 million trees last I saw. That is a drop in the ocean when viewed against deforestation rates, especially for soya bean and oil palm crops but anything is better than nothing.

There is no political power to be gained from planting trees, the likes of Al can't generate hot air profits from its promotion, science can't justify billions of dollars funding, the world governance movement (EU, UN, Club of Rome) and other crackpot organisations lose valuable leverage for support and funding. So it goes.

Power, fame and money lust supported by chancers and the desperate to be guilty is destroying this planet and western civilisation, not CO2 emitters. As many have mentioned, reforestation and paying for forest maintenance is cheap (at any price). The rewards for a big effort are plenty. Not least is a moderation of climate extremes.

It's time for tree huggers to stop victimising tree food and do something real.

Deforestation in Europe
[info]lukelagis wrote:
Friday, 11 September 2009 at 07:26 pm (UTC)
Especially relevant article given the recent deforestation by arson in Greece, France, Spain and closer to home here in Los Angeles. Trees burn, villas sprout.

Luke Lagis' Law Blog
Forests and CO2
[info]sandn09 wrote:
Saturday, 3 October 2009 at 07:18 am (UTC)
How to massage the message? How to remove half of the world's population? especially those who use/waste the major part of the World's resources. Why are the forests being cut down ? In Latin America to grow soja and maize to provide food for the meat producers and in Asia, particularly Indonesia, to produce palm oil......... again for the overfed bellies of the richest half of the global population. And who benefits most from this? The food industry, naturally, and the seed and pesticide industries - certainly not the people who live(d) in the forests who are thrown out. Why not a carbon tax on these industries which should be used - not to fill governments pockets - but to pay people to preserve the forests. This would help save the trees and would help decrease the amounts of pesticides residues in our food, including in the fish of the sea.
the bigger elephant
[info]dryandra wrote:
Wednesday, 7 October 2009 at 04:50 pm (UTC)
It is quite remarkable that over population is never mentiond because this is the basic cause of all our troubles. The expanding population creates the demand for timber and other forest products. I guess this is why it is not mentioned there is too much at stake! We use the distraction of carbon emissions and go on at length about them as if this will make any difference. In Australia while arguing the toss about this , we are increasing our population by close to a million a year (this increase includes overstayers, New Zealanders, and students). But it is humans and human activities that cause the need for restricting carbon emissions. And what the third world lacks in individual production of CO2 it makes up for by having ever larger and larger numbers producing that CO2. And the pollies who should be showing leadership say fatuous thing like, " We must keep growing our population so that there will be jobs in the construction and real estate industries"!
Ignoring the problem is not a solution
[info]stephenchpl wrote:
Wednesday, 21 October 2009 at 06:36 pm (UTC)
I also agree with the fact that deforestation breaks the natural chain in nature which causes world wide global problems. It's just common sense, yet governments refuse to take necessary actions. The area where I live has a program to buy land (from our taxes) to prevent the land from being developed, but yet, they also allow over development which in essence defeats their cause.

What these people don't realize is all this greed is not going to save them when nature takes it's course to repair itself.

-John Delaware Wedding Photographer






Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date