This image shows burning and deforestation of the Amazon forest to make grazing lands.
Credit: NASA LBA-ECO
COPENHAGEN: A substantial deal to halt deforestation of the world's tropical rainforests is just about the only part of the U.N. negotiations that has made major headway over the last two weeks.
Deforestation is a major contributor to our greenhouse gas emissions, and is responsible for around 17% of the total, more than the entire transport sector. Despite this, reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) was not included under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which aimed to limit global warming.
25% less deforestation
Now negotiators from across the world - including developing nations that hold 95% of tropical forests - are close to agreeing upon a deal that would see deforestation cut by 25% within the next five years and by 50% by 2020. The eventual goal, stated in the text still being negotiated, is to start to reverse global deforestation beyond 2030.
Significantly, forests also act as a carbon sink, which "play a key role in buffering against the full effects of fossil fuels," said Richard Betts a climate scientist at Britain's Met Office.
The Amazon alone removes around 1.79 billion tonnes of carbon a year from the atmosphere, this is significant proportion when you consider that total fossil fuel emissions are 8.5 billion tonnes a year, he says.
"If we lose the forests, not only do we emit more carbon... we reduce our capacity to remove other carbon from the atmosphere, so it's double whammy."
Cheaper option
Most developed countries have so far committed to reduce their emissions to between 10 and 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 - even though many scientists argue that a reduction of 40% will be necessary to keep global warming below dangerous levels.
Much of this reduction will have to come from a transfer to renewable energy and new technologies to capture and store carbon dioxide - but this will be expensive.
Cutting greenhouse gasses, by compensating developing nations to stem deforestation, presents a much cheaper short-term solution, and is likely to cover around half of the reduction in emissions required between now and 2020.
is that it?
How infuriating democracy can be!, people kill each other for its "freedoms", fight tooth and nail for its "rights", yet I am constantly let down by its promises, its apathy and red tape, constantly let down by the elected leaders of state, office, and business, either voted in with the consumers dollars, or the ballet box. Each time we are promised a newer brighter future and each time we a let down. YAaaaaa!!!! i should probably say! that’s the response the media would want us to feel, a little bit less deforestation, woopde doo, 25% less animals and wildlife burned and hacked to death, what do they expect us to feel grateful for there diplomatic efforts? I only feel numb, and angered. I can only imagine how the scientists feel, my heart goes out for you, the ones on the front line watching our world die and only measuring your successes in diluted percentages. IM SORRY! They nor them nor we are willing to do more.
geoengineering is a necessary evil
The current warming trend began 11,600 years ago at the end of the previous ice age (caused by Milankovitch Cycles). It is this warming trend that also enabled the human population to reach a current size of 6.9 billion -AND- begin an age of burning fossil fuels around 1860 (so now man-made green house gases are adding to the natural warming trend). Even if we get CO2 emissions under control, the Earth will continue to warm (see "Orbital Forcing" over at wikipedia).
Orbital Forcing
Now one thing we can all agree on it that a small amount of global cooling occurs every time a volcano releases sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere (this causes the formation of silvery clouds which reflect incoming solar radiation back into space). We can mimic volcanoes by modifying jet aircraft to release sulphur dioxide at high altitudes. If we change our minds, or better alternatives come along, we can always stop.
Neil Rieck
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
re de-forestation
In some parts of the world, many of those involved in this are crooks and thugs and politicians and the like, getting back handers. So how will you stop it? Armies protecting forests? They will need to be large.
Are brave tree-huggers now acceptable to mainstream society? Will the forest workers give up their livihoods and just walk away; happy to be saving the world?
Why is everyone so angry, or greedy or just don't care or even get it? I used to have hope we would become so much more; but modern communications only show us we won't.
Shame we look to go the way of the dinosaus. There is as much good in us as well as all the bad we now see, we can only see. We do have a chance but it will be if anyone survives. Unfortunately I foresee it won't be the best of humanity that will, the genes say suvival of the fittest, and all than seems to mean......so it will be here we go again, only, if only the "fittest" survive, et al.