a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, with the aim of keeping global warming below 2°C.Hopes are high that this conference will be The One. Ed Milliband wrote that COP21 "can save the planet" and today Barack Obama recognised it as a "turning point". If you take even a casual interest in environmental issues, then I don't I need to explain why it is so important that the global community come to a firm consensus on how to best steer our planet away from dangerous climate change.
The bulk of today's session involved world leaders presenting to the world their positions, objectives and commitments with regards to climate change. While there were was no shortage of rousing and impassioned speeches, it is the start of the Lima–Paris Action Agenda Focus on Forests session tomorrow which is of particular interest to me personally, given the topic of this blog. At last year's conference in Peru, fourteen highly-forested developing countries issued a challenge to developed nations to kindle and develop financial partnerships in order to meet emission reduction targets with the use of forest carbon. In essence, the Lima Challenge is a call for greater recognition — and therefore, possibly, exploitation — of the economic value locked up in billions of carbon-stocking trees. Something in me questions the wisdom of this kind of thinking — see this article for an excellent case study of the limited success of REDD+ in Papua New Guinea.
Questionable effectiveness is not my only opposition to such schemes: that Earth's great expanses of green forest can be reduced to their mere economic value is an idea which is morally troubling to me (this might seem funny, if you like, considering I'm studying Environmental Modelling). However, I recognise that this may seem like a rather cynical way of looking at things, and I'd be interested to hear your general opinions on forestry-based carbon trading initiatives. As developing countries increasingly push for the economic valuation of their forests as a marketable resource, how much importance do you think should be placed on biodiversity, or any intangible value inherent to forest life? The session tomorrow morning will be introduced by Prince Charles; Ségolène Royale, the French Minister of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy; and Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, the Peruvian Minister of Environment. As they set the tone for the day's discourse, I hope that, among all the talk of business commitments, emission reduction partnerships and low-carbon development strategies, somebody will find the time to see the forest for more than just the cash growing on its trees.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReally interesting post! But do you not think the idea behind REDD+ is good? I disagree with your opposition to such schemes as though it is troubling to weigh up our environment in dollars it is easy for you and me to think that way. Many people in these regions are not well off and when the option is no money and natural forests versus no natural forests, land & timber - and therefore money - you can see what REDD+ is trying to do.
ReplyDeleteThere is a paper or two in my post (http://anyearthleft.blogspot.co.uk/ ), and sadly I think REDD+ has a long way to go before it is good! I feel that some people will just never care and the only way is to use money ...
True, it's very easy for me to sit in my plush recliner and philosophise about the value of a forest, so I'll flesh out my more material objections.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a bit naive to assert that the people to whom most of the proceeds of REDD+ would go would be the communities living in the forests. With faceless carbon trading companies left to organise things, it will be impossible. See this http://www.redd-monitor.org/2010/09/14/redd-projects-in-papua-new-guinea-legally-untenable/, about the Australian in the article linked in the blog post. These people don't get involved in REDD+ simply because their hearts bleed for the peoples of the forest.
When it comes to the conversion of natural resources to cash, the potential for ruthless exploitation is glaringly obvious. You've been to South Africa, right? The miners at Marikana were murdered for demanding a better share of the proceeds from the platinum they dig up in land that some from the local area believe they had been dispossessed of over the centuries. Look into how the Indigenous peoples of the Amazon rainforest have been decimated by the various industries looking to profit from the land. I know it seems like I'm being dramatic, but this is a pattern that has repeated itself throughout history. It seems to me that when those with structural power come into contact with those in resource-rich areas who don't, there can only be one winner.