If a handful of countries (primarily Indonesia and Brazil) account for the great majority of this, then why are so many politicians and consultants not devising mitigation strategies which will oblige those few countries greatly to reduce their emissions? (For example, importing countries could imposed taxes on direct and indirect imports of palm oil, beef, soya etc from those countries at such a level as would fully compensate not only for the CO2 emissions but also for the loss of forest which are implicit in those product’s production.)

The Eliasch Review also does not even bother to clarify what proportion of this 20% derived from conversion of forest to plantations for agri-business, the paper and the timber industry. Perhaps because the majority is?

Are the blind leading the blind?

Doctors are unlikely to dispense costly and probably unsuitable medicine to the wrong diseased patient if they have to pay for the treatment themselves. However, it is not the politicians’ and consultants’ money that Eliasch urges be spent.

One is reminded of the US$5bi + US$10bi of revenue which the World Bank claims is lost from illegal logging. However, the World Bank has never bothered to indicate in which countries most of these losses take place. Further, commentators have conveniently ignored the World Bank’s forestry strategy (published in 2004) – which is to ensure that those losses are reduced by half (within five or ten years from the launch of that strategy).

One is also reminded of the so-called financial crises of recent weeks. Auditors did not (/were not paid to) report that they were unable to value their client companies, and this tended to endorse the performance of executives who devised strategies on the basis of quasi-fictional business statistics.

The words irresponsible and negligent come to mind.