<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What&#8217;s wrong with using carbon financing for REDD?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.redd-monitor.org/2008/10/17/whats-wrong-with-using-carbon-financing-for-redd/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.redd-monitor.org/2008/10/17/whats-wrong-with-using-carbon-financing-for-redd/</link>
	<description>Analysis, opinions, news and views about Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 04:50:54 +0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris Lang</title>
		<link>http://www.redd-monitor.org/2008/10/17/whats-wrong-with-using-carbon-financing-for-redd/comment-page-1/#comment-8</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Lang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:03:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redd-monitor.org/?p=166#comment-8</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the comment. But Aulisi doesn&#039;t say that &quot;there has been no progress in this area&quot;. He briefly describes three issues: quantification methods; leakage; and permanance. What he says is that &quot;These three issues have been on the table for ten years, and I don’t know that there’s been any progress in trying to solve them &lt;em&gt;in a satisfactory way&lt;/em&gt;,&quot; (my emphasis). He could have added other problems, such as the difficulty of deciding what would have happened had the carbon finance project not gone ahead, and the difficulty of monitoring all the people affected by the project who may, for example, move away from the forest and take up far more carbon intensive livelihoods in cities.

This post is the first of several planned that will be looking in more detail at carbon finance proposals for REDD.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the comment. But Aulisi doesn&#8217;t say that &#8220;there has been no progress in this area&#8221;. He briefly describes three issues: quantification methods; leakage; and permanance. What he says is that &#8220;These three issues have been on the table for ten years, and I don’t know that there’s been any progress in trying to solve them <em>in a satisfactory way</em>,&#8221; (my emphasis). He could have added other problems, such as the difficulty of deciding what would have happened had the carbon finance project not gone ahead, and the difficulty of monitoring all the people affected by the project who may, for example, move away from the forest and take up far more carbon intensive livelihoods in cities.</p>
<p>This post is the first of several planned that will be looking in more detail at carbon finance proposals for REDD.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anon</title>
		<link>http://www.redd-monitor.org/2008/10/17/whats-wrong-with-using-carbon-financing-for-redd/comment-page-1/#comment-6</link>
		<dc:creator>Anon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:08:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redd-monitor.org/?p=166#comment-6</guid>
		<description>This article is, I&#039;m afraid, quite poorly researched. Methodologies for developing REDD projects have been produced and are developing all the time. To say there has been no progress in this area is incorrect.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This article is, I&#8217;m afraid, quite poorly researched. Methodologies for developing REDD projects have been produced and are developing all the time. To say there has been no progress in this area is incorrect.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
