Why didn’t they mention REDD? Don’t they work on forests?

The problems are;
1. there is possibility between transnational company (TNCs) and international NGO to make ‘a black agreement’, cheating.
2. A de jure nationally owned rain forest becomes a global asset. Factually owned by a TNC or international NGO. The ‘new owner’ pays $x while a TNC earns $xxx and being allowed to keep poluting.
3. Around 30-50% of money paid to a nation will be used for managerial fee, most of it runs to overseas. It means a tropical forest country will only get $1/2x. Sadly.

We need a more perfect globa agreement on REDD mechanism.

I agree that the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, NRDC and the rest should be ashamed of what they are doing and that they should be denounced. That is why I posted this piece. I also think that the statement by Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and others on the US Climate Bill is pretty good. I haven’t posted it on REDD-Monitor because it doesn’t directly mention REDD, but here it is:

Broad Coalition Criticizes Climate Bill
May 22, 2009

Greenpeace USA * Friends of the Earth * Public Citizen * Citizen Power * Center for Biological Diversity * Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana * TURN—The Utility Reform Network * Sustainable Energy & Economy Network * Green Delaware * Massachusetts Environmental Energy Alliance * Massachusetts Forest Watch * Coal Moratorium Now! * Rainforest Action Network * International Rivers * Energy Justice Network

In response to passage of the “American Clean Energy and Security Act” by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, a coalition of environmental, legal, consumer, and community advocacy groups released the following joint statement:

“While a week of debate failed to adequately strengthen protections for consumers, communities, and the climate in this bill, it erased all doubt of who will benefit most from it: Big Business. Despite the best efforts of Chairman Waxman, the decision-making process was co-opted by oil and coal lobbyists determined to sustain our addiction to dirty fossil fuels, even as the country stands ready to rebuild our economy and clean up the environment with real clean energy. The resulting bill reflects the triumph of politics over science, and the triumph of industry influence over the public interest.

“Regrettably, we cannot support this legislation unless and until it is substantially strengthened. The lives and livelihoods of 7 billion people worldwide will be affected by America’s response to the climate crisis. The response embodied in today’s bill is not only inadequate it is counterproductive.

“As passed through the Energy & Commerce Committee, the American Clean Energy and Security Act sets targets for reducing pollution that are far weaker than science says is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change. The targets are far less ambitious than what is achievable with already existing technology. They are further undermined by massive loopholes that could allow the most polluting industries to avoid real emission reductions until 2027. Rather than provide relief and support to consumers, the bill showers polluting industries with hundreds of billions of dollars in free allowances and direct subsidies that will slow renewable energy development and lock in a new generation of dirty coal-fired power plants. At the same time, the bill would remove the President’s authority to address global warming pollution using laws already on the books.

“The international community cannot solve global warming without real leadership from the United States. We urge the President to demonstrate that leadership by working with Congressional leaders to craft a real, science-based response to the challenge of global warming and by immediately exercising his substantial authority to regulate global warming emissions under existing laws.”

That’s very revealing. Yes, the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense the NRDC et al are full of crap. But why are other ‘enviro’ groups polite to them!?

They make the destruction possible. And should be shamed and denounced.

For years they have continued to push market-based ’solutions’ to deforestation that allow industrial logging of primary forests. They’re support for Forest Stewarship Council’s industrial logging of old growth is one example of their mealy-mouthed environmentalism.

As for Friends of the Earth, it took a strong effort by environmentalists to get them to remove themselves from FSC support.