Comments on: 20% of CO2 emissions from deforestation? Make that 12%

By: Chris Lang

Chris Lang — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:41:02 +0000

The Union of Concerned Scientists put out this press release at the Barcelona negotiations:

Scientists and NGOs: Deforestation and Degradation Responsible for Approximately 15 Percent of Global Warming Emissions

As Fossil Fuel Emissions Rise, Deforestation Makes Up Smaller Percent, Still Significant Problem

Friday, November 6, 2009
Barcelona, Spain
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Scientists and non-governmental organizations at the U.N. climate negotiations commented today on the percentage of global warming emissions that is due to tropical deforestation, in light of a new analysis published earlier this week in Nature Geoscience. The group, which included most of the leading experts on deforestation emissions, released the following statement:

‘The new paper and other papers and IPCC reports published in the last few years, lead us to conclude that the percentage of global emissions of CO2 from deforestation and forest degradation is less than the commonly used figure of “about 20%”. The best current estimate would be about 15% if peat degradation is included. Given the uncertainties involved one can not rely on estimates to the nearest 1%.

The change in the estimate is due to several factors, including increases in fossil fuel emissions as well as revision of the estimates of deforestation emissions, due to new data and scientific analyses. The change is NOT due to a decrease in deforestation since the 1990s, and in fact the analyses agree that global deforestation in the early 2000s has been similar to that in the 1990s. So, this new estimate is NOT a sign of progress.

This figure includes deforestation, forest degradation, and peat emissions from deforestation and degradation (including later decomposition and fires in peat from previously deforested areas).

These changes and the new paper are typical of how science advances, and reflect our improved ability to measure the emissions due to deforestation. They reinforce the point that reducing emissions from tropical deforestation is critical to slowing global warming. These emissions are comparable to the emissions of all of the European Union, and are greater than those of all cars, trucks, planes, ships and trains worldwide.

Reducing tropical forest emissions remains a relatively cost-effective option to reduce emissions. We would highlight some important lines from the new paper:

‘…reducing fossil fuel emissions remains the key element for stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Nevertheless, efforts to mitigate emissions from tropical forests and peatlands, and maintain existing terrestrial carbon stocks, remain critical….’”

The scientists and organizations endorsing the statement were:

BirdLife International
Conservation International
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Investigations Agency
Natural Resources Defense Council
Rainforest Action Network
Sierra Club
The Nature Conservancy
World Vision International
World Wildlife Fund – International
Union of Concerned Scientists
Frédéric Achard, Joint Research Centre of the European Commission
Pep Canadell, Australian National University
Ruth DeFries, Columbia University
Tim Herzog, World Resources Institute
Richard Houghton, Woods Hole Research Center
Douglas Morton, NASA
Guido van der Werf, Free University, Amsterdam

(Scientists’ affilations are listed for identification purposes only, and do not indicate institutional endorsement of this statement.)

By: SAVAGE

SAVAGE — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:29:27 +0000

CO²lonialism….
CO²lonial mentality
Co²nsumism
Co²rrosive interest
co²ndenation
Kioto protoCO²l
CO²rruption

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:04:26 +0000

The underlying assumptions of most estimated on deforestation-related emissions are based on deforestation figures reported by countries to the FAO. In reality these figures relate to net change in forest area (ie total areas lost minus total areas that became ‘forests’ (ie plantations, regrowth, etc). Such ‘net deforestation’ figures mask the amount of forest biomass lost through emissions.

As the FAO Forest Resource Assessment 2005 notes: ‘The total net loss for countries with a negative change in forest area was 13.1 million hectares per year for 1990–2000 and 12.9 million hectares per year for 2000–2005. Since the net change rate takes into account afforestation efforts and natural expansion of forests, the rate of deforestation might be higher still.’

By: jane boles

jane boles — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:12:11 +0000

@ Wally Menne – Agreed, plantations are not forests, and the substitution of intact forest ecosystems with plantations under a misguided, co-opted, watered down post-Kyoto framework is something that should keep us all up at night.

But why assume that all Aforestation/Reforestation (AR)projects need to be plantation-based? Surely best-practice ecosystem restoration, informed by pre-existing species distributions/densities and local environmental knowledge, which values biodiversity and socioeconomic well being alongside CO2 sequestration, is an attainable standard which we should be insisting on.

My concern is that by writing off forest-based offset schemes as inherently unworkable, we preclude (or at least impair) the possibility for good, equitable, stakeholder-driven, carbon-financed forest restoration work, which is after all unimaginably important, not only for climate stability, but for a slough of other localized imperatives with which REDD Monitor’s readers are no doubt familiar.

Your underlying argument – that shoddy AR projects exist therefore all AR must be fundamentally shoddy – is part of the same logic which has unfortunately characterized offset criticism (with it’s otherwise very legitimate, very important concerns) in the last few years.

It seems to me that if every commentator, activist, or organization which values ecological integrity and social justice decides that ‘AR means monocultures’ or ‘REDD is bad for people and forests’, then we veritably guarantee this will be the case. Scary.

By: Tommy Mathew

Tommy Mathew — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:40:53 +0000

in REDD it avoidance of deforestation is not allowed. What is the alternates for wood products. The use of other minerals would only create further Co2. Most of the developing nations in the tropical areas have renewable fiber such as coconut fiber. sisal fiber, jute fiber, oil plam fiber, pineapple fiber, banna fiber, etc. thes could be classified as RAPID RENEWABLE MATERIALS. Most are today agro wastes in the rural areas. If like renwable energy, or renwable biofuel these could be brought into main stream as BIOWOOD then you would see a driect benefit.
With economic growth of 6 to 8% where are we going to meet the demand of wood. Otherwise this shortage will create further illegal logging.

By: Keedo

Keedo — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:23:26 +0000

New Scientist article: “Give forests back to local people to save them .. So concludes a study that’s tracked the fate of 80 forests worldwide over 15 years”
(scroll to Oct 7, 09 on: http://www.newscientist.com/topic/climate-change

By: Juergen

Juergen — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:50:33 +0000

There are plenty of “good models elimination of forest degradation and deforestation”: they are called indigenous territories, and they have all been achieved without the help of a single cent of carbon funding – just a lot of political will, and a lot of very determined campaigning by indigenous peoples and their supporters.

The current obsession with REDD funding is just a distraction from the need for tropical countries to do the obvious, though poliltically unpalatable, thing.

Juergen

By: Wally Menne

Wally Menne — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:36:13 +0000

In response to Jon Anderholm, I have to disagree with his notion that there could be “some good models out there..
for afforestation / reforestation”. Tree plantations are not intended to function as an ecosystem – they are industrial production units that convert water, nutrients and gases into wood that is ultimately destined to end up as garbage or as CO2 and methane that goes back into the atmosphere.

The only difference is that some, such as the 40 year old spruce plantations in southern Sweden just take a bit longer to complete the process than eucalyptus pulpwood plantations in Brasil. In the end they just keep increasing greenhouse gases through the industrial manufacturing processes, transportation, soil carbon losses and land mismanagement that usually go with plantations!

Admittedly some plantations are definitely worse than others but in the final analysis they are all bad!

Wally

By: Nigel Miles

Nigel Miles — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:35:23 +0000

Interesting…but very questionable and based on both carbon mass per hectare throughout the tropical realm. If this is the case the opposite is the situation; 22% of carbon sourced is an absolute minimum figure; 1.5 – 2.0GtonnesC out of 8GtonnesC sourced is a minimum of 21.88% from the oxidation procees and futher emissions does occur in both tropical and non tropical peatlands! This is basic fact and has been known in the scientific community for three years or more.
Ecologists have to understand the full plethora of sinks for sequestration and storage; living structures….notably the phanerophytic structures of spermatophytes and bryophytic morphology of their palisade structures in so called peatland “soils”.
To be honest the full nature of carbon sinks are unknown; the issue is not just carbon sources and available sink structures which occur globally and in throughout the biosphere and other interactive realities have to part of the support for ecological systems throughout our planet. This is not just a sink activity for carbon storage but a mechanisms for not only shoring up our current nefarious economic activities in tropical and extratropical realms but also to support the continuance of evolution and the improvement of providing means to bring human goal development to fruition.
I feel that the authors should relate to some basic ecological realiites of net primary photosynthetic production of carbon (and biomass) and then reassess their analysis on each country of planet before making such sweeping comments and not site pernickity results based upon untested and unrepeated and therefore not fully investigated science.
If they would care to benefit from the data I have made available in my SEEBif Initiative then they may realise that the whole nature of the sink and seqestration processes is much more complex and should not be hijacked by those who only see “rainforests” as such areas of priority.
Currrently REDD will and cannot bring this about. The SEEBif Initiatve can be a driver for this and we need those in the global community to support this programme from across the scientific, indigenous and human development goal organisations from UNEP, UNFCCC, COB. UNESCO, UNICEF, Save the Childrenand et al..to CI, WWF, Greenpeace and the other million NGOs across our planet who wish for both a sustainable and permanent global biosphere and human communities reslience to the fundamental changes which will be upon us within the next seven years. SEEBif needs to become a global reality within this time frame…

Yours
Dr. Nigel Miles
SEEBif Initiative

By: Jon Anderholm

Jon Anderholm — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:03:42 +0000

There must be some good models out there..
for afforestation / reforestation….
elimination of forest degradation and deforestation

that will positively impact:

biodiversity, poverty reduction, human health and nutritional needs, soil improvement,
watershed protection, as well as carbon storage and air quality… etc…

does the REDD-Monitor cover this?? address the successful projects??

I would appreciate hearing about them…

All the best,

Thanks for your very excellent insights…