Friday, September 25, 2009

Economic value in standing forests might just save them

Standing trees store carbon.

Since the world is moving toward a cap-and-trade system, carbon storage is something that polluters need. Polluters, may therefore need trees and will pay for them to remain standing.

Read about REDD mechanisms at CNN.

4 comments:

Arlene said...

This is great news.
I think its a wonderful idea to assist in both combating deforestation and reducing the effects of global warming.

I particularly like this idea because in Belize, there are several mechanisms to buy carbon credits such as Belize Teak International, Cotton Tree Lodge
etc.which involve planting new trees.
However, this new initiative will assist in protecting the old growth forest and diverse tropical forests in Belize. Currently there is a 72.5 % forest cover in Belize, however we still have an average yearly deforestation rate of 2.3% when compared to the entire central american rate of 1.3 annually.

Arlene, CERMES

Anonymous said...

This does seem like a great way in order to combat deforestation. I specifically like the fact that, as mentioned in the article, this seems to be a great way to create a new revenue source for developing countries. They will be the low-emission "firms" and they will be able to sell carbon credits from their forests to more developed countries who have higher emissions.
-Ryan D

Saracasey said...

this article shows how research on climate change has given added benefit to perserving forests because the non-use value of forests has increased.

Saving forests in other countries may be a more efficient way to combat climate change then abatement in the home country.

i think this idea is supported by this Economist article about Norway:

"The [Norweigen] government also allows firms to pay for emissions-reduction schemes in poor countries in lieu of cutting their own emissions...The government reckons it can plant enough trees at home to offset 3m tonnes or so. That should allow it to keep its promise to make at least half of the emissions cuts it has scheduled by 2020 at home. But it still means that as much as half of Norway’s notional reduction in emissions will come from overseas...

If reducing deforestation is as cheap a way to cut emissions as Nicholas Stern and other climate experts think, then that money alone would be sufficient to offset all Norway’s emissions twice over, Mr Stoltenberg points out."

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12970769

Anonymous said...

It seems like a good program but the problem who is going to monitor the money to ensure it is spent correctly. Also some of the money should go into research to improve technology for tomorrow because undeveloped countries are going to be the next generation wanting to have the "American Dream" which I don't think that all of these trees can handel.

Jerry M. Brown