Deforestation: A Losing Proposition For All
source: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1904174,00.html?iid=digg_share
-
-
- librelover
- added this
[While deforestation apparently offers few long-term benefits, Brazilians in forested communities aren't very well off either — at least by Western standards — as there is still little to stop them cutting down trees, even if it's only for short-term gain. Deforestation is still unlikely to stop, at least for economic reasons. "For a win-win situation, you need to install some value for standing trees," says Ewers.
The rain forest may be an irreplaceable part of Earth's ecology, but there's no way to sell that on the market yet. However, there is a nascent movement to put a dollar value on the billions of tons of carbon sequestered within the rain forest: in avoided deforestation, forest communities like those in Brazil could essentially be paid for not cutting down their trees, by trading on the carbon value of their forest in a global greenhouse-gas market. With tropical deforestation responsible for up to one-third of global carbon emissions, there's a powerful climate reason to find a way to economically end rainforest destruction.
Currently forests aren't included in the Kyoto Protocol, but there is a lot of optimism that avoided deforestation will be a part of whatever global deal is negotiated at the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen at the end of the year. (Diplomats are meeting this week in Bonn to work out some of the early details.) The Science study provides one more piece of evidence that forests — especially for those who depend on them — are ultimately worth more alive than dead.]
We value the majesty of these forests. Shouldn't there be a value for them in our economic world as well? Adding ecological costs to our economic understanding of markets seems to be something that should be viable even in a free market economy.
The rain forest may be an irreplaceable part of Earth's ecology, but there's no way to sell that on the market yet. However, there is a nascent movement to put a dollar value on the billions of tons of carbon sequestered within the rain forest: in avoided deforestation, forest communities like those in Brazil could essentially be paid for not cutting down their trees, by trading on the carbon value of their forest in a global greenhouse-gas market. With tropical deforestation responsible for up to one-third of global carbon emissions, there's a powerful climate reason to find a way to economically end rainforest destruction.
Currently forests aren't included in the Kyoto Protocol, but there is a lot of optimism that avoided deforestation will be a part of whatever global deal is negotiated at the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen at the end of the year. (Diplomats are meeting this week in Bonn to work out some of the early details.) The Science study provides one more piece of evidence that forests — especially for those who depend on them — are ultimately worth more alive than dead.]
We value the majesty of these forests. Shouldn't there be a value for them in our economic world as well? Adding ecological costs to our economic understanding of markets seems to be something that should be viable even in a free market economy.
-
-
akamaial [removed]
-
As an old forestry management student, I agree...forest management is the only way to go and definitely needs to be implemented in S.America...NOW.!
- 2 years ago
-
akamaial [removed]
-
-
librelover
-
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1694814,00.html?iid=sphere-inline...
Here is another discussion of carbon markets.
- 2 years ago
-
librelover
-
-
librelover
-
So how does a study like this get carried into action for those directly involved, like the local municipalities ?
- 2 years ago
-
librelover
