Carbon Market Won't Save the Forests Or Stop Runaway Climate Change

Given the importance of deforestation to climateclimate change. Forest conservation can be done
change it would be perfectly reasonable to ask whymuch easier by a fund (e.g. Cool Earth) than by
we don't just protect the world's forests. Butmarket cowboys racing around the world looking for
reducing deforestation is no simple effort. Forests arecheap offsets.
being destroyed as a consequence of globalWhat we need to examine are the factors driving
economic forces (e.g. demand for timber, beef,deforestation, including the international trade in beef,
soybeans, palm oil, etc). Slowing or eliminatingsoy and paper. We should first address those drivers
deforestation means addressing these underlyingrather than throwing money at companies cutting
drivers by making forests valuable as living entities,down trees, when we continue to give them
rather than solely for what can be produced whenincentives to do so. Financial incentives could also play
they're cut.a role, insofar as they support the recognition of land
One solution, known as Reduced Emissions fromrights for indigenous communities or education
Deforestation and Degradation (REDD), is beingprojects. Such measures, which would cost far less
pushed as a key element for a new globalthan the proposed financing for REDD, could be of
agreement to fight climate change after the Kyotogenuine worth in avoiding deforestation. But they are
Protocol expires in 2012. The logic underpinning REDDunlikely to show up on the balance books of a forest
is fairly simple. At present, the short-term economiccarbon-trading scheme whose main purpose seems
gains from deforestation outweigh the long-termto be providing Western countries with yet another
good of forest conservation. By investing up toescape from their responsibility to reduce emissions
£7.5 billion globally per year into saving forests,at home.
the economic balance is believed to change in favourWe must pressure our governments to drastically cut
of the latter. This money would be paid in the formcarbon emissions at home rather than buy offsets
of carbon credits, worked out in relation to nationalfrom abroad. We must encourage them to introduce
deforestation rates - the more a country saves, thestricter environmental policies that reduce the
more it earns.consumption of imported forest products (e.g. waste
This might seem like a good idea but such a schememanagement strategies that reduce the consumption
is fraught with problems. REDD simplifies the functionof timber and paper, setting higher targets and
of forest ecosystems to that of a carbon store. Thistimetables for paper and cardboard recycling from
undervalues them as water catchment areas,the domestic sector). The UK is currently one of the
habitats for biodiversity and as the basis ofworld's largest consumers of timber and paper
indigenous and local peoples' livelihoods. Indigenousproducts.
groups and forest communities are concerned theyWe must hold businesses accountable. Corporations
will not see benefits from REDD. Worse, someneed to know that the public will hold them
believe the mechanism could trigger a new wave ofaccountable for business practices that are socially or
land grabs and evictions by parties seeking toenvironmentally destructive. If you feel that a
capitalize on carbon payments. Indigenous groups andcompany's business practices are environmentally
forest communities have long struggled againstirresponsible, send the company a letter expressing
development interests seeking to exploit theiryour concern, or organize a boycott of the company.
traditional lands and resources. More than a billionWe need better education across all levels of society.
people worldwide depend of forests for theirAt the moment, many people are alienated from the
livelihoods, so schemes such as REDD pose a hugeknowledge of the consequences of their demands,
threat to them if not managed properly. Anotherand how their carbon heavy lifestyles contribute to
danger is that schemes to 'avoid deforestation'deforestation and climate change (e.g. the excessive
become a further means for rich countries to avoidconsumption of beef, paper and timber).
responsibility for over-consumption and evadeWe need to look at the role of ecotourism and
emissions cuts (e.g. they continue spewing emissionsvolunteerism. Although this results in more people
offset by 'avoided deforestation' carbon credits).trampling in beautiful places, it is a very forceful
There are also fears that a market-based mechanismmechanism for conservation and also brings revenue
for reducing greenhouse gas emissions would crashto local people without selling their land for timber,
carbon prices by swamping the market with cheapcattle farming and soy production.
credits (e.g. making it cheaper for polluters to avoidThere are many things we can all do to help protect
genuine emissions cuts). This would reducethe world's forests and reduce carbon emissions and
investment in low-carbon and renewable technologies,we cannot afford to be distracted by measures that
and cause developing countries to lose out on aprovide no real solutions. The carbon market is not a
massive investment in low carbon technologies. In'magic bullet' to prevent further climate change, the
essence, low carbon prices could derail global effortsgrowth in emissions or deforestation. The answer lies
to tackle global warming.in changing our lifestyles and political systems and
It seems quite clear that an unrestricted carbonconvincing others (individuals, businesses and
market won't save the forests or stop runawaypoliticians) to do the same.