Saving Forests Five Times More Effective than Carbon Capture
October 11, 2009 · Print This Article
The best way to fight against global warming isn’t expensive, potentially ecologically disruptive carbon capture methods. It’s saving the forests that we already have, which act as massive carbon sinks, protecting the planet against catastrophic climate change.
According to a new report released by WWF Sweden, world leaders have got to join together in an international agreement to halt forest loss as a highly cost effective measure on climate change.
From Panda.org:
“Sweden should follow the examples set by its northern neighbors in developing systems to halt deforestation,” said WWF CEO General Lasse Gustavsson.. “One Swedish krona to stem deforestation results in the same emissions reductions as five kronor for the controversial carbon capture and storage technique,”
Gold in Green Forests, a report issued today by WWF-Sweden, says that next to energy efficiency halting forest loss and degradation is the most cost-effective method for mitigating climate change.
The annual loss of natural forests in developing countries is equivalent to one third of Sweden’s surface area. Forest fires, the conversion of forests to agricultural land and the cultivation of energy crops are responsible for the high rate of forest loss.
A program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation, known as REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) is currently being discussed in the negotiations for a global climate deal. REDD aims to make it worthwhile for developing countries to maintain their forests, as opposed to cutting them down.
Preventing deforestation should be among our first lines of defense against climate change. It definitely makes sense financially. The trick is getting nations like Indonesia – which is cutting its forests down at an alarming rate to make room for lucrative palm oil plantations – to agree to the program.
The whole report is available over at Panda.org.
Link [Panda.org]
Photo credit: Flickr user zoutedrop
Related Posts:
Biofuels Could Make Global Warming WorseDemand for Palm Oil Destroying Indonesian Rainforests
1/40th of the World’s Rainforests Cleared in 5 Years
LCD Chemical 17,000 Times More Harmful Than CO2
EPA Close to Declaring CO2 a Dangerous Pollutant
Great research. Carbon capture is high-risk and unproven. Conservation is the way to go.
The strategy at the following website is heavily based on conservation:
Better Than Cap-and-Trade: A Cap-and-Restructure Solution for Global Warming, Contaminants, and the Environment
Conservation also means a huge reduction in contaminants, in addition to greenhouse gases.
Tags: Conservation, Cap-and-Trade Alternatives, Toxic Contaminant Reduction, Global Warming, Environment
The North has to help the South to develop intensive agriculture to prevent the loss of forests due to the increased population. In the 1950’s during the childhood of my father in France, one farm was closing every two minutes because of their low productivity, the high growth rate of the country and the development of intensive agriculture. Result : we now have more forestry areas than in the 17th century.
Find Green Eco-Friendly Products Here
It seems like a lot of people are far more interested in developing some neat new (unproven) technology rather than using natural systems like forests that have worked for eons.
Frankly, not only do they work wonderfully, they are also great for a huge variety of reasons. I don’t see people saying “lets go walk through the carbon scrubbers” any time soon.