World Bank Proposes Carbon Trading to Save Rainforests

The World Bank says rapidly diminishing tropical forests could be saved if farmers and loggers were paid not to cut the trees. It proposes to extend the current international system of carbon trading for this purpose because it says the trees are worth much more to the world standing.

Rainforests are thought to hold more than half of the world's plant and animal species and store an immense amount of the planet's carbon. But the World Bank says these woodlands are disappearing at a rate of five percent per decade at the hands of farmers, loggers, and others seeking to use the land and its lush growth for profit - or mere survival. That is an area the size of Portugal lost every year.

A new World Bank report says burning and rotting wood after deforestation releases one-fifth of Earth's annual emissions of carbon dioxide, twice the amount from all motor vehicles.

"So It's a major contributor to global warming, a major threat to global biodiversity, and there are a host of local environmental damages - health threatening smog, stream polluting sediment, and the like," says Kenneth Chomitz, who wrote the World Bank report, a series of recommendations to slow deforestation. "There is now a chance on the policy horizon to mobilize new incentives to conserve forests, to keep forests standing."

The World Bank's main recommendation is to use the world's carbon market to reduce rain forest loss. At present, the market operates to reduce carbon emissions from industry and other sources. Nations and companies that emit more carbon than a predetermined limit buy credits from projects that reduce emissions.

The International Emissions Trading Association says the global carbon market has grown very rapidly and is worth $22 billion, twice its 2005 value.

But the concept is not yet used to preserve forests, as World Bank chief economist Francois Bourguignon points out.

"Today, it is possible to obtain carbon funds for forestation," he said. "Now, the paradox is that when you cut the forests, you are not penalized for doing that and you are not getting any money when you keep the trees standing."

The World Bank proposes to change that to benefit the 800 million people who depend on tropical forests for their livelihood. Kenneth Chomitz says it makes no sense for a farmer to cut a hectare of rainforest to create a pasture worth $300 when the cleared trees release $7,500 worth of carbon based on an approximate current market value of $1,500 a ton.

If tropical forest preservation were included in the carbon trading scheme, the farmer could receive the $7,500 from polluters and earn 25 times the agricultural value of the pasture.

"Wouldn't it be great if we could get the farmer and the industrialist or utility owner sitting at the same table, figuring out how they can split the difference and make themselves both better off," said Chomitz.

But Chomitz says a carbon financing system could set off a disruptive race for property rights, a race that would favor the wealthy. So his report recommends that developing nations assign ownership and land use rights equitably in a manner that can be monitored publicly.

At the Ford Foundation, a U.S. philanthropy, environment and development official David Kaimowitz praises the World Bank report, but says it ignores some strategies that would improve the livelihoods of forest dwellers.

These include the need for governments to make rainforest safer by reasserting their domain and clearing them of bandits and drug dealers. Kaimowitz also says the bank should devote more attention to helping those who depend on or near forests develop small businesses.

"One of the three main pillars of the 2004 World Bank forestry strategy is precisely to harness forest resources to reduce rural poverty," he said."But if we look at the bank's current portfolio, the reality is there is a surprisingly few number of projects that are, in fact, focused on using forest resources to reduce rural poverty."

But Kaimowitz calls the World Bank's carbon trading scheme and other forest-saving proposals useful and says he hopes they actually guide its strategies.

Source:
VOA News Service
Author: David McAlary
First published: October 30, 2006

Treeflights Website Offers Plan to Plant Trees to Help Reduce Global Warming

A new international website is offering environmentally conscious airplane passengers a chance to plant a tree to offset the carbon dioxide damage from flying.

Fuel burned during an airplane's flight produces carbon dioxide (CO2), which scientists say contributes to global warming. Trees absorb carbon dioxide using the sun's energy.

The website, www.treeflights.com, whose slogan is "You fly - we plant," will plant one tree in a forest in Wales for each flight taken for a fee of about $19.

Treeflights founder, Ru Hartwell, says it is a simple idea that gives something back to the planet.

"Flying is a little bit hard on the planet, but planting a tree is an ecologically positive thing to kind of make amends for some of the damage that you are causing," said Hartwell.

Hartwell says because trees take a long time to mature, planting a tree does not make your flight carbon-neutral or immediately cancel out the CO2 emitted from your flight.

"We are very, very keen to stress when you plant a tree, it is not something you do for yourself. It is a long-term thing," he continued. "It is definitely not a quick fix. As humans, we are so used to thinking about this week or about next week or maybe next year. Really, to get on top of this problem, we have got to be thinking about 50 or 100 years into the future and that is what tree planting is all about. It is something you do for future generations."

Passengers can select from a variety of tree species such as birch, oak, poplar, and willow. Although Treeflights is based in Wales where Hartwell lives, he says people from around the world request to have trees planted.

"The thing to understand is that we all share the same atmosphere so it does not really matter where you are flying or where the tree is planted," noted Hartwell. "The destructive effect of the flight is the same, irrespective of where you are flying and the beneficial effect of the tree planting is the same irrespective of where the tree is planted."

Treeflights gives passengers the option of adopting a tree. Hartwell says people can visit one of the three planting sites in Wales where their tree, identified with a serial number, is planted.

Treeflights customer, Francesca Attala, says while planting a tree does not entirely negate the effects of air travel, it is better than doing nothing.

"With my work, I travel a lot. I actually use planes and trains and automobiles quite a lot and I think it is a small way of giving something back," said Attala. "I know that it is not going to make a difference tomorrow, but it will make a difference for the future generations. It is a very slow, very patient way of giving something back to the planet, but I still think it is worth it."

The United States Bureau of Transportation Statistics reports U.S. airlines carried 746 million passengers on 11 million flights in 2005 and the number of passengers is only expected to increase.

Hartwell eventually hopes to forge partnerships with the airline industry to encourage more passengers to make theirs a treeflight.

Source:
VOA News Service
Authors: Barbara Schoetzau & Amanda Cassandra
First published: September 25, 2006

Global Warming Could Decrease Crop Yields

If there is any good to come from global warming, it is the notion that plants would thrive on the rising emissions of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the leading greenhouse gas that helps trap heat. Carbon dioxide is as vital to plant breathing as oxygen is to us. Biologists say that for most vegetation, the more carbon dioxide there is in the air, the more they grow.

At the same time, they point out that extra CO-2 also hurts plants. They say plant growth is slowed by higher temperatures and lower soil moisture caused by faster evaporation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's leading authority on global warming, has concluded that these two trends balance each other, so global warming was not expected to hurt agriculture overall.

U.S. government and university experiments carried out in greenhouses have supported this view.

"What they do is put one kind of plant in two different greenhouses that are right next to each other and then they put higher CO-2 levels in one of the greenhouses and have regular atmospheric level of CO-2 in the other greenhouse," said Myron Ebell from the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, a pro-business group that opposes government efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

He says more carbon dioxide is good for farming.

"The results of these studies going back half a century or more are stunning because almost every single study show not only do all kinds of plants grow more quickly with higher levels of CO-2, but they are also much hardier," he said. "They are more resistant to things like drought."

But a new study shows differently when crops are grown outdoors. University of Illinois agriculture expert Stephen Long and colleagues report in the journal "Science" that the benefits of raised CO-2 levels in global warming do not balance the harmful effects.

"The two things were very roughly thought to counteract each other," he said. "However, the CO-2 fertilization until recently has been studied only in greenhouses and other enclosed environments. If you raise the CO-2 level under fully open conditions, do you see this large fertilization of crop yield? Roughly what we found was that under open air conditions, that increase appears only to be half of what was expected."

The experiments were carried out using five different crops around the world. All showed considerable growth reductions outdoors. Long says that in the tropics, carbon dioxide increases may not help the growth of crops like corn and sorghum at all.

The findings suggest that without changes in the way crops are planted, future yields will drop with increasing carbon dioxide levels.

"We also simulated that rise in our experiment," he said. "That reduces the yield of soybean by about 20 percent, which is a very large yield decrease, and this has not been taken account in future projections on food supply."

But Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute maintains that higher carbon dioxide concentrations benefit agriculture.

"There is a lot of satellite evidence that the Earth is in a period of rapid greening right now and that is probably due to higher CO-2 levels," he said.

Researchers on both sides of the debate agree that more studies are needed to understand the effects of climate change and greenhouse gases on crops.

Source:
VOA News Service
Author: Frank Ling
First published: June 30, 2006