The two carbons
The two carbons
Carbon trading i
nvolving forests is based on the premise that carbon is carbon, and
that the carbon released from deforestation is the same as the carbon released from burning fossil fuels. This is simply not true. The carbon released through the use of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) has not been part of the functioning of the biosphere for millions of years. Once fossil
fuels are extracted and burnt, that carbon – which until then had been safely stored underground – is released, thereby increasing the aboveground carbon stock. Once released, that carbon cannot be returned to its original storage place and the more
is extracted, the more the total amount of carbon in the biosphere is increased.
The release of carbon resulting from deforestation is a totally different matter. This carbon is part of the normal functioning of the biosphere and therefore, though deforestation increases the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – thereby contributing to the greenhouse effect – it does not result in a net increase of the aboveground carbon stock.
It is clear from the above that a REDD mechanism based on a carbon market would result in a constant net increase in the amount of carbon in the biosphere, because it would allow Northern countries to "compensate" for their fossil fuelrelated carbon emissions by paying Southern countries for "avoiding" the deforestation of an area of forest containing the same amount of carbon as the one released from fossil fuels. The result would be a fake "carbon neutrality", which would be put forward as a justification for avoiding the pressing need for cutting
fossil fuel emissions.
The alarmingly frequent news of ice quickly melting in the Arctic and from an increasing number of glaciers throughout the world support recent claims that emissions in the North need to be cut drastically (90%) in order to avoid the global temperature to rise more than 2ºC as compared to pre-industrial levels. If the temperature were to rise more than that, runaway climate change would become irreversible. As environmental writer George Monbiot clearly explains, "Even if,
through carbon offset schemes carried out in developing countries, every poor nation on the planet became carbon-free, we would still have to cut most of the carbon we produce at home. Buying and selling carbon offsets is like pushing the food around on your plate to create the impression that you have eaten it."
In the present climate change context, the conclusion is that a carbon market-based REDD must be opposed on the grounds that it will lead to an increase in fossil fuel emissions, thus aggravating climate change.
Carbon trading i
nvolving forests is based on the premise that carbon is carbon, andthat the carbon released from deforestation is the same as the carbon released from burning fossil fuels. This is simply not true. The carbon released through the use of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) has not been part of the functioning of the biosphere for millions of years. Once fossil
fuels are extracted and burnt, that carbon – which until then had been safely stored underground – is released, thereby increasing the aboveground carbon stock. Once released, that carbon cannot be returned to its original storage place and the more
is extracted, the more the total amount of carbon in the biosphere is increased.
The release of carbon resulting from deforestation is a totally different matter. This carbon is part of the normal functioning of the biosphere and therefore, though deforestation increases the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – thereby contributing to the greenhouse effect – it does not result in a net increase of the aboveground carbon stock.
It is clear from the above that a REDD mechanism based on a carbon market would result in a constant net increase in the amount of carbon in the biosphere, because it would allow Northern countries to "compensate" for their fossil fuelrelated carbon emissions by paying Southern countries for "avoiding" the deforestation of an area of forest containing the same amount of carbon as the one released from fossil fuels. The result would be a fake "carbon neutrality", which would be put forward as a justification for avoiding the pressing need for cutting
fossil fuel emissions.
The alarmingly frequent news of ice quickly melting in the Arctic and from an increasing number of glaciers throughout the world support recent claims that emissions in the North need to be cut drastically (90%) in order to avoid the global temperature to rise more than 2ºC as compared to pre-industrial levels. If the temperature were to rise more than that, runaway climate change would become irreversible. As environmental writer George Monbiot clearly explains, "Even if,
through carbon offset schemes carried out in developing countries, every poor nation on the planet became carbon-free, we would still have to cut most of the carbon we produce at home. Buying and selling carbon offsets is like pushing the food around on your plate to create the impression that you have eaten it."
In the present climate change context, the conclusion is that a carbon market-based REDD must be opposed on the grounds that it will lead to an increase in fossil fuel emissions, thus aggravating climate change.
Comments