Image: Sequoia Morning by: SuePoizet@stock.xchangUsually, when we talk about the effect of the forests on global warming and climate change, we're talking about tropical rain forests. For decades - going back at least to when I was studying 10th grade geography - we've been focused on the preservation of the rain forests. The reasons are many, but most lately it has focused on the fact that the rain forests absorb and hold huge amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. It seems, though, that we may have been underestimating the effect that forests in the temperate zones and the boreall forests have on the CO2 in the atmosphere. So what's the big deal, you're wondering?

The big deal is that the whole concept of cap-and-trade is based on the idea that the tropical forests remove far more CO2 from the atmosphere than they give off. And those forests have been decimated at alarming rates for the purpose of development - not just for cities, but for farming and foresting as well. As those forests are destroyed, they add more carbon emissions and remove a "CO2 sponge" that soaks up and stores CO2, hitting the environment with a double whammy. Thus, one of the best ways to reduce projected rates of global warming is to keep those forests intact.

There's a little problem with that approach though - an economic problem. Developing countries argue that they have a right to impove the lives of their people by increasing their GDP, and the best ways for those countries to make money is to level rain forests and use the land for industry and agriculture. What's a developed world to do in the face of that argument? There's one simple, obvious answer - pay developing countries to NOT knock down their forests. The developing countries get money and the world gets the benefits of the rain forests.

Thus the concept of "carbon credits" on which the idea of cap-and-trade is based. If we're going to pay countries not to deforest their landscape and add to the carbon mess we're already in, then we need some sort of valuation of what those forests are worth in terms of the ecology.

 

Setting up a system to give developing countries credit for tropical-forest conservation is seen by many as low-hanging fruit in the struggle against climate change. Some 90 percent of global deforestation – responsible for 20 percent of all human-caused CO2 emissions – occurs in 24 tropical nations.

Such a system would reward poor countries with a financial incentive to reduce deforestation. Developed na­­tions, facing the prospect of tighter greenhouse-gas emissions, would be eager to buy carbon credits tropical countries earned this way.

For tropical countries, the sale of carbon credits could bring in from $2.2 billion to $13.5 billion a year, based on the value of the credits on international carbon markets, according to a study published early this year in Britain’s Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.

(Surprise: Old-growth forests soak up CO2. Peter Spotts, Christian Science Monitor http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/09/24/surprise-old-growth-forests-soak-up-co2/)

Now there are studies showing that the primary forests in the temperate zone and the sub-arctic zone may contribut far more to keeping the balance of carbon than we used to think. According to new research released by both the University of Antwerp in Belgium and the U.S. Forestry Service, old-growth forests continue to soak up CO2 from the atmosphere and hold onto it longer than than they've been given credit for. Does this mean that countries like the U.S., Canada and Australia should ALSO be paid for keeping their forests intact? Or should the carbon emissions that they put out be credited against their carbon-positive forests before being subject to carbon credit payments? Is it all starting to make your head hurt?

Well, reach for your favorite headache remedy, because it gets even more complicated. In January, another report from the Forestry Service revealed that trees in those old growth forests are dying faster than they used to - and putting it down to global warming and the reduced amount of water available to them because of global warming. In other words, like so many other things, the whole thing is an ever-growing spiral. The trees help slow down climate change which contributes to the death of more trees which means that there are fewer trees to help maintain the right conditions for the trees - and the rest of us. The fewer trees there are, the more trees will die - but the best way to keep more trees from dying is to reduce global warming which is in part dependent on keeping the trees from dying and... right. Ibuprofen, please.

Of course, this is even further complicated by the fact that about 41% of us don't believe that global warming or climate change exists. There's an awful lot of money at stake here, and huge amounts of money being spent to convince us all that it's hogwash and everything is just fine, thanks, nothing to see here, just move along. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the big money behind most of the debunking of climate change is coming from the big energy companies. And those debunking efforts are ramping up higher and higher as Congress debates the merits of cap-and-trade.

I pride myself on being a skeptic, so I DO read the other side, and I try to read it with an open mind. And the more I read, the more I see that even those who disagree with the direction the world seems to be taking with regard to global climate change admit that well, yes, it IS happening. Those who have evaluated both sides and come down on the "not the right direction" believe that global warming is not caused by human activity and that nothing we do will slow it or make any difference. That being the case, they figure, we may as well just go on as we've been doing even if it -might- make things worse.

I just can't buy into that idea. I'm a "it can't hurt to try" kind of gal. I'd rather do things that "can't hurt and might help"than sit back and watch my world spiral down into a whirlpool of melted polar caps. So... here's a short list of things you can do on a personal level to help defeat deforestation:

• Adopt a tree through the National Forestry Service or through an international Adopt a Tree service.
• Turn to Fair Trade produce. One of the benefits of using Fair Trade certified agricultural produce like coffee, cocoa, bananas and nuts is that farms and plantations in Fair Trade certified organizations commit to using sustainable farming practices.
• Drink Shade-grown or Bird-Friendly coffee. Coffees that are certified as Bird-friendly or Shade-grown are grown in natural forests rather than on plantations that take the place of the rain forests.
• Reduce your own contribution to the carbon emissions in the air. That means using your car less often, running it more efficiently and watching your own energy use.

Next week, we'll open up that other can of worms and take a look at how cap and trade is supposed to work, and what alternate programs have been proposed. Till then, enjoy your week on our ever-changing Mother Earth.

Deb Powers writes about coffee and Fair Trade at CoffeeBreak.today and about feminism and politics at Not My Mother's Blog.