Global Forest Update

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization recently completed their latest global forest survey. In it, they conclude that while deforestation is indeed continuing around the world, it is not necessarily as bad as expected. Not surprisingly, most of the forest loss is concentrated in the tropics worldwide. The clip below is a short interview with Adam Gerrand of FAO describing the methodology and some of the major findings. Of note to Geographers, the latest assessment relies heavily on satellite surveys.



Given the prominence of the REDD program in the last couple rounds of climate talks, the ability to quickly and accurately assess forest cover (if not forest composition or density) is a valuable form of objective measurement that can be used to assess country claims regarding forest protection, degradation, and reforestation.

Cancún Abridged

Last year in Copenhagen, despite high expectations for a political solution to control international levels of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe), negotiations broke down and produced a weak general statement referred to as the Copenhagen Accord. On November 29, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reconvened for the 16th time representatives from 193 countries to try again, this time in Cancún, Mexico. In all, over 11,000 people participated in the two week conference that was part high-level diplomatic negotiation, trade show, grass-roots appeals, and media circus. Among them were five observers representing the AAG. In the end, the Cancún Agreement formalized much of what was spelled out more broadly in the Copenhagen Accord a year earlier including national pledges for GHGe reductions from the world’s most developed economies, the creation of a Green Climate Fund to aid developing nations hit hardest by changing conditions, and provisions for the world’s rich to pay poorer countries to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). The fate of the Kyoto Protocol remains unclear and has been deferred to next year’s meeting of the UNFCCC in Durban, South Africa.

Bring on Geoengineering!

The hubris of science fiction has always been that we are in charge. People have the capability to exert control over their surroundings and reorder the world into something more suited to our needs. But it also is marked by the kind of idealism and sense of possibility that we all need a little bit more of these days. I certainly know I do.

As the possibility of any real settlement coming from the climate negotiations in Cancun ebbs away, perhaps it is time to take another look at geoengineering. Geoengineering is a kind of science fiction. It is the systematic attempt to either reduce the amount of energy coming into the earth-atmosphere system or scrub the atmosphere of excess CO2. While some of the ideas associated with Geoengineering are outlandish and seem more science fiction than realistic possibilities, the idea of intentionally scrubbing the atmosphere of excess CO2 is behind some of the existing proposals being debated.

The debate over REDD

REDD, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, has emerged as a central focus of the COP negotiations. Its premise is appealing: paying people to conserve forests in less developed (especially tropical) nations. This sounds like a win-win-win: land cover change like deforestation is a major contributor to atmospheric carbon (20-30% of emissions - see Jon's recent post and mine from Copenhagen) so the REDD program would eat into that number; local peoples would be financially compensated for sustainably managing these environments; and biodiversity would be preserved to boot. But it has also drawn fierce critcism (see some of my prior posts about protests in - cancun, copenhagen)

Geographers are becoming actively involved in this effort, because REDD uses estimates of historical land cover change and modeled future scenarios developed through biogeographic fieldwork, GIS & remote sensing. It has the support of many governments (for instance, Ecuador's President Rafael Correa) and many international conservation groups, and is drawing major corporate interest.

REDD+

Perhaps one of things that is often overlooked (especially in the U.S.) is that emissions from the tailpipe and smokestack are only part of the picture. Yes, we do need to reduce our CO2 emissions from both the transportation and the energy sector, but many don't realize that land-use changes account for around 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.

Conversion of forests or peat bogs to agriculture and pasture both removes a carbon sink and releases greenhouse gases; not only CO2, but also methane which is about ten times more powerful than CO2 and has seen an increase of nearly 70 percent pre-industrial levels. All week at the side events, our glut for energy has been overshadowed by the many presentations on forestry and agriculture, which have focused on arguably the only good that came of Copenhagen last year: REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation).

Using a $4.5 billion startup, REDD+ is an effort to put a value for carbon that is stored in forests in less-developed nations. REDD+ is essentially a way to commoditize ecosystem services, and puts a value on the natural processes on which we depend. While the plan seems simple, there are many fears that it will take away forest sovereignty from indigenous peoples or even encourage deforestation by those wanting access to REDD funds. So far REDD+ efforts have been effective, but only time will tell.