Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter


 ANALYSIS 
17

Let's Pay People Not to Cut Down Trees

A deal could curb greenhouse gas emissions by 18%

Share

(Newser) – Deforestation releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, so how about paying people to keep trees standing? A pilot project in Brazil has paid families to do just that, and aroused the interest of world leaders who plan to negotiate a climate deal in Copenhagen in December, the Economist reports. But analysts fear that wealthy countries, who would foot the bill, may use the plan to pass off climate-saving concerns to the developing world.

There are other problems. Nations that have already curbed deforestation, like Costa Rica, would not benefit from such a scheme. Certain investors and companies would, however, which rankles some critics. But the plan has already attracted about $800 million from countries around the world, and could cut global greenhouse gas emissions by 18%—more than eliminating all the world's vehicles in one fell swoop.

Newly-planted palm oil trees are seen growing on the site of destroyed tropical rainforest in Kuala Cenaku, Riau Province November 21, 2007 in Sumatra Island, Indonesia.
Newly-planted palm oil trees are seen growing on the site of destroyed tropical rainforest in Kuala Cenaku, Riau Province November 21, 2007 in Sumatra Island, Indonesia.   (Getty Images)
A car is seen on a road that crosses the dense Amazon rainforest near the northern city of Manaus, Brazil, Friday, Sept. 21, 2007.
A car is seen on a road that crosses the dense Amazon rainforest near the northern city of Manaus, Brazil, Friday, Sept. 21, 2007.   (AP Photo/Andre Penner)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
OFF THE GRID
11.23.09
Books Are Bad for You
11.20.09
The Health-Care Wars Have Just Begun
17 comments
VIEWING:
 
realtruth
Sep 25, 09 3:52 PM CDT
Saving any tree that will eventually die and eventually release all of its stored carbon right back into the atmosphere seem silly to me. The Rain Forest is an ecosystem of it own.. Thousands of years of past Rotting Trees and vegetation on the forest floor are releasing as much methane and carbon dioxide as the trees themselves is capable of consuming. Sure we need to quit burning and wasting the forest. But the only REAL way you can reduce the Total Carbon footprint of the forest, is to harvest the trees while healthy, and prevent them from decaying and decomposing. You cold deep bury them and one day the carbon might become trapped in the form of coal for a future generation to use. Or you could do something sensibly like use them in human benefit like maintained structures such as houses and buildings that would dramatically slow their decay... Just Not Cutting a Tree is a fools plan. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-2
IN RESPONSE:
Wills
Sep 25, 09 5:37 PM CDT
You're wrong about the science, and they're concerned about more than carbon fixation anyway. Trees don't just suck in carbon and store it in their trunks their whole lives, they take in carbon dioxide and put out oxygen. Our respiration is similar, but in reverse. I'm sorry to be patronizing, but this is pretty basic stuff (see: http://kidscientist.com/20/how-do-trees-and-plants-help-us/). Even more to the point, you mention the rainforest ecosystem then ignore what happens to it when trees are removed. Since most tropical soils are sandy and nutrient poor, that majority of the energy and nutrients of the environment are locked up in the trees and plants. That's ok, because it all gets recycled through decomposition when the plants die. But when you remove the plants, you take the nutrients out of that cycle. Generally, that leads to erosion and other ecological problems (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#Environmental_problems for more). By contrast, paying people not to do things that help them but harm the overall health of the planet is one of the only sensible solutions to the problem. Economists call it incentivizing socially beneficial activities, or mitigating a negative externality. I applaud your effort at critical thinking, but to quote the internet, you're doing it wrong.
Vote up! Vote down!
+6
IN RESPONSE:
freethemall
Sep 25, 09 6:35 PM CDT
Food for thought, realtruth. This might make sense if only those trees about ready to fall and die were harvested. But that isn't what happens with clear-cutting. Is it?
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
yoeydude
Sep 25, 09 9:16 PM CDT
why does this sound incorrect ? can you cite a paper or an article ? ,........ wait I just reread , your joking ,... ha ha ok
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
RobN
Sep 25, 09 4:07 PM CDT
I love the attitude towards Brazil. First we spent the 1980's begging them not to cut down the rainforest, then we spent the last five years commending them for growing so much corn in those cleared areas that they aren't as dependant on oil as we are, and now we're back around to paying them not to cut down the rainforest. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2

View all 17 comments »

LEAVE A
COMMENT Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.

 

Related Newser Stories

73 Stories

 Globe on Course for 'Worst-Case' Temp Hike

6 degree rise predicted if Copenhagen deal fails

Nov 18, 09 4:08 AM CST
(Newser) - The worst-case scenario for climate change is getting closer to becoming reality, a group of climate scientists warned yesterday. World temperatures are on course to rise an average of 6 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, according to the Global Carbon Project researchers. Experts believe a temperature rise... More »

MORE ABOUT:
climate change • global warming • carbon emissions • Copenhagen climate change conference

 Biofuel Laws Make No Sense: Scientists 

Kyoto Protocols actually encourage harming the environment

Oct 23, 09 10:18 AM CDT
(Newser) - Biofuel laws around the world actually encourage harming the environment, prominent scientists argue in the latest issue of Science. Under the Kyoto Treaty, in laws throughout Europe, and in the bill that passed the US House, biofuels count as carbon-neutral, on the theory that the plants the fuel is... More »

MORE ABOUT:
climate change • environment • trees • biofuel • Kyoto Protocol • deforestation • carbon emissions

West Eases Off Carbon Demands for China, India

Copenhagen deal closer, but 2050 goal less likely

Oct 20, 09 10:51 AM CDT
(Newser) - Industrialized nations backed away from long-term carbon cut demands on developing nations yesterday, in the hopes of reaching a deal at December's Copenhagen summit. The US and EU have pushed for a 50% reduction in global carbon emissions by 2050, but China and India refused to sign up, wary of... More »

MORE ABOUT:
China • climate change • India • global warming • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change • developing countries • carbon emissions • Copenhagen climate change conference

73 Stories


Science & Health  •  World 
TwitterFollow @NewserScience on Twitter

 
global warming • deforestation • forests • Amazon rainforest • carbon emissions

from our news partners

CinemaBlend.com