Reduced Emissions from Deforestation & [forest] Degradation

REDD global climate action plan sponsored by UN & World Bank.

Offsets (permits to pollute) are sold by poor countries to wealthier governments, power companies & other polluters, hedge funds, etc.

REDD results so far:

Does money grow on trees….? YES, for some

Do trees grow on money….? MAYBE

Will REDD slow global warming….? UNLIKELY

Offsets are generated by activities that prevent GHG emissions or

or that store carbon: e.g., planting trees or agreeing not to cut trees.

California’s new anti-global warming law: AB32mainly regulation; also allows ‘cap-&-trade’ & offsetting

Offsets are a small part of AB32 but a big part of the controversies. urban forests rural forests averted ozone depletion.

livestock manure management rice-field & mines methane capture (soon)

Pro: offsets are low-cost, market-based way to comply with the law; can benefitMexico, Brazil, & the poor (via payments) & nature (by conserving forests)

Should polluting industries in CA be allowed to meet part of their AB32 requirements by buying offsets (to ‘balance out’ their GHG emissions)from Acre, Brazil & Chiapas, Mexico?

Con: payments go mainly to governments & elites; indigenous people & farmersare being evicted from lands targeted for REDD; offsets don’t reduce total GHGs.

REDD herring

Thousands are working on REDD in Chiapas, but this distracts attention & resources away from greater dangers:

Agro-fuels: subsidized oil palm & jatropha + maize, soya, cane sugar

Petroleum: oil & gas

Mining: gold, silver, titanium, mercury, lead, uranium, marble, gravel

Big dams

Big wind

Water privatization

Elite ‘eco’ tourismProtected areas (nature parks)

Export crops: government ‘productive agricultural reconversion’ policy

Greater threats to rainforests, endangered species, & the land rights,

sustainable livelihoods, & survival of indigenous peoples & campesinos

than are lack of REDD payments