Every source of emissions has a cost, and every means of keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere has a value – which is where forests come in. Unseen and unheralded, strenuous efforts have been made behind the scenes to ensure that a deal on forests is delivered at the upcoming next major meeting of the UNFCCC in Cancún, Mexico.*
It was widely reported at Copenhagen that an agreement on forests was near to completion when the overall talks collapsed. In the jargon of the international circuit – as impenetrable to outsiders as a tropical forest – the POP (Paris-Oslo process) is working hard to inform the COP (Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC) to ensure that, on forests at least, a deal is done in 2010.
Even without the overarching threat of climate change, humankind would still need forests for storing and purifying fresh waste, generating rainfall, preventing erosion, maintaining biodiversity, supporting Indigenous cultures and providing daily sustenance for millions of the world’s poorest people. If you add carbon capture and storage to the list, it is obvious why conserving forests is the essential, most cost-effective and immediately available ‘first step’ in our survival as a species.
Building on momentum created by the Rainforests Project of HRH the Prince of Wales, a core group of 13 developed and 16 developing countries are now working together to build consensus on detailed mechanisms for curbing deforestation so that heads of state will be in a position to sign an agreement in Cancún. These mechanisms are now widely known as REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, plus allowances for conservation and protected areas).
These interim meetings have been held to overcome the underlying difficulty of achieving consensus amongst 190 nations with widely divergent interests. The participating nations hope to create a voluntary partnership to deliver a series of ‘no regret’ actions that will enable fast-start financing of US$4.5 billion to be disbursed ahead of a definitive, legally binding international framework that is still the target for Cancún.
The real excitement is in the ‘+’, since this is the first time in the UNFCCC process that value is being suggested for natural capital in the form of the ecosystem services of the standing forest. But these tortuous negotiations must also be seen in the context of where we are as a species at the end of 2010, the United Nations’ InternationalYear of Biodiversity.
After almost 4 billion years of life on Earth, and some 160,000 years of human life, we are facing an evolutionary dead end and the first mass extinction induced by the actions of an individual species – humans.Although Noah famously rescued the animal kingdom “two by two”, if the animals had the vote they would now vote us off the planet. With up to a third of all species threatened by extinction by the middle of this century, we have become not only a danger to ourselves, but also a threat to Creation as we know it. We have lost our way, and we need to find a new way forward. The more knowledge we accumulate, the less wisdom we seem to have. Our problems are global and require global solutions, but most political institutions remain focused on the nation-state. “Think globally, act locally” is a well-intentioned phrase, but we need to think globally and act globally on those issues that transcend national boundaries. Collectively, we need to change course in a way that departs from the historical narrative because, for the first time, we need to learn to live within limits.
Seen in this context, the financial turbulence we have experienced since the crash of 2008 is a wakeup call to do things differently and return to sanity before it is too late. In 2008, stock markets around the world fell 30-50%, with investors losing a staggering US$32,000,000,000,000 (yes, that’s 32 thousand billion dollars) in the greatest crash since 1929. As governments around the world scrambled to rescue banks and launch financial stimulus packages, the problem passed from the private sector to the state, with implications that are still being played out in Greece, the UK and even the US.
The model that delivers short-term gains for the few but passes losses to the taxpaying public when things go wrong has been exposed as financially, environmentally and morally unsustainable. The world is crying out for change. Not tinkering on the margins, but fundamental change.As Einstein said, “we shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive”. Wars and recessions come and go, but once the forests and the ice caps have gone there is no means of bringing them back. Life will go on, but human life might not.
The more knowledge we accumulate, the less wisdom we seem to have
The costs of action today are relatively small, but the costs of inaction are incalculable. In the Cold War the West spent up to 10% of GNP to protect itself against the threat of Soviet aggression – but what price are we prepared to pay in order to combat climate change and leave behind an inheritance worth having?
It has been estimated that the impact on the average American family of the cap-and-trade mechanisms now before Congress is in the order of US$80 per annum. Hardly a king’s ransom, yet it appears a price too high to pay. With feelings running high, Congress is split along partisan lines, with allegations of ‘anti-Americanism’ being directed at those wanting the US to join the rest of the world in the search for a more sustainable future. We can put people on the moon and see the vastness of space through the Hubble telescope, we can unravel the mysteries of DNA and even create artificial life in a test tube; but can we look after our own planet? This is the ultimate question of our time.
Because our concept of wealth is based not on the services that we receive from the natural world, but on the goods we can extract from it, Nature is assumed to be both worthless and limitless. That is why, at this
Issue 263
11
