Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Making Carbon Trading a Fair Trade

By Kelpie Wilson, TruthOut.org. Posted December 29, 2006.


When industrialized countries use monoculture tree plantations in the developing world to offset carbon pollution they are doing more harm than good. Fortunately, there is a more sustainable alternative.
Advertisement

A recent issue of New Scientist magazine carried an article with this disturbing headline: "Africa Barred From Carbon Trading." Advocates for African farmers were claiming that European Union policies on carbon credits amounted to a carbon trade embargo on Africa.

Louis Verchon of the World Agroforestry Centre said that if the EU would implement a new scheme to credit farmers who capture carbon on their land, "millions of dollars in carbon credits could begin flowing to the world's rural poor."

The World Agroforestry Centre, in conjunction with researchers from Michigan State University, has developed a method using satellite imagery and infrared sensing that measures carbon storage in African farmland. The Centre has completed a pilot program in western Kenya and is ready to encourage poor farmers to plant trees as soon as it can qualify for carbon credits under the Kyoto protocol.

But Europe's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is not willing to recognize the new method of verifying carbon storage in farmland, questioning whether the program will result in additional carbon storage and whether the storage will be permanent. The ETS is the largest multi-country, multi-sector greenhouse gas emission trading scheme in the world.

The issue of carbon storage, or carbon "sinks" as they are known, is very controversial in the world of Kyoto agreement implementation. Non-governmental organizations that advocate for forests and indigenous people have worked hard to exclude the use of forestry credits to offset fossil fuel burning, and with good reason.

To date, most forestry offsets have been for big monoculture plantations of fast-growing eucalyptus or pine trees, some of them genetically modified. Though timber companies and professional foresters say otherwise, such plantations are likely to act as net carbon emitters over their lifetimes and also cause additional environmental and social problems.

Monoculture tree plantations are often established on land recently cleared of primary forest. Larry Lohman of the World Rainforest Movement reports that in the 1980s, 75 percent of new tree plantations in the tropics were planted in places that ten years earlier had been natural forests. A plantation will never be able to store as much carbon as the original biologically diverse forest.

Monoculture tree plantations are ecologically unstable. Plantations are more vulnerable to disease and wildfire, which can release carbon instantly back into the atmosphere. When they are harvested, the wood may go into long-lasting wood products, or it may be chipped and pulped into shorter-lived products like paper. Or it may go into a landfill and be released as a devastating methane burp decades later. Disturbing the soil for planting and harvesting reduces its capacity to store carbon, and tree plantations are thirsty, drinking up scarce water resources.

When tree plantations are established on land that indigenous people have rights to, the damage is compounded. Larry Lohman writes: "Like the enclosure movement of early modern Europe, through which common lands were taken away from the rural poor and broken up, privatized and traded into the hands of the better-off, the movement for carbon 'offset' plantations is in essence a movement to extend and normalize inequality."

The rural poor pay twice, once by suffering the effects of climate change caused by affluent countries, and again by having their land taken to offset the guilt of affluent people.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: environment, africa, global warming, carbon trading, reforestation

Kelpie Wilson is the environment editor of TruthOut.org.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
sense
Posted by: rsaxto on Dec 29, 2006 1:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to do the proenvironmental things that make sense by storing carbon instead of the antienvironmental things that make money by burning carbon. Cutting down forests is exactly the wrong thing to do and should be stopped asap.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Trading carbon "credits" at all is the biggest scam
Posted by: CounterCorp on Dec 29, 2006 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What allowing Africans to sell carbon "credits" to Western corporations does is simply allow more carbon to be emitted than would otherwise occur if we simply capped (read: regulated) carbon-emitting activities in the first place.

By this scheme, Africans who weren't going to emit additional carbon into the atmosphere sell their theoretical capacity to doi so (which they don't actually have) to Western corporations who already have too much capacity for producing carbon emissions — thereby enabling the release of more carbon than if we simply limited what the corporations were allowed to emit in the first place.

It's like allowing corporations to buy credits that let them cause more cancer deaths, from people who weren't producing any (or as many) cancer deaths to begin with — how is that better than simply reducing the number of deaths from cancer?

If we can cap carbon in order to set up the carbon credits trading scheme in the first place, why can't we simply cap carbon without the trading scheme, which merely serve to allow the release of more carbon than would if we simply capped a corporation's (or a nation's, etc) carbon emissions to begin with.

And if trading credits is such an effective means of curbing carbon emissions, why don't we trade credits to curtail all sorts of things we'd like to reduce? Why is it only carbon that requires this special so-called "market mechanism" to be reduced?

Why not, as one cartoonist has suggested, get rid of laws regulating abortion and simply cap the number of abortions and let women who don't need abortions make money from by selling their abortion credits to those who do? Sober people could sell their DWI credits to people who drink and drive, etc.

In fact, the whole carbon credits trading scheme is just an unenforceable ruse and delaying tactic predicated on the notion that we have to pay certain powerful people (corporate executives) to follow the law, or otherwise they'll just ignore it.

But if they're prepared to ignore a cap limiting excessive carbon emissions without a credit trading scheme, why would do we believe they will follow a law that says they can only emit a fixed amount of carbon based on the number of credits they have?

In other words, why will they suddenly become law-abiding when they have to pay to pollute, when they could just emit excess carbon and not pay for the credits?

If the answer is, "Because doing so would be against the law", why don't we just pay laws to outlaw carbon emissions above a certain level — why do we need the credits and trading scheme?

In fact, the carbon credits trading scheme is really just a way for corporations to continue to pollute far in excess of what scientists say is sustainable, by essentially emitting excess carbon "on behalf" (or instead) of people who were never going to do it themselves.

And it's yet another way for greedy capital speculators to profit from environmental destruction, and the human misery that climate change already causes, so that while some peopleare starving and dying and generally paying the real price for the excess carbon emissions these credits will permit, the middlemen who trade the credits will actually get rich from it. Misery = money.

And even if we assume that this bogus "misery market" will work as advertised and be scrupulously enforced (which it neither will nor can be), since the cap is already set too high — in terms of allowing an level of carbon emissions that scientists have already shown is having devestating effects on climate, environment, and people, how does allowing corporations to emit carbon up to the capped level improve things?

They get to make money by killing the planet — and us — a little more slowly ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Change your oil? Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Change your oil? Posted by: ng1944
» RE: Change your oil? Posted by: MatthewSavage
LOVE THIS EARTH
Posted by: greentime on Dec 29, 2006 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IF
WE
WILL
NOT
ACT
TO
HONESTLY
AND
PEACEFULLY
SAVE
THIS
PLANET
THEN
WE
WILL
NOT
SURVIVE.

I cannot say this often enough.
We cannot act quickly enough.
Starting right now may already be too late but starting now is all we have.
We must evolve and get off this wrong path towards the destruction of this precious planet which sustains all life.

Does anyone really think an idea as limited as trading carbon rights is a way forward? What does, ok, it's YOUR turn to pollute accomplish? Or rather, it's our turn again to pollute YOUR country now. How sick!

We should be placing wind turbines and solar panels where we can. Now. We should be consuming less. Now. Instead, we run around in a consumers daze buying one more thing... one more thing... one more thing.

We run a fools errand while the planet dies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An Inconvenient Truth
Posted by: sphoenix on Dec 29, 2006 6:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you haven't seen this yet it has been released on DVD and you can now rent it. DO IT...see where we're at and where we're headed. There is little doubt in my mind that it's already too late to do much of anything to reverse the direction the earth is headed.
Corporatocracy has guaranteed that nothing will change in the developed and developing countries in time to prevent the oncoming problems. Money is more important than life!
The best thing we can do is make changes in our personal lives to reduce our footprint on the planet.
Unfortunately, with the likelihood that we'll have a world population over 9 billion within the next 30-40 years, this is going to get a LOT worse before it gets any better...and there will probably be a lot fewer people there to witness it when, and if, things improve.

Happy frickin' New Year!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: An Inconvenient Truth Posted by: willymack
If you really want to save the trees and trade off some good carbon, here's a better solution.
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 29, 2006 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Fight to have alternative renewables such as solar, wind, water, biofuels, etc ... subsidized by government by forcing them to divert money that goes into over-subsidizing fossil fuels into alternative renewables.

2. Completely legalize and deregulate HEMP and allow it to penetrate the market. HEMP easily replaces petroleum, coal, and even nuclear all the way. The only reason it was banned was POLITICS. Even in countries where it is legal, it is suffering the same fate due to allowing the UNpatriotic petrollies to stifle competition.

Yes, conservation is cool but so far, there's no incentive or reward for doing so. Telling us to shut up and sacrifice ourselves is the same thing the rightwing lunatics could tell us. This country is already putting up with one evil nanny as our "government" and we don't need another one already !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

By the way, it's a complete shame that the author did not tell us
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 29, 2006 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
just how we're going to keep those fossil fuels in the ground other than "conservation" which does nothing to stop BIG OIL/COAL/NUCLEAR from continuing to exploit what's left to keep their profits coming? For once, I'm willing to go libertarian and say, let solar, wind, biofuels, etc ... penetrate the market and ultimately force the fossil fuel giants into the ground and out of business for DESTROYING mother earth !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's about the environment!
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Dec 29, 2006 8:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"On the island of Borneo, in Southeast Asia, the indigenous Penan tribe continues to blockade logging roads into a critically important rainforest, their ancestral forest. " -

equivalent to a bull dozer coming into your yard and clearing it along with your home.. it's not just in Borneo - you see it all over..developers, and other corporate interest can't stand to see a tree standing -to them it beggs to be cut down..imagine the strip malls etc that can be built!

While we have many problems with war, poverty etc.. This fight , that doesn't even make back pages of any major paper, is the important one.. Unfortunately, $$ powers will win, eventually and the Penan tribe will be left with a few plants "donated" by logging companies just to show the "care".

Now, I better get out for my morning nature photo shoot before that tree is gone!

http://www.ran.org/ --- This will be my first contribution in 2007.. Kelpie Wilson, great article

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CARBON TRADING
Posted by: pfm on Dec 29, 2006 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can there be "fair" trading in "carbon" emmission when from the outset the playing field is totally skewed in favor of multinational "corporate" interest who helped design and create the matrix in the first place. It's nothing more than another version of the old shell game and we still fall for it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alert: Ancient Ice Shelf breaks Free!
Posted by: aonghus36 on Dec 29, 2006 10:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know it might not be relevant to the story, but I felt the need
to report this. An ancient ice shelf has broken free in the Canadian Arctic. "Breakaway may 'signal the onset of accelerated change,' researchers say" Read all about it;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16390346/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More money for Wall Street
Posted by: ng1944 on Dec 29, 2006 11:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wall Street is probably salivating in expectation for
another envirofutures trading tool

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's great to save what little forest remains but...
Posted by: AdamG on Dec 29, 2006 12:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
carbon credit trading scheme is a scam. What it sets up is a system where already industrialised shitholed areas can continue on with business as usual while telling other people they shouldn't develop economically. It makes for "sacrifice" areas as long as there are a few intact areas. Why do we have to settle for that? Why can't all areas be working toward ecological balance?

This won't do much to stop ecological destruction or climate change. Through deforestation and nonregenerative land management, you can cause localised desertification that can affect areas outside of the originally deforested locality. For the Earth in general, it would be better if instead of having some areas by majorly impactd (industrialised) and some areas fairly ecologically intact (forested or native grassland) we spread out our impact. Any given locality has a certain level of forgiveness where it can accomodate human activities. There is a breaking point though where it can be impacted to the point of it degenerating. In a certain sense, once a locality is "broken" that same degenration can start spreading to surrounding areas. It's almost like a cancer that will start spreading.

This same system of carbon credit trading is also just another way to keep the power centralised. It doesn't force anybody to clean up their act as long as there is someone else out there who will trade them as many "ecological karma tokens" as they need. In these areas where the credits are coming from, do you really think the money will "trickle down" to the little guy? It will just go into the pocketbook of some despot. It all comes down to accountablity. Once systems or institutions become so big as to where you cannot wrap your mind around the scale of operations and your hands around the necks of those who administer them, neither can be held accountable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Carbon Trading is DELUSIONAL
Posted by: wdzeller on Jan 1, 2007 3:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These ideas of carbon trading are most certainly interesting, and by that I mean they are interesting in that they are DELUSIONAL.

How so, dare I say?

I can utter one word which makes this notion of carbon trading completely pointless, and that word is CHINA.

Right now most of the energy used in China is derived from BITUMINOUS COAL. As a matter of fact, it not only is used to generate electrical power and industrial energy, but is used by at least 64% of the population of China to heat individual homes and apartment houses.

This means that over 700,000,000 Chinese citizens use raw lump coal as the primary fuel for boilers to derive the heat necessary to heat residential structures via hot water heating systems that typically use cast iron radiators to provide the heat. In comparison, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, less than 150,000 people in the entire United States heat their homes and buildings using this method.

China is not going to stop using her coal resources anytime soon, and in fact is expanding the mining of this fuel.

Can someone tell me how any sort of carbon trading is going to "help" when all must recognize these sobering numbers?
Only politicians can dream up these notions, and everyone knows that politicians NEVER make the right decisions.

Of course, in reality these notions of carbon trading amount to no less than a redistribution of wealth from those who have poorer connections than those big businesses, having paid their donations to the politicans who are going to rob us blind just so their big business friends can get rich, and of course the politicans are going to get their "cut" in the form of taxes.

Oh, I'd like to hear people ask Al Gore about how much money he and his firm are going to make if these silly ass proposals ever become law. I understand it's quite a luscious amount!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Extremists on both sides
Posted by: ng1944 on Jan 2, 2007 9:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We just got rid of extremists on the right,
here they are, extremists on the left.
The small guy will pay for all this carbon trading
and Wall street already counting envirofutures profits.
Absolute idiocy. Surely they want another Bush
in 2008 and republicans back in charge of both
houses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]