Why isn't ending Deforestation our Climate Change priority?

Question

Deforestation is the primary contributor to rising CO2 levels. There's a great deal of science to support this & it isn't disputed. Even the IPCC knows it. The ONLY way we're going to reduce the rise in CO2 is to STOP deforestation NOW. So why don't we do it? Is it because governments, UN/EU & business won't earn big bucks & power from doing so?

PLEASE at least read the Independent Newspaper article below - it's the best piece on the subject I've read so far & is very well written. There's also a link to the IPCC's Special Report on this subject - it's very long, but if you have time & the will to read it it's very illuminating (& scary). The IPCC report states that at present rates our terrestrial CO2 sink will rapidly decline over the next 20 years & will be gone within 50 years - this means no more CO2 will be absorbed by the Earth. Plus that even with reforestation it takes 99 years for the land to function properly again as a CO2 sink... (cont)...

(cont)... Our CO2 crisis has been caused by INCREASING DEFORESTATION since the early 1900s. It not only removes trees that absorb CO2, but exposes vegetation that releases CO2, then we put cattle on the cleared land that pump out methane, plus the whole meat industry then also contributes tonnes of CO2. This process is increasing as global population grows. We're also discovering the impact deforestation has on unbalancing weather, which causes hurricanes & heats the ocean - there is already a lot of good science to support this. So why aren't we STOPPING DEFORESTATION right NOW? We've totally fu*ked up the global ecosystem & now it's killing us. If we don't act NOW we're DEAD!

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2539349.ece
(The Independent 14 May 2007) 'Deforestation: The hidden cause of global warming' (quote) 'In the next 24 hours, deforestation will release as much CO2 into the atmosphere as 8 million people flying from London to New York. Stopping the loggers is the fastest & cheapest solution to climate change. So why are global leaders turning a blind eye to this crisis?' (By Daniel Howden)

IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change And Forestry (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/land_use/index.htm

Answer 1

This is one of the things the Europeans have got right, even if they haven't been able to make it a workable program. The rate of deforestation is unbelieveable. Borneo, Sumatra, Malaysia. People who look at only the quantitative contribution of the fires miss the point. Trees grow by removing Carbon from the atmosphere. Burning them puts it back, but it also halts the removal process permanently. We only have a breathable atmosphere and a habitable temperature range because of the plant life we're exterminating so effectively. I guess some people figure both were left by Santa Claus.

I like the system the Europeans came up with. They've identified the trees that are most effective in removing CO2 from the air. They provide various types of financial credits to industries that plant those trees. I don't agree with allowing heavy polluters to plant trees to offset what they're doing.

The obvious problems are (1) you can't plant enough trees to make up for the CO2 output of some polluters (2) with limited land area available due to population growth you quickly run out of space. (2) introducing a non-native species has shown itself to be a mistake almost 100% of the time, especially if it's done without regard to the existing ecosystem.

I think it's very important to consider the role of the oceans in global warming. They also play a big role in removing CO2 from the air, and it was the marine plants that modified the atmosphere enough so that life on land became possible. We move closer and closer to the day when we wake up some morning and find that all the marine ecosystem has died suddenly. If you've ever had a salt water tank, you know what I'm talking about. Those ecosystems don't die the same kind of slow death that life on land is dying right now. The whole system just collapses when a key threshold is surpassed for a key species.

Answer 2

Because deforestation is NOT the primary contributor to rising CO2 levels. The primary cause is adding burning coal and oil. We have NOT reduced the ability of Earth to remove CO2 from the air. Forests are NOT the main way that CO2 gets removed from the air, life in the ocean is. We have simply increased the amount of CO2 entering the air by burning so much coal and oil.

Our terrestrial CO2 sink will NOT rapidly decline over the next 20 years & will NOT be gone within 50 years. That is just wrong wrong wrong! Do not spread such false information!

And deforestation is NOT caused by the lumber and paper industry. It is caused by slash and burn agrigulture. Lumber and paper companies are tree farming, by planting new trees to to replace the ones they cut. They have been doing that for over 100 years. There is more forest land in the U.S. now than there was 100 years ago, although much of that is second and 3rd growth and not old growth forest.

Answer 3

I know what you mean and you are quite right to say that. I also agree with the other folks who've answered you. Many people still think that the economy is more fragile then the environment, when in reality the economy depends on sustaining an environment that can support it. So eventually these big economy people have to realize that deforestation will do a great deal of damage to big business, out of the huge amount of damage done to the environment.

For my part, I'm supporting getting more trees in the ground, and stopping ripping them up.

Answer 4

I'm thinking this question must be some kind of trap, since the asker usually espouses anti-warming propaganda.

But I do have a couple comments to make:
1) I entirely agree that ending deforestation, and encouraging reforestation, are positive steps in the Global Warming crisis.
2) Deforestation can't be the primary contributor, because the isotopic ratios show that the excess CO2 comes from fossil fuels. In other words, the nuclear tracers in the excess CO2 that is causing the problem show it to be from humans burning fossil fuel.

Answer 5

Ending deforestation is important--in that you are right. And environmental groups are pusing for measures to do that. Trying to slow--and eventually stop deforestation is a #1 priority in Brazil--and should be elsewhere. And not just because of the effect on CO2--there are a number of other eccologiclal problems caused by deforestation

But--while deforestation is a part of the cause of rising levels of CO2, you are not correct in saying it is the primary cause. That is the CO2 emissions that result from the burning of massive amounts of fossil fuels worldwide. That's taking center stage at this time--and should.

But dont stop pusing on the deforestation issue--it is also vitally important, and must not be neglected.

Answer 6

You are absolutely correct! But, the reason that the powers that be do not focus on this, is because the paper and logging industries are only concerned about their profits, and they would lose money if they were forced to stop cutting down trees. It is all about Greed and Money, as always! People like Gore, who is a globalist by the way...like to divert our attention from the real issues, while sounding all noble...like they really care about the environment! All the while they are just trying to find ways to use the environmental issues to line their own pockets, without making any of the sacrifices themselves! *sm*

Answer 7

Deforestation, while important and not to be ignored, is not the major issue. The major pollutant on this planet is resultant from the burning of coal and oil.
The most prolific polluters on our planet are China and India, in that order.

Answer 8

Deforestation is estimated to be about 18% of world pollution.

We always point to deforestation as a South American area problem. Why is it OK to expand our population, eliminate forests all over to be replaced with more and bigger polluting houses, roads, and cars, but bash the South American for cutting timber to give us what we demand?

WE cause the problem, then blame Industry and the Governments. Seems very selfish and arrogant to me. It is like blaming the fast food industry for making me fat.

Answer 9

It's more profitable for countries to clear cut their land then get grants from the UN to replant the forest.

It's the law of unintended consequences.

Answer 10

Wrong, We need to reduce the earth's population by 30-40%.

We can achieve this in one generation. Think about it.

Think..... then speak.