UN Says Trees Matter… Really?

With all of the billions of dollars being invested in clean technology, carbon reduction and smart grids, it’s amazing that forests have been largely overlooked as a source of carbon capture and storage. As a new report by the United Nations Environment Program points out: “forests…have been doing the job in a tried and tested way for millennia.” Unfortunately, when forests are cleared via slash and burn, that carbon is unlocked. The UN estimates that 20% of global emissions come from releasing carbon stored in forests, tundra and other ecosystems.

The UNEP report comes at a pretty significant time. There has been a lot of ongoing debate leading up the next round of climate talks in Copenhagen about the role of forests and land use in reducing carbon levels. Establishing baselines, proving that money directly creates a carbon benefit (aka additionality), insuring that they don’t burn and modeling ecosystems is pretty complex, and has made forest preservation an outsider when it comes to cap and trade and carbon finance.

I have written about REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) before, and the idea that forests have a carbon value that can be quantified and monetized. An acre of tropical forest can store 100 tons or more of carbon, and UNEP estimates that we are losing at least 20 million acres a year. They also point out that a number of other natural systems, from peatlands to savanna are under similar pressure. The greenhouse gas math is scary. Population growth and the need for income is driving a lot of the destruction, and providing an economic solution, for example by paying indigenous groups to care for forests and set them aside, rather than farm them, is an elegant way to ‘unlock the value’ of the forest land without unlocking the carbon. ClimatePath has been working with several groups that are using the voluntary carbon markets to do just that.

I have to say, it is a sign of how far decoupled and out of balance our global economy has become that the idea of protecting forests and other natural ecosystems as a way of fighting climate change is open for discussion. While the true ‘cost of carbon’ is open for debate, can you picture a world without forests? Aside from the carbon, deforestation is often irreversible, and deadly for the plants and animals that call specific forests home. For these reasons alone, let’s err on the side of saving them.

Read more: global warming, trees, united nations

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Janine H.

3:58AM PDT on Aug 1, 2011

Trees and other plants are very important. A world without them and without animals is it that what we want? Hopefully not. In my case, i love trees, plants and animals.
Other animals and plants have to go only because "we" humans do not want to share the world with other life forms, these life forms "we" would not eat (vegetarian food is not a bad idea, or eating with conscience as the so called primitive cultures did and still do, if they still exist. No meat/fish every day). "We" destroy everything around us and "we" forget, that everything is important to survive, too.

As little child i thought that rain is when God and the angels cry - because "we" humans have forgotten that we need this "intelligence", someone who could help... if "we" hadn't turned away for many centuries ago...

"Only when the last tree has been cut down; Only when the last river has been poisoned; Only when the last fish has been caught; Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten." (Native American proverb)

"We have learned to fly the air like birds and swim the sea like fish, but we have not yet learned the simple art of living together as brothers." (Martin Luther King)

send a green star

Jamie L.

7:56PM PDT on Jun 24, 2009

Thanks Dave!

Dale P.

7:29PM PDT on Jun 18, 2009

Obviously what's going on escapes everyone. 1) Clear cut forest and jungles. Result, slower removal of CO2. 2) Recognise that a problem of rising CO2 levels exist. Result, various governing bodies wanting to spend money to "study" the problem and come up with a solution (that will require much more money to be spent). 3) Wait around while implementing solutions, that should, might, could (read won't) work. 4) Eventually admit failure. Result, repeat steps 2, 3, and finally 4... What's needed isn't new solutions for old problems, what's needed is legislation that requires reversal of these greedy, stupid, and selfish acts of environmental destruction (the sooner the better).

Barbara S.

11:30AM PDT on Jun 18, 2009

I have always loved tree's and try to protect them when I can, usually to no avail. Here is a poem that I love. "Woodman, spare that tree Touch not a single bough! In youth it sheltered me And I'll protect it now. By G.P. Morris, "The Oak". I woonder what we human's will breathe when all the life giving tree's are no longer here to make oxygen .

James A.

10:43AM PDT on Jun 18, 2009

For quite a while a number of corrupt so called scientists in the pay of the oil companies were saying that trees actually released just as much co2 as they took in and all the climate denialists went nuts with it as usual. Chirping like the bunch of trained parrots that they are. Of course they neglected the tendency for plants to rot in the soil for years at a time and for some of that carbon to become locked into the soil as well.

Even regular timber operations take away trees that will remove carbon, not just clear cuts and slash and burn. Not only do they take away trees but they use chainsaws that are inefficient small engines and then they transport the wood multiple times as it is cut up and marketed.

Jessica M.

5:23PM PDT on Jun 17, 2009

Trees are important. They ensure that we have a constant supply of oxygen.

Gillian V.

11:36AM PDT on Jun 17, 2009

If humans would only stop in their tracks and give the earth a chance the earth would heal itself. We need to take stock of everything we can do to stop progressive destruction of the habitats that still remain and attempt to put opur energy into restoring what we can, if we all do this, take time off to utilise renewable resources and quit unnecessary pollution, we may have a chance of regaining some of what we are loosing. Please try and get the message to everyone that will take the time to listen.

della r.

5:00AM PDT on Jun 17, 2009

We need to work together to solve this problem. While we are all so hooked up on personal gain this does not seem likely. The 'what's in it for me' brigade still rule as they have the money, influence and power. It won't do them much good though when the world starts to fall apart around all our ears. Unless they jet off to a new planet of course!

greenplanet e.

6:47PM PDT on Jun 16, 2009

Yes, I agree, overpopulation is putting too much stress on the earth (as well as not sharing resources fairly). I think one of the keys is education.

Hans d.

4:12PM PDT on Jun 16, 2009

It all comes down to god's commandment: Go forth and multiply. Wrong commandment. false god.