The Amazon Rainforest is More Important than Electric Cars

Someone should contact Neil Young and tell him to stop making albums about electric cars and start writing songs about the Amazon. While I write this in jest, the boringness of someone pulling your ear about the devastation of deforestation should still be as important as talking about topics such as the duel between San Francisco and Portland for electric car supremacy.

The facts are plain and simple. Deforestation accounts for 20%-25% of worldwide carbon emissions, whereas the global transportation sector currently accounts for the same amount if not less (15-20%). The Amazon Rainforest is one of the largest forests in the world, and arguably the most important. Nowhere else in the world is there more biodiversity among plants and animals. Did you know that approximately one in every 10 known species in the world lives in the Amazon? It also provides the world with 20% of its oxygen, and contains 20% of the world's freshwater. If that's not enough, 25% of all modern pharmaceutical drugs are derived from rainforest plants, and yet only about 1% have been studied, including those that might help fight cancer.

Since the Amazon Rainforest is so important, we must ask ourselves: "Why have we (or at least the media) become so bored of discussing the Amazon and deforestation?"

At the most basic level, perhaps it's because technological innovations that help reduce our environmental impact are more inspiring and interesting, and might make businesses money. Who doesn't like hearing about a 12 year old who has invented a new solar cell that might revolutionize the energy industry? Or about how a $26,000 Aptera electric car might end up getting 300 miles per gallon?

Deforestation, on the other hand, is depressing. We feel less powerful in our abilities to stop it. We can imagine ourselves driving electric cars in five years, or even visualize what wind turbines would look like in fields near to where we live. Getting a poor family in rural Peru to stop chopping down the Amazon as they make way for more coffee crops -- it seems like an impossible task to achieve given how many other factors are at play.

Then there's also the global climate change monster that's running buck wild and grabbing all of the headlines. No doubt deforestation is a component, but it's certainly less discussed than our polluting ways. In a great piece from Slate several weeks ago, a former biologist turned journalist summed it up:

Now, being green is all about greenhouse gases: Neighborhood moms are more apt to fret over food miles than felled forests; organic cattle farmers are more interested in offsetting the methane coming from cow burps than pondering squished tadpoles in hoof prints. Even scientists have grown bored with question of habitat loss, tweaking their grant proposals to emphasize the climate angle no matter how tenuous the connection. Saving the Amazon is so 1980s.

So why should we care just as much about the Amazon Rainforest and deforestation as electric cars at this point in time? For starters, there is currently a strong willingness among the governments of several South American countries to save their forests, and the U.S. can help them by establishing a cap and trade system that leads the way in rewarding their efforts to preserve standing forests with cash.

Take the country of Guyana as an example. While Americans undoubtedly know little about it, Guyana is one of the nine countries that contain areas of the Amazon within their borders. During the past few years, the president of the impoverished nation has offered almost the entirety of the country's forests up for protection, most recently to the United Kingdom. The simple goal is to get someone to pay for the long-term value of Guyana's standing forests in exchange for not having them used for other economic activities.

One idea as to how this would be achieved more universally would be for the world to enact an accord that would make the goal a reality. The idea has become known as REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation). It will hopefully be part of whatever agreement follows the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. Countries would be compensated for their efforts to reduce deforestation and would also receive regular money for maintaining pre-existing forested areas.

There are questions, of course, about how this money would be distributed equitably so that it really does improve quality of life for those people who might not have alternatives to tearing down forests like the Amazon for their livelihoods. We also don't know beyond generalizations how the money would be used to create jobs, or to help protect indigenous groups from losing their lands and way of life.

The good news is that approaches to international conservation that involve communities might prove more effective than the old U.S. model of slapping political, protective boundaries around land, where conservation measures have little chance of being effectively enforced. Participative approaches to conservation are becoming more common, and are now being applied and researched with rigor. In whichever case, something has to work better than the conservation systems in place now.

In addition to Guyana, Peru and Ecuador have also showed considerable interest in preserving their forests as part of international efforts to limit deforestation and decelerate climate change. Peru signed a free trade agreement with the U.S. last year, and as a pre-condition requested by the U.S., Peru needed to create a new Ministry of the Environment. So far the Environmental Minister is signaling great intentions toward deforestation: he is seeking international aid to help bring deforestation to a net rate of zero in 10 years. Japan recently loaned Peru $120 Million to help achieve this goal. The Environmental Minister also has created a plan for a 3,000 person "Environment Police" that would help stop illegal logging. The current force of 61 "is a joke," he says. Who wouldn't agree? Peru's Ministry of Agriculture planted 40 million trees in three months this year to help combat deforestation and climate change. In other words, in Peru a strong movement to save forests and the Amazon is gaining steam.

Peru's northern neighbor, Ecuador, recently became the first country in the world to grant nature legal rights via its Constitution. In a landmark move, citizens can now sue in court on behalf of nature. Ecuador's President has also asked for international aid to help keep a national park off limits from oil exploration and deforestation. Oil extraction plays such a big part in the impoverished country's income that an alternative is needed. Ecuador is open to the possibility of forest preservation being that alternative.

But the elephant in the room is most definitely Brazil. They possess 60% of the Amazon Rainforest within their borders, and despite showing some new interest have been largely absent in combating deforestation (so have most countries). Last year they proposed a new $23 billion conservation fund that would be managed by Brazilians with no strings attached from the countries who donate to the fund. A dispute with Peru also made headlines, after the first photos were released of a previously uncontacted tribe who was being displaced by illegal deforestation in the Amazon. Following these developments, Brazil made several intriguing and mysterious moves, such as doubling their military forces and plans for forts in the Amazon under the premise of protecting indigenous groups. They also introduced a plan to end net deforestation by 2015, but provided no new ideas for how to do it. The country's endangered species list tripled in size last year, and the rate of deforestation rose by an alarming 64%.

This context now brings us back to the U.S. effort to tackle deforestation as part of a larger climate change battle. There is a big opportunity coming up for Barack Obama to take a stand on deforestation and work with big players like Brazil. While without doubt Obama's push for alternative energy, biofuels, green jobs, and electric cars is exciting, there is a real danger that he will take his eyes off the larger ball. He could easily fall for the latest half-ass ploy being proposed by smarty-pants pundits like Thomas Friedman: a carbon tax. It would be a failure in my opinion to pass U.S. climate legislation that does not create a mechanism to allow for other countries that reduce their emissions and deforestation to reap profits from trading their carbon credits to American companies who go over the limit. In other words, an internal U.S. carbon tax would not address the need and desire for international system that would help deter and limit deforestation (at least to my knowledge).

Quality of life for people living in the Amazon Rainforest can most likely improve as a result of cap and trade. We must get these people onto an alternative path that is prosperous if the Amazon is to be protected from further destruction. Without cap and trade, something that could benefit every country in the world, it's challenging to imagine that happening in the near future.

To return to my original premise, I wholeheartedly believe in an electric car future. I support and participate regularly in the excitement building around it, as well as the growing enthusiasm for alternative energies like solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal power. My goal is simply to help bring optimism and excitement back to the perhaps forgotten issue of deforestation in the Amazon, especially given the opportunities and unprecedented will power that now exist in South America to stop it.

Informed citizens need to take part in influencing the political climate change legislation debates that are heading to a climax in Washington. Cap and trade is important for saving forests and reducing pollution. A carbon tax would most likely just help to reduce pollution. The better choice is obvious, no matter what the opponents say. Spread the word.

 

 

Follow Levi Novey on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Armadingo

Comments

[tnunnster]

Thanks for the informative post, Levi. IMHO, it's not a question of "either/or" but "both/and". We need to apply more attention and resources to all fronts of the climate question to help make up for the mistakes and selfishness of the past.

[Guitarsandmore]

LOOK GOOD NAKED

You could also make a strong argument that the population explosion is what causes deforestation. If there were not so many people we would not need to cut down so many trees for building houses, guitars, and other products.

You could argue that the Catholic church and the Mormon church contribute to this dilemma by encouraging large families.

That the Republican organization stands in the way of proper sex education, birth control, and the right of a woman to choose, should be another bone of contention.

When the trees are all gone the earth will be naked and empty but will you look good naked when there is nothing left for you?

[Malen]

Yes, and while you-all are debating the pros and cons - the who is right vs the who is wrong - of all this, climate change appears to be continuing apace.

The fact is that growing vegetation, especially trees, provide an extremely good carbon sink. That, added to the fact of world-wide deforestation via clear-cutting for timber without replanting, slash-and-burn for creation of open land for agriculture, etc., over the last 100 years or so, provides a strong argument for protection of the little that remains and purposeful replanting of deforested areas everywhere.

Go plant a tree or two instead of debating the issue.

[Biodiversivist]

If carbon trading worked as planned, rain forests would be bought up and put under protection. Some already have in anticipation of carbon trading. The comments about Peru are an example of why government parks and declarations are meaningless. Money talks. Let corporations pay them to protect the forests. Stop paying them if they don't. They'll protect them, trust me. Anyone else have an idea how to save what is left? I agree that this may all be a pipe dream but I don't see any argument here that convince me of that.

http://www.biodiversivist.com

[macrumpton]

You answered your own question. There is no money to be made in not exploiting a resource and the media is only interested in it if you can buy it so they can sell more ads.
Now if you made unspoiled rainforest the new hotspot for celebrity weddings and the site of the new Survivor and American Idol shows, then you might be able to slow the deforestation.

[MattSurvival]

As someone whose professional work directly involves the Peruvian Amazon, I was astonished to read Levi Novey's claim that, 'in Peru a strong movement to save forests and the Amazon is gaining stream.'

Nothing could be further from the truth. Peru's government is opening up as much of the Peruvian Amazon as possible to corporations and natural resource extraction: almost 75% of its rainforest, for example, has been allocated for oil and gas exploration.

On top of that, the government has recently passed a number of laws to further facilitate the entry of oil, mining, logging and agricultural companies to enter the Amazon.

These laws, passed under the pretext of implementing the FTA with the US, are currently the object of protests by thousands of indigenous people across the Peruvian Amazon. The rainforest is their home and they are having their rights to it trampled over and fear the laws will bring about the destruction of their homes, their livelihoods and, ultimately, their futures.

Is Mr Novey not aware of these protests? In this light, his suggestion that the FTA has been a good thing for Peru's forests because it created a Ministry of Environment seems to be a tragically ironic, and mistaken, one.

For more information - particularly on the threats posed to 'uncontacted' tribes in the Peruvian Amazon - see http://www.survival-international.org/isolatedperu

[Aaron Goldzimer]

Ditto. Someone should contact Levi Novey and tell him to stop writing blogs about the "strong movement to save forests and the Amazon" in Peru and start writing blogs about "El Perro del Hortelano".

[Levi Novey - Huffpost Blogger]

Matt, thanks for bringing this up. I'm aware of what's happening.

To quote Eleanor Roosevelt: "It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness."

As you definitely know, Peru's economy is largely dependent upon the extraction of natural resources/ Is this a good thing? No.

Should the tribes lose their lands, and have them destroyed and polluted by oil companies? Let's hope not.

For Peru to protect tribal lands and avoid environmental degradation and pollution, an alternate solution is needed. Banning all oil production, mining, and extraction of natural resources would be devastating for much of Peru's population right now without alternatives.

Can you offer alternatives? A middle ground?

Antonio Brack is doing a good job as the Environmental Minister-- if he were to come out entirely on the side of the tribes, he would be ousted from his position of power-- thus rendering an possibility of making positive changes unlikely. I think that Peru's status as one of the most stable, upcoming countries in South America gives it the unique chance to become a major player in conservation. This won't happen overnight. If the world's leading carbon producers support REDD this would also most likely help tribes in Peru and across the world.

Check out this study- a positive example of community-based conservation in Peru:

http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/era/vol5/I1547-3465-05-025.pdf

Also see: http://ecoworldly.com/2008/05/13/has-research-in-a-peruvian-national-park-revolutionized-conservation/

Thanks.

[MattSurvival]

Levi,

Thanks for your reply. Some comments:

1) I like your Eleanor Roosevelt quotation and I agree with it wholeheartedly. Yes, it's better to light a candle than curse the darkness. . . but why not let Peru's indigenous peoples light their own candle themselves? The problem is, decisions about their land, livelihoods and futures are being made without any input from them.

2) This is not about 'banning' oil production, mining, the extraction of natural resources etc. Rather, it's about recognising the rights of the people who live there - their rights as the legal owners, their rights to live how they want, their rights to be properly consulted about what happens on their land, and their rights to say 'No!' if that is what they want. That is a 'middle ground'.

3) I can only speak with reference to indigenous peoples' experience in Peru, but your claim that 'banning' the extraction of natural resources would be 'devastating' for the population is way off the mark. Actually, it's the other way around: natural resource extraction has often devastated indigenous peoples' land and cultures. I almost don't know where to start: the devastating Rubber Boom a hundred years ago, Occidental Petroleum's destruction of the Corrientes River region, the Camisea project, exploration by Shell which ultimately led to the decimation of a previously uncontacted tribe. . . I could go on.

4) At this juncture, we are very skeptical of how REDD might affect indigenous peoples in Peru. REDD's latest draft(s)

[toxicbrainpoison]

actually the united states contributes enormously to greenhouse gas emissions... more than 5 X the global average... I think if we shifted our industry and autos (yea especially autos) we would have a lot less to worry about. stop trying to blame south america... were the problem (followed by saudi arabia and australia)

[Guitarsandmore]

Cap and Trade is just another slush fund created by big corporations and politicians so they can party on your dollar while they continue to do nothing about the real problems.

The Brazilian rain forest is in Brazil and Brazil needs to pass its own laws to protect the forest.

[Biodiversivist]

Have to disagree, Kelf

REDD is custom made for carbon trading. Taxes are brutally inefficient. Carbon trading has its place. It is a way for government to give direction to free market forces rather than short circuit them. If we can't implement proper carbon trading we also can't implement proper taxation. But that's another debate. Assuming Democracy is up to the complexity of this challenge takes some optimism.

http://www.biodiversivist.com

[kelf]

Levi Novey, you need to do your homework -- REDD would fit into a carbon tax framework.

A carbon tax will be fairer and more efficient than cap-and-trade and the current version of the cap-and-trade bill is a disaster. By giving out 85% of emissions for free, funding for forest conservation has been dramatically scaled back.

Finally your article demonstrates a very limited knowledge of REDD. I'd advise either doing more research or sticking to topics you know better.

[Levi Novey - Huffpost Blogger]

Kelf, this isn't the first time someone has accused me of not doing my homework, and certainly it won't be the last. Sorry, but I don't think your tactic is going to hold up.

Could REDD fit into a carbon tax framework? Of course. Would it? Ah-- that's the real question isn't it. Whenever you call something a tax, that changes the whole beast. Personally, I don't think whatever "carbon tax" legislation that might eventually become law would support REDD. Plus, we aren't just talking about cap and trade-- we are also talking about other important environmental legislation.

Just because there is a tax on something doesn't mean that the U.S. government would use the revenues from the tax as intended. Plus, simplifying the whole purpose of what is at stake here to a "tax" would be reckless.

[RWebster]

Levi
Unfortunately the ‘received wisdom’ in this area is not always in accordance with the hard facts.
For example, where you talk about the Guyanese President having ‘offered up the entire country’s forests for protection’, what you do not note is that he only intends to do this on the basis that the mostly Asian logging companies that currently occupy much of the country’s rainforests will stay.
The provisions proposed in the emerging US legislation are about avoiding any reductions in emissions in the US. But how reliable are ‘avoided deforestation’ carbon credits? As you can see from this article - 'Forest Carbon market already shows cracks' - http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE55302M20090604?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews - the front-runner in these schemes – Papua New Guinea - is showing that vested interest, bad governance, lack of clear ownership rules over forests, lack of proper regulation, and probably outright corruption, are likely to be the defining characteristics of so-called ‘reduced emissions from deforestation’ schemes.
Seen this way, the inclusion in the Waxman Markey bill of the possibility for purchasing of almost unlimited overseas forest conservation offsets is a potentially catastrophic strategy: US polluters will be able to carry on polluting, and the supposed reductions in emissions from forestry will probably never happen. The result will be massive climate change, which will probably ensure that most rainforests will probably be destroyed anyway. The carbon traders, their cronies, and conservation organisations will no doubt be richer as a result.
RW

[mioffe]

Dear Levi Novey - Huffpost Blogger your statement "It also provides the world with 20% of its oxygen" contradict what you could read in Tim Flannery book "The Weather Makers," 2006:
1. " Forests contain much more carbon than does grass, and they also absorb more sunlight (having different albedo) and produce more water vapor, which affects cloud formation".
2. "Mature forests don"t take in much CO2 they are in balance, releasing CO2 as old vegetation rots, then absorbing it as new grows. For these reasons the world largest forests-the coniferous forests of Siberia and Canada, and the tropical rainforests are not good carbon sinks, but new vigorously forests are."
I AM COMPLETELY FOR AMAZON RAIN FOREST BUT WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT TIM FLANNERY SUGGESTION?
YOUR ANSWER ON THIS QUESTIONS COULD BRING DIFFERENT DIRECTION FOR QUESTION ABOUT REASON OF GW.

[Biodiversivist]

Thank you for this post. Nobody has ever convinced me that we can't have both carbon taxes and carbon trading. For example, a tax on gas that changes with the price of gas to keep the price to consumers constant, and also refunds that tax back to the consumer would do wonders to reduce gas use with no net cost to taxpayers.

Certainly, the only hope we have of preserving what remains of our natural cabon sinks is carbon trading. Let's use what works best, where it works best.

http://www.biodiversivist.com

[jerryd]

I'm sorry as your premise has little going for it. Cap and Trade is a scam that will takes yrs before it cuts C02 and then poorly. We need a 'Carbon Tax' now which can start reducing CO2 this yr.

Some of this tax can go to support rain forests. But better could be making rain forests pay with sustainable harvesting of nuts, animals, plants, inter-planting, and tourists ;^D, ect so locals want to protect them. This has worked in many places.

Interestingly the US is being reforested fast as abandoned farms go back to nature.

Not only EV's but local green houses, local grass fed beef or better sustainable harvesting bison, deer, Elk, moose which is in overpopulation now killing the forests for meet instead is more healthy for them and us and much lower in CO2 than grain fed beef are other ways.

But Cap and trade is not likely to work and not quickly.

Plus a CT would cut oil use keeping Iran, Russia, oil dictators and terrorists poor and creating millions of US jobs with the $500B-1T/yr we give them if we don't. The price of fossil fuels are going up so it's really a choice of who gets the money, the US gov or our enemies.

So as you can see there is much more to it that the rain forest.

[mioffe]

Levi Novey Conservation professional Posted: June 2, 2009 02:05 PM
"I support and participate regularly in the excitement building around it, as well as the growing enthusiasm for alternative energies like solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal power. My goal is simply to help bring optimism and excitement back to the perhaps forgotten issue of deforestation in the Amazon"
"It also provides the world with 20% of its oxygen"
It contradict what you could read in Tim Flannery book “The Weather Makers,” 2006:
1. “ Forests contain much more carbon than does grass, and they also absorb more sunlight (having different albedo) and produce more water vapor, which affects cloud formation”.
2. “Mature forests don’t take in much CO2 they are in balance, releasing CO2 as old vegetation rots, then absorbing it as new grows. For these reasons the world largest forests-the coniferous forests of Siberia and Canada, and the tropical rainforests are not good carbon sinks, but new vigorously forests are.”
Common sense is prompting that Tim Flannery is right and not only about trees but about all vegetation’s on the earth.
If we will follow Tim Flannery, we can say, that all one-year vegetation wills rots during one year.

All alternative sources of energy are disaster for environment.
Proffessional must be more proffesional and stop believe in tales of Al Gore about GW.