12 ms·
Scientists say halting deforestation 'just as urgent' as reducing emissions
- mc32 8y agoDeforestation is a great issue in developing economies. It's something which must be addressed. What's not mentioned is that human population growth is the main driver of this pressure. Given our abilities to manage disease and such, more efforts should go into educating women in developing allowing them to become more independent and have more control over their reproduction. When people move from agrarian societies to urban, they don't need more than replacement numbers --but in many developing economies the effort to stall growth is overshadowed by other less effective efforts. China would not be where it is without the great effort (though hamfistedly implemented) it put into controlling growth --it was only necessary to dampen growth while the country caught up economically and now natural forces are effectively resulting in pop stability (unlike India, for example).
- PinkMilkshake 8y ago> China would not be where it is without the great effort (though hamfistedly implemented) it put into controlling growth I would not advocate this authoritarian approach (I'm not saying you are). Part of the solution is what you said earlier, education. But population stabilizes on it's own as a country goes through the Demographic Transition. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition Or for something more light-hearted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348
- im3w1l 8y agoThe demographic transition is just a theory. UN have already had to adjust population projection upwards as the curves have not followed the theory as close as predicted.
- SCHiM 8y agoDo you have a reference to this?
- barry-cotter 8y agohttps://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2013/08/demographic-transition-stalled-sub-saharan-africa/ https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2013/08/demographic-transiti... > fertility decline in Africa has generally proceeded more slowly than in other parts of the world, with several cases of “stalls” and even small fertility increases over time https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/22036/AfrDemographicTransitionOVERVIEW.pdf https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/2... > While this study looks at lessons from East Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa currently exhibits two unique demographic characteristics. First, it is the only region in the world that is still at a very early stage of the demographic transition. As such, it can learn from other regions that have gone through the same journey to ensure that demographic change paves the way to deeper and more sustainable prosperity. As this book points out, this path is neither easy nor automatic. Success requires actions in differ- ent policy realms that are time-coordinated, adapted to the current level of the demographic transition, and results-driven. The second unique characteristic of the region’s demographic picture is its heterogeneity. While a small number of countries are far along the transition, with fertility rates that are below replacement levels, many others are exhibit- ing surprising delays in the transition in the last 10 years. Some countries are showing very little movement along the natural transition and are stuck at very high fertility rates. These large differences argue for differentiated policies that target different sectors and processes. They also argue for country to country learning and knowledge sharing.
- ElBarto 8y agoWhat China did was their only option. We need to realise that sometimes the "authoritarian approach" is the only option available. There is no other way to put the brakes on steep population growth especially as this is usually linked to culture and education. But education may work 20 years down the line, which is too late for such an issue. The demographic transition is also besides the point as the issue is to stabilise population at a lower level that it would have done 'naturally'.
- adrianN 8y agoThe question is whether the population will naturally level out before or after the last old growth rain forests are gone. We need to empower women in those countries and enable people to make a living in other ways than selling timber and slash-and-burn agriculture. Breeding and selling rare butterflies[1] is one option that I've heard of, but obviously that doesn't scale. I don't find it unreasonable to just pay people for not cutting down rain forests. First world countries have a responsibility here. After all we cut down all our old growth forests and now demand that developing countries don't do the same. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kenya-butterflies/kenyans-sell-butterflies-to-save-rainforest-idUSL0378588120070803 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kenya-butterflies/kenyans...
- Jedi72 8y agoPeople always throw these concepts around as though 'First world countries' is 4 or 5 individual people. I didn't cut down any forest, neither did my family. Perhaps my family trade was training birds in those forests, so I was personally very disadvantaged by cutting them down. So should I have to pay other countries not to cut theirs down now? My point is, these high-level thoughts are theoretically sound but can never be applied to the real world.
- adrianN 8y agoIf you value intact ecosystems and diversity you should definitely pay for them. You can't just tell poor countries not to exploit the resources that they have and hope they comply. Especially when your country's wealth is build on clear cutting, strip mining, and pollution. Even if you think that the past has nothing to do with you, the simple argument that you have money and like Orangutans and they have nothing but a forest should be enough.
- barry-cotter 8y agoChina’s population isn’t stable. Every single Han majority state has below replacement fertility, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong King, Macau and China proper. The post WW2 history of Taiwan strongly suggests that the one child policy was unnecessary. It was brutal, evil and unnecessary.
- ElBarto 8y agoChina's population doubled in 50 years. It is estimated that the One Child policy prevented 400+ million extra increase. It's not possible to draw equivalence between Taiwan and the mainland. The mainland's population exploded after WWII. It has more than doubled since 1950. Using words like 'evil' is emotional, not rational.
- tremon 8y agoGiven the issues we can attribute (at least in part) to overpopulation, why would an at-or-above replacement rate be intrinsically more stable?
- screye 8y agoBeing below replacement rate completely destroys the way our taxation and welfare systems are built. Both rely on having more people contributing taxes than there are leeching off of them. In the 1 child policy, 1 working person is suddenly responsible for the welfare of 2 retirees. Welfare systems would collapse, unless it was rethought from ground up.
- buckminster 8y agoThe work has been done. The total number of children being born each year is already falling. The world population will stabilise. We have serious problems but this isn't one of them.
- wawhal 8y agoSure. The greater problem is how do we achieve that. With a growing population, deforestation has become necessary to meet agricultural and accommodation needs of humans. As sad as it sounds, people need food and shelter. The problem boils down to controlling population and also handling population. If people want to keep buying new houses, there is more demand for deforestation. The agricultural demand for deforestation increases with the amount of food wastage we observe these days. Such incremental improvements in lifestyle could help us save forests.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- 2_listerine_pls 8y agovertical agriculture
- eaenki 8y agoWhat about preventing new births and drone controlling every pristine forest with multiple task-forces ready to jet there when the bad boys try to touch it ? While vertical agriculture might in some measure work - it’s ugly AF
- CalRobert 8y ago"with a growing population of cows..." Might be more accurate really. We could feed ten billion occasional meatand dairy eaters much more easily than five billion Americans.
- ciconia 8y ago> With a growing population, deforestation has become necessary to meet agricultural and accommodation needs of humans. As sad as it sounds, people need food and shelter. One of the main reasons deforestation is happening is because arable that was once fertile has become less and less productive, due to modern agricultural techniques (plowing, monoculture, fungicides, pesticides, synthetic fertilizers) and extreme weather causing erosion. It's really a vicious cycle - the more humanity (ab)uses Earth's resources, the poorer the yield, the more extreme the weather, leading to growing resource use. By some estimates, a third of arable land has already been lost in the last 40 years [1]. But deforestation is not necessary to increasing food production. On the contrary, as the article explains, it is a major stumbling block to bringing C02 emissions under control, and stopping the vicious cycle of The answer to food production is more responsible agricultural practices, that cultivate soil quality and mixed cultures in order to increase yields. At the same time, humanity can definitely cut back on its food waste [2]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/arable-land-soil-food-security-shortage https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/arable-l... [2] https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste_en https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/food_waste_en
- perilunar 8y ago"By protecting and restoring forests, the world would achieve 18% of the emissions mitigation needed by 2030 to avoid runaway climate change" So no, it could NOT "really be as simple as saving trees".
- dang 8y agoWe changed the url from https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/10/science-says-saving-the-planet-could-really-be-as-simple-as-saving-trees/ https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/10/science-says... to its original source. Bonus: a non-baity title.
- danielecook 8y agoWhatever happened with the idea of using drones to plant 1 billion trees? I was in Iceland earlier this year - a country largely devoid of trees. There aren’t any because the Vikings chopped them all down. Despite the cold - however - they do grow there albeit much slower then elsewhere. In any case, it seems to me we could be seeding a lot of barren locations so they’ll become forests within 20 years.
- iNerdier 8y agoSheep. They’ve tried and sheep tend to eat all the saplings. Unlike in other places the sheep are not penned in, they’re free to roam which means any area you want to try and re-forest in a fairly hostile environment to begin with has to be expensively fenced off until they get to a fairly good size.
- gregknicholson 8y agoIn a capitalist economy, why would anyone maintain a forest? Unless you get enough direct personal benefit, or someone else is paying you enough, you wouldn't. This isn't a failure of capitalism; this is capitalism.
- CalRobert 8y agoBecause not maintaining it is too expensive after you pay for the externalities. Which you must, of course, in any reasonable regime.
- kornakiewicz 8y agoNot in Q4.
- CalRobert 8y agoThus the "reasonable" bit.
- icebraining 8y agoIn a capitalist economy, why would anyone maintain a forest? Because you own the forest and want it to keep producing income? That said, a non-capitalist model would probably work better, since implementing the full capitalist solution (by allowing people to sue polluters, who harm them and their property) is politically infeasible.
- adrianN 8y agoPristine rainforest produces very little income compared to cleared land that can be used for agriculture.
- icebraining 8y agoSorry, I edited the post later.
- 8y ago
- CalRobert 8y agoMeanwhile even a country normally viewed as responsible is cutting down ancient forest to get to the coal beneath. Bit of a double whammy. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/09/berlin-startup-offers-1m-to-save-ancient-hambach-forest-from-coal-mining https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/09/berlin-startup...
- sampo 8y agoGeorge Monbiot opines that Germany has never been particularly responsible: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/19/world-leading-eco-vandal-angela-merkel-german-environmental https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/19/world-...
- vectorEQ 8y agothey have been responsible for a lot of things tbh ;D you didnt have history lesson?
- TomMarius 8y agoI agree, it's an image they purposefully built for themselves since the Prussians, but I don't think it's the reality.
- ItsMe000001 8y agoMy government (Germany) just "lost" (their feeling, esp. voiced by minister of the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital infrastructure (BMVI) who is from the most conservative coalition partner and sees tougher standards as a problem) on the EU level when they voted for tougher CO2 limits for cars. German governments have always valued the car industry (or any other for that matter) higher. On the other hand, I'm from East Germany, and the area was a huge dump. very dirty rivers, ash mountains, it was really bad. A few decades later: Mostly paid for by West Germany (due to their still being far less industrial power in the Eat) rivers are actually wonderful. The river through Nuremberg, where I live now, (still?) is dirty and stinks (probably runoff from agriculture) - but the two rivers in East Germany where I used to grow up now have wonderful clean water. The ash mountains were removed, which took thousands of trucks and a few years, there now is new industry in that spot. It is much, MUCH cleaner than before. Similar efforts took place in West Germany in areas where there had been lots of dirty industry and mining. As a student I got to be on an educational tour and was shown a lot of projects, they had achieved incredible improvements in formerly devastated areas. Also, courts and cities are starting to try to fight pollution by cars, e.g. by placing bans and restrictions on Diesel powered cars, at this point often against the federal government which fears loss of jobs (the great thread from the car industry whenever they are asked to build cleaner cars). So, good as well as bad in Germany. I think we are way too dependent on the car industry. It's not just the known manufacturers themselves, the amount of directly dependent industry is even bigger. One in seven jobs and ~14% of GDP is in or depends on the car industry (https://www.thelocal.de/20150924/what-the-vw-scandal-means-for-germanys-economy https://www.thelocal.de/20150924/what-the-vw-scandal-means-f...).
- gaius 8y agoIf you want to take direct action join the Woodland Trust https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/membership/ https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/membership/ We are actually out there planting trees like it’s going out of fashion
- lucidguppy 8y agoNumber one cause for amazon deforestation is cattle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest#Causes_of_deforestation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_ra... All the more reason to go vegan.
- krageon 8y agoOr don't keep cattle in the rainforest. Not every problem with cattle has to be solved by making an impractical and enormous swing in your life.
- tao_oat 8y agoCattle are kept in the rainforest, yes, but the forest cut down for grazing is far outweighed for the forest cut down to groy soy to feed the cattle.
- mikestew 8y agoOr don't keep cattle in the rainforest. Should the opportunity to do so ever arise, I’ll make a note not to do that. In the meantime, as I am not a cattle farmer, I’ll continue to not eat meat.
- mattbessey 8y agoAbsolutism is unnecessary, two people eating half as much beef is just as impactful as one of two people going vegan. I don't think eating less meat is impractical, certainly not specifically just eating less beef, by far the most environmentally impactful one.
- agumonkey 8y agoOr just eat chicken
- agumonkey 8y agoTalking about that, how can a small group plant trees (with seeds) ? Is it subtle and complex ? or is it possible to do on a hike ?
- adrianN 8y agoJust plant a couple of trees every day: https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/short-film-showcase/india-man-plants-forest-bigger-than-central-park-to-save-his-island https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/short-film-showca...
- nickik 8y agoIronically in the first world we have reforestation and the wild reclaiming more and more land. While in the third world more and more forest are cut.
- nakedrobot2 8y agoWhy can't a few billionaires of the world buy up a large % of the rainforests? Seriously. Besides the fact that they would rather let their wealth sit in a hedge fund, I mean.
- growlist 8y agoWas that a deliberate pun? :)
- Nasrudith 8y agoBecause that would only get them paper. Trees are poached even when offically off limit and enforcement carries its own problems - especially with the optics involved. Even if they started on the rental foreign aid model they would rapidly wind up in trouble via Morton's forks. Government engaged in travesties (even worse if done in defense of the tree subsidies) or becomes a dictatorship - do you stop the cash flow? Not to mention the money infamously usually fails to be distributed equitably driving the desperately poor to make more short term decisions.
- screye 8y agoI sometimes wonder about the right of a country to use rapid deforestation / dirty energy as a way to development. 100-200 years ago, every modern developed economy did the same and cemented their positions as dominant economies. There is no question that these countries have been the majority contributors to climate change over the last 2 centuries. Morally speaking, are underdeveloped countries not entitled to the same. Why should they use more expensive and cleaner fuel as payment for a problem that's not their fault ? I see the fault in my own argument, which is that we are all on this together and massive collective action is the only recourse we have. But, the perceived injustice faced by underveloped countries is probably not misplaced. The onus is certainly on the west to take an initiative.
- toast0 8y agoThe onus is definitely on the existing developed nations to persuade developing nations not to deforest. That likely means paying to protect the forests, and also to encourage the kind of economic development that would have happened with deforestation as well. All of the timber logistics and processing industry, as well as the agriculture that would develop in the cleared lands is compelling. Certainly maintaining pristine forests employs some people and could promote tourism (depending on access issues), but that doesn't really compare. But developing countries also crave independence and self-sufficiency, so it must be done with a light touch.
- fallingfrog 8y agoI wish that we didn't keep getting headlines containing phrases like "scientists say this" "according to scientists" and so on. I mean, how much does it hurt to be specific? Sometimes it just turns out to be a single grad student or something like that. The article doesn't even say who they are but even "A group of 40 scientists signed a statement saying.." would be an improvement.