21 ms·

Liberia signs 'transformational' deal to stem deforestation

190 points by fillskills 12y ago

neol 12y ago
besides the 150 M, Norway has to spend a lot more on regulation.
neol 12y ago
besides the 150M, Norway has to spend a lot more on regulation.
tribaal 12y ago
Well, they will help them build capacity to protect forests, and prevent new logging licenses to be granted, as well as place more forests in a "protected" status. It's not like they just ask to stop and give them cash, like the headline suggests.
lunarcave 12y ago
For context, this is about 0.00021% of the entire norwegian reserve [1]. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/24/us-norway-oilwealth-idUSBRE92N07M20130324 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/24/us-norway-oilwealt...
- Expez 12y ago
  None of that money is used to pay for this. Well, indirectly it might be, as some of the profits from invested oil money are made available to the government to spend each year.
- ezhux 12y ago
  for context: Russia has 12 times more proven oil reserves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil...). Now imagine russians in this situation.
  - kozlovsky 12y ago
    Well, Russia just wrote off $32 billions of Cuba debt[1]. I'm not telling that this is the same thing, but still... [1]: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-11/russia-writes-off-90-of-cuba-debt-as-putin-meets-castros.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-11/russia-writes-off-9...
    - ezhux 12y ago
      that's really unusual for Russians. Cuba has plenty of peninsulas waiting be annexed... :)
      - toomuchtodo 12y ago
        It was supposed to be a snub at the US, as we recently renewed trade sanctions against Cuba.
- bulltale 12y ago
  The fraction is 0.00021. The percentage is 0.021%. Still small though.
icebraining 12y ago
A related story: back in 2012, Equador had asked countries to pay $3.6 billion for them not to drill under the rainforest: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ecuador-asks-world-to-pay-to-keep-yasuni-oil-underground/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ecuador-asks-world... It wasn't successful: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/23/ecuador-amazon-yasuni-national-park-oil-drill http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/23/ecuador-a...
- threeseed 12y ago
  Australia is proposing something similar: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/julie-bishop-rejects-un-request-to-strengthen-australian-climate-targets-20140919-10j5kk.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/julie-... It never ceases to amaze me that political parties who fundamentally believe in the importance of "the market" don't trust it for reducing emissions. Hypocrisy at it's worst.
  - Retric 12y ago
    Cap and trade's first step is to hand out billions of dollars worth of emissions credits to major polluters which they can then resell. After that it's similar to a strait tax if more costly and less efficient, but you can see the appeal.
    - Alex3917 12y ago
      Cap and trade is more efficient than a tax, that's the whole point of it -- allowing the market to find the least costly way of reducing total emissions below the cap, as opposed to forcing everyone to reduce emissions by the same percentage regardless of the cost. As for handing out billions of dollars of emissions credits to current polluters that they can then sell, this is completely false. The way the initial allocation works under most proposals is to give current polluters credits to cover part of their current emissions upfront. Then if they reduce their emissions beyond their allocated emissions they can sell the excess credits. This is what makes cap and trade so efficient, there are huge profits to be made by companies that can create technologies to reduce emissions the most efficiently. Then over time the total cap decreases, and the amount of credits allocated to existing polluters also decreases, so that all companies will have to buy whatever credits they need at a yearly auction or whatever.
Expez 12y ago
What an incredible bargain!
nakedrobot2 12y ago
I love the idealism of this but: 1) the price is far too low to have any effect, I am guessing. 2) won't this money go straight into someone's pocket? 3) how on earth do they expect this to be enforced?
- Skinney 12y ago
  We do this in several other countries already. We only actually pay the money if they meet certain goals. Currently we have 4 billion NOK (632 million dollars) still standing in a bank account, because the countries we intended to pay the money to hasn't met the goals we set as a pre-condition. Then again we paid 3 billion NOK (474 million dollars) last year, so it does work to some extent.
  - k3oni 12y ago
    This is an interesting approach of which i never heard before. Is there somewhere where i can see a list of the other countries? Edit: Found it on the gov. site . The one related to this article also includes Peru: http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/smk/press-center/Press-releases/2014/Norway-launches-climate-and-forest-partnerships-with-Peru-and-Liberia.html?regj_oss=1&id=767632 http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/smk/press-center/Press-rele...
- rmc 12y ago
  2) won't this money go straight into someone's pocket? 3) how on earth do they expect this to be enforced? Sometimes #3 can be solved by #2. "Hey corrupt minster/police chief/army general, want more of that bribe? Get your corrupt police officers/soliders to stop those people cutting down trees! Since you don't have to obey the law that much, beat up those peasants who are chopping down trees"
  - vidarh 12y ago
    When it comes to bribes / "lobbying", apparently our government prefers to go after US politicians (by paying Washington think thanks to produce "research" on various subjects of importance to Norway). Thankfully most of the stuff they lobby for is actually an improvement on typical US government policy (then again I'd be biased - I'm Norwegian).
guard-of-terra 12y ago
The problem here is: cutting down trees creates jobs; receiving 150m doesn't. You still have to distribute them somehow and make these people figure out what to do.
- imaginenore 12y ago
  Let's be realistic. This is Liberia. This money will not be distributed to the workers.
  - EStudley 12y ago
    I don't think he means the money, I believe he meant distribute the workers. More likely than not a majority of the people cutting trees down in Liberia are going to continue cutting trees whether the government wants them to or not.
- aikah 12y ago
  > You still have to distribute them somehow and make these people figure out what to do. And I doubt any low level worker will get real money,given the insane level of corruption there. And for god sake,why would Norway care? this constant meddling into african politics by the west is upsetting.It's not help,it's arrogance.
  - blaabjerg 12y ago
    They aren't just arrogantly trying to help an African nation, they have an interest in trying to preserve the rainforest and its biodiversity. It's quid pro quo.
- tribaal 12y ago
  You didn't read the article. The headline is sensationalist, what they are doing it paying for the government not to issue more logging licenses (easy to verify) and putting forests on "protected" status (as well as other concrete, targeted projects). It's not like they are handing out cash to the government against a promise.
- 12y ago
cpursley 12y ago
I really really like this idea as long as the money does not go to bureaucrats. If governments and people were serious about pooling money and purchasing land for conservation (ala Ted Turner) and/or supporting conversation efforts, the planet might have a fighting chance.
- innguest 12y ago
  So you're saying we might have a fighting chance against environmental depredation if instead of using government bullying, we used the private sector to buy those lands, so long as we could guarantee the money wouldn't go to bureaucrats? You might want to look into libertarianism, as it has been saying that for a long time now, and it has very good arguments as to why it works better than the alternatives.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    The 'buy up the land' thing can work without changing our form of government. Go ahead and buy the land! Set up a campaign/foundation to do so (many already exist).
    - innguest 12y ago
      The pope once said evolution can still be a fact without changing the belief system of the catholic church. You can try and adapt your thinking that way, but it is never as smooth as a principled theory. In other words, the buy-up-land thing cannot work without changing our form of government, as you'd have to at least do away with the concept of eminent domain.
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        Nonsense! Its happening already, like in the Nature Conservancy.
      - nfoz 12y ago
        > The pope once said evolution can still be a fact without changing the belief system of the catholic church. Off-topic, but was this a good example of a "non-smooth unprincipled adaptation"? I was taught evolution by Catholics and it never seemed incongruous, but I'm not versed in the history.
joshdance 12y ago
Enforcement will be an issue. But I like the idea. Hopefully it does not lead to unintended consequences.
- nyrina 12y ago
  How is enforcement going to be a large issue? Doesn't every forest have a forester (Not sure if that is what it's called, but we have people who "takes care" of forests in Denmark). If a forester sees people cutting down trees with large machinery, he would just call the police? I doubt anyone cares if Mr. Random goes into the wood with his axe, chops down a tree he can carry and runs off with it.
  - blaabjerg 12y ago
    It's not necessarily as simple as calling the police in Liberia. Corruption levels there are significantly higher than they are in Denmark. What if the logger pays the policeman to do nothing about it? Enforcement is definitely going to be a challenge, but hopefully they have a good plan in place.
    - vidarh 12y ago
      Aerial photography + incentives paid based on evidence that the forest remains, coupled with dedicating part of the funding to paying locals to help look after it creates a strong incentive shared by many groups to ensure it works.
sauere 12y ago
Prediction: money will be paid, cutting down trees will continue
- jonknee 12y ago
  Norway already got their "Look guys, we tried" credit as they continue to pump carbon out of the ground and as such all parties will be happy.
- azernik 12y ago
  If trees keep getting cut down, the payments will stop. FTA: The country agrees to place 30% or more of its forest estate under protected area status by 2020. It will also pilot direct payments to communities for protecting the forest. Ultimately the Norwegians will pay for results, with independent verification that trees remain standing.
ljd 12y ago
It's interesting that it's seen as aid. If countries like Norway feel that standing trees provide a service to them, they should pay to keep them up. It's not charity, the trees are providing a marketable good by processing CO2 emissions. While I'm not an environmentalist, I do believe in markets as a way of solving larger problems and I think it would be interesting if a market was built on resource preservation. For instance, if a type of tree processes more CO2, they should be worth more than one that does not and that can be expressed in whatever this marketplace would be. If I had more connections at a government level, I might be interested in such an idea but as it stands now the sales cycles would be too long to get a market like that going.
- DennisP 12y ago
  Because it's a public goods problem. If one country pays, all countries benefit equally, and the country that pays generally spends more than its benefit from that payment. So each country is better off not paying, regardless of what everybody else does, even though we'd all be a lot better off if everybody paid.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Aqueous 12y ago
  The problem, of course, is not in the fact that clearing Carbon CO2 emissions from the air. It's the fact that it might be worth more - in dollars - to cut those trees down and sell them. Perhaps not in this case, but certainly in other cases where countries have tried to sell protecting their own territory environmentally and balanced that against the worth of the resources on the market. Thus the dollar worth of clearing CO2 emissions doesn't clearly align with the self-interest of doing so over buying trees to make paper and other goods. (The self-interest, of course, is in not dying in the future from some climate change related disaster. That's why worldwide governmental intervention is needed to make sure the dollar value of keeping those trees up aligns with actual self-interest.
sbhere 12y ago
The original title was more succinct, even if it was identical to the article's title. And yes, it won't be successful.
toasted 12y ago
Pretty negative response in this thread to one of the only countries really making serious efforts to preserve the last few remaining tracts of rainforest on earth.
GreenGiant 12y ago
"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today"... I applaud the effort, but like most - I am not too hopeful of the results.
soegaard 12y ago
"Stem deforestation"? But deforestation is a good thing? Oh boy - been in the CS business too long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_(computer_science) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_(computer_science...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
WildUtah 12y ago
No rainforest in going to be preserved in a nation that continues on a path of exponential growth of population like Liberia. The nature of exponential growth is that it always looks sustainable until the catastrophe hits and everything collapses and there's nothing that can be done to save anything and probably mass starvation. The fertility rate is 5.16 in Liberia which corresponds to doubling the population about once every 25 years. Then if fertility ever drops back to steady state (2.1), you double the population at least twice more because of population momentum. The hopeful factor in Liberia is that the fertility rate is dropping. IT was 5.85 in 2000. If it doesn't drop fast, no payment for forests will help. If it does drop fast, the locals will enjoy their environment and work to preserve it. Right now Liberia has about the population and land area of Virginia, which means it's already overpopulated. Around mid-century it will have at least quadruple the population. Then -- if fertility drops very fast down to replacement level -- it will quadruple again. That will be sixteen times the density of Virginia. And that is the best case scenario.
- berberous 12y ago
  > Then if fertility ever drops back to steady state (2.1), you double the population at least twice more because of population momentum. What? Can you explain this? Sorry if it's obvious, but I can't seem to grasp what you mean by population momentum.
  - tim333 12y ago
    Say the population has been growing fast so most people are aged 0-20, and then the fertility rate drops to 2.1. Over the next 25 years you still have a lot of kids born while those people grow up, while there will not be many deaths because there will not be many old people to die off.
  - WildUtah 12y ago
    Suppose the population has been growing at a rapid clip, like in Liberia. Then you will have a situation where the grandparent generation will have less population than the parents and the parents will be fewer than the children, e.g.: 2 80 year olds 6 60 year olds 15 40 year olds 40 20 year olds 100 babies -------- 163 people One woman 80 year old had six babies with her husband. The three women in the next generation bore 15 babies. With a fertility rate around five, you will have a population pyramid where the babies outnumber the 80 year olds by about 50 to 1. Then if fertility suddenly drops down to replacement level, the babies will eventually grow up to be 80 year olds in a country where the size of each generation is equal, e.g.: 100 80 year olds 100 60 year olds 100 40 year olds 100 20 year olds 100 babies ----- 500 people So there's one more quadrupling (approximately) built in to the system even after the birth rate gets under control. Since the birth rate might not get under control until the resources run out in famine, war, or epidemic, we may be looking at a situation where high fertility countries are destined to have not only more people than they can support, but four times as many as they can support and chronic disasters for humanity. The only relief is thinking ahead and family planning, which is not necessarily our strong point as a species.
yawz 12y ago
Where does the demand go? Not only one has to pay Liberia and various parties not to cut trees but one also needs to reshape the demand (for trees) or make sure that the demand is redirected to renewable resources and/or to tree plantations. To me, it seems to be the hardest challenge.
Havoc 12y ago
While I have confidence in the fundamental idea, the thought of actually enforcing / monitoring this seems somewhat laughable. (And thats coming from someone that has actual experience judging whether 1st world money was judiciously applied in a 3rd world country).

190 points by fillskills 12y ago

neol 12y ago

besides the 150 M, Norway has to spend a lot more on regulation.

neol 12y ago

besides the 150M, Norway has to spend a lot more on regulation.

tribaal 12y ago

Well, they will help them build capacity to protect forests, and prevent new logging licenses to be granted, as well as place more forests in a "protected" status. It's not like they just ask to stop and give them cash, like the headline suggests.

lunarcave 12y ago

For context, this is about 0.00021% of the entire norwegian reserve [1]. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/24/us-norway-oilwealth-idUSBRE92N07M20130324 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/24/us-norway-oilwealt...

Expez 12y ago
None of that money is used to pay for this. Well, indirectly it might be, as some of the profits from invested oil money are made available to the government to spend each year.
ezhux 12y ago
for context: Russia has 12 times more proven oil reserves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil...). Now imagine russians in this situation.
- kozlovsky 12y ago
  Well, Russia just wrote off $32 billions of Cuba debt[1]. I'm not telling that this is the same thing, but still... [1]: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-11/russia-writes-off-90-of-cuba-debt-as-putin-meets-castros.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-11/russia-writes-off-9...
  - ezhux 12y ago
    that's really unusual for Russians. Cuba has plenty of peninsulas waiting be annexed... :)
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      It was supposed to be a snub at the US, as we recently renewed trade sanctions against Cuba.
bulltale 12y ago
The fraction is 0.00021. The percentage is 0.021%. Still small though.

icebraining 12y ago

A related story: back in 2012, Equador had asked countries to pay $3.6 billion for them not to drill under the rainforest: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ecuador-asks-world-to-pay-to-keep-yasuni-oil-underground/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ecuador-asks-world... It wasn't successful: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/23/ecuador-amazon-yasuni-national-park-oil-drill http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/23/ecuador-a...

threeseed 12y ago
Australia is proposing something similar: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/julie-bishop-rejects-un-request-to-strengthen-australian-climate-targets-20140919-10j5kk.html http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/julie-... It never ceases to amaze me that political parties who fundamentally believe in the importance of "the market" don't trust it for reducing emissions. Hypocrisy at it's worst.
- Retric 12y ago
  Cap and trade's first step is to hand out billions of dollars worth of emissions credits to major polluters which they can then resell. After that it's similar to a strait tax if more costly and less efficient, but you can see the appeal.
  - Alex3917 12y ago
    Cap and trade is more efficient than a tax, that's the whole point of it -- allowing the market to find the least costly way of reducing total emissions below the cap, as opposed to forcing everyone to reduce emissions by the same percentage regardless of the cost. As for handing out billions of dollars of emissions credits to current polluters that they can then sell, this is completely false. The way the initial allocation works under most proposals is to give current polluters credits to cover part of their current emissions upfront. Then if they reduce their emissions beyond their allocated emissions they can sell the excess credits. This is what makes cap and trade so efficient, there are huge profits to be made by companies that can create technologies to reduce emissions the most efficiently. Then over time the total cap decreases, and the amount of credits allocated to existing polluters also decreases, so that all companies will have to buy whatever credits they need at a yearly auction or whatever.

Expez 12y ago

What an incredible bargain!

nakedrobot2 12y ago

I love the idealism of this but: 1) the price is far too low to have any effect, I am guessing. 2) won't this money go straight into someone's pocket? 3) how on earth do they expect this to be enforced?

Skinney 12y ago
We do this in several other countries already. We only actually pay the money if they meet certain goals. Currently we have 4 billion NOK (632 million dollars) still standing in a bank account, because the countries we intended to pay the money to hasn't met the goals we set as a pre-condition. Then again we paid 3 billion NOK (474 million dollars) last year, so it does work to some extent.
- k3oni 12y ago
  This is an interesting approach of which i never heard before. Is there somewhere where i can see a list of the other countries? Edit: Found it on the gov. site . The one related to this article also includes Peru: http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/smk/press-center/Press-releases/2014/Norway-launches-climate-and-forest-partnerships-with-Peru-and-Liberia.html?regj_oss=1&id=767632 http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/smk/press-center/Press-rele...
rmc 12y ago
2) won't this money go straight into someone's pocket? 3) how on earth do they expect this to be enforced? Sometimes #3 can be solved by #2. "Hey corrupt minster/police chief/army general, want more of that bribe? Get your corrupt police officers/soliders to stop those people cutting down trees! Since you don't have to obey the law that much, beat up those peasants who are chopping down trees"
- vidarh 12y ago
  When it comes to bribes / "lobbying", apparently our government prefers to go after US politicians (by paying Washington think thanks to produce "research" on various subjects of importance to Norway). Thankfully most of the stuff they lobby for is actually an improvement on typical US government policy (then again I'd be biased - I'm Norwegian).

guard-of-terra 12y ago

The problem here is: cutting down trees creates jobs; receiving 150m doesn't. You still have to distribute them somehow and make these people figure out what to do.

imaginenore 12y ago
Let's be realistic. This is Liberia. This money will not be distributed to the workers.
- EStudley 12y ago
  I don't think he means the money, I believe he meant distribute the workers. More likely than not a majority of the people cutting trees down in Liberia are going to continue cutting trees whether the government wants them to or not.
aikah 12y ago
> You still have to distribute them somehow and make these people figure out what to do. And I doubt any low level worker will get real money,given the insane level of corruption there. And for god sake,why would Norway care? this constant meddling into african politics by the west is upsetting.It's not help,it's arrogance.
- blaabjerg 12y ago
  They aren't just arrogantly trying to help an African nation, they have an interest in trying to preserve the rainforest and its biodiversity. It's quid pro quo.
tribaal 12y ago
You didn't read the article. The headline is sensationalist, what they are doing it paying for the government not to issue more logging licenses (easy to verify) and putting forests on "protected" status (as well as other concrete, targeted projects). It's not like they are handing out cash to the government against a promise.
12y ago

cpursley 12y ago

I really really like this idea as long as the money does not go to bureaucrats. If governments and people were serious about pooling money and purchasing land for conservation (ala Ted Turner) and/or supporting conversation efforts, the planet might have a fighting chance.

innguest 12y ago
So you're saying we might have a fighting chance against environmental depredation if instead of using government bullying, we used the private sector to buy those lands, so long as we could guarantee the money wouldn't go to bureaucrats? You might want to look into libertarianism, as it has been saying that for a long time now, and it has very good arguments as to why it works better than the alternatives.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  The 'buy up the land' thing can work without changing our form of government. Go ahead and buy the land! Set up a campaign/foundation to do so (many already exist).
  - innguest 12y ago
    The pope once said evolution can still be a fact without changing the belief system of the catholic church. You can try and adapt your thinking that way, but it is never as smooth as a principled theory. In other words, the buy-up-land thing cannot work without changing our form of government, as you'd have to at least do away with the concept of eminent domain.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      Nonsense! Its happening already, like in the Nature Conservancy.
    - nfoz 12y ago
      > The pope once said evolution can still be a fact without changing the belief system of the catholic church. Off-topic, but was this a good example of a "non-smooth unprincipled adaptation"? I was taught evolution by Catholics and it never seemed incongruous, but I'm not versed in the history.

joshdance 12y ago

Enforcement will be an issue. But I like the idea. Hopefully it does not lead to unintended consequences.

nyrina 12y ago
How is enforcement going to be a large issue? Doesn't every forest have a forester (Not sure if that is what it's called, but we have people who "takes care" of forests in Denmark). If a forester sees people cutting down trees with large machinery, he would just call the police? I doubt anyone cares if Mr. Random goes into the wood with his axe, chops down a tree he can carry and runs off with it.
- blaabjerg 12y ago
  It's not necessarily as simple as calling the police in Liberia. Corruption levels there are significantly higher than they are in Denmark. What if the logger pays the policeman to do nothing about it? Enforcement is definitely going to be a challenge, but hopefully they have a good plan in place.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    Aerial photography + incentives paid based on evidence that the forest remains, coupled with dedicating part of the funding to paying locals to help look after it creates a strong incentive shared by many groups to ensure it works.

sauere 12y ago

Prediction: money will be paid, cutting down trees will continue

jonknee 12y ago
Norway already got their "Look guys, we tried" credit as they continue to pump carbon out of the ground and as such all parties will be happy.
azernik 12y ago
If trees keep getting cut down, the payments will stop. FTA: The country agrees to place 30% or more of its forest estate under protected area status by 2020. It will also pilot direct payments to communities for protecting the forest. Ultimately the Norwegians will pay for results, with independent verification that trees remain standing.

ljd 12y ago

It's interesting that it's seen as aid. If countries like Norway feel that standing trees provide a service to them, they should pay to keep them up. It's not charity, the trees are providing a marketable good by processing CO2 emissions. While I'm not an environmentalist, I do believe in markets as a way of solving larger problems and I think it would be interesting if a market was built on resource preservation. For instance, if a type of tree processes more CO2, they should be worth more than one that does not and that can be expressed in whatever this marketplace would be. If I had more connections at a government level, I might be interested in such an idea but as it stands now the sales cycles would be too long to get a market like that going.

DennisP 12y ago
Because it's a public goods problem. If one country pays, all countries benefit equally, and the country that pays generally spends more than its benefit from that payment. So each country is better off not paying, regardless of what everybody else does, even though we'd all be a lot better off if everybody paid.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Aqueous 12y ago
The problem, of course, is not in the fact that clearing Carbon CO2 emissions from the air. It's the fact that it might be worth more - in dollars - to cut those trees down and sell them. Perhaps not in this case, but certainly in other cases where countries have tried to sell protecting their own territory environmentally and balanced that against the worth of the resources on the market. Thus the dollar worth of clearing CO2 emissions doesn't clearly align with the self-interest of doing so over buying trees to make paper and other goods. (The self-interest, of course, is in not dying in the future from some climate change related disaster. That's why worldwide governmental intervention is needed to make sure the dollar value of keeping those trees up aligns with actual self-interest.

sbhere 12y ago

The original title was more succinct, even if it was identical to the article's title. And yes, it won't be successful.

toasted 12y ago

Pretty negative response in this thread to one of the only countries really making serious efforts to preserve the last few remaining tracts of rainforest on earth.

GreenGiant 12y ago

"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today"... I applaud the effort, but like most - I am not too hopeful of the results.

soegaard 12y ago

"Stem deforestation"? But deforestation is a good thing? Oh boy - been in the CS business too long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_(computer_science) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_(computer_science...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

WildUtah 12y ago

No rainforest in going to be preserved in a nation that continues on a path of exponential growth of population like Liberia. The nature of exponential growth is that it always looks sustainable until the catastrophe hits and everything collapses and there's nothing that can be done to save anything and probably mass starvation. The fertility rate is 5.16 in Liberia which corresponds to doubling the population about once every 25 years. Then if fertility ever drops back to steady state (2.1), you double the population at least twice more because of population momentum. The hopeful factor in Liberia is that the fertility rate is dropping. IT was 5.85 in 2000. If it doesn't drop fast, no payment for forests will help. If it does drop fast, the locals will enjoy their environment and work to preserve it. Right now Liberia has about the population and land area of Virginia, which means it's already overpopulated. Around mid-century it will have at least quadruple the population. Then -- if fertility drops very fast down to replacement level -- it will quadruple again. That will be sixteen times the density of Virginia. And that is the best case scenario.

berberous 12y ago
> Then if fertility ever drops back to steady state (2.1), you double the population at least twice more because of population momentum. What? Can you explain this? Sorry if it's obvious, but I can't seem to grasp what you mean by population momentum.
- tim333 12y ago
  Say the population has been growing fast so most people are aged 0-20, and then the fertility rate drops to 2.1. Over the next 25 years you still have a lot of kids born while those people grow up, while there will not be many deaths because there will not be many old people to die off.
- WildUtah 12y ago
  Suppose the population has been growing at a rapid clip, like in Liberia. Then you will have a situation where the grandparent generation will have less population than the parents and the parents will be fewer than the children, e.g.: 2 80 year olds 6 60 year olds 15 40 year olds 40 20 year olds 100 babies -------- 163 people One woman 80 year old had six babies with her husband. The three women in the next generation bore 15 babies. With a fertility rate around five, you will have a population pyramid where the babies outnumber the 80 year olds by about 50 to 1. Then if fertility suddenly drops down to replacement level, the babies will eventually grow up to be 80 year olds in a country where the size of each generation is equal, e.g.: 100 80 year olds 100 60 year olds 100 40 year olds 100 20 year olds 100 babies ----- 500 people So there's one more quadrupling (approximately) built in to the system even after the birth rate gets under control. Since the birth rate might not get under control until the resources run out in famine, war, or epidemic, we may be looking at a situation where high fertility countries are destined to have not only more people than they can support, but four times as many as they can support and chronic disasters for humanity. The only relief is thinking ahead and family planning, which is not necessarily our strong point as a species.

yawz 12y ago

Where does the demand go? Not only one has to pay Liberia and various parties not to cut trees but one also needs to reshape the demand (for trees) or make sure that the demand is redirected to renewable resources and/or to tree plantations. To me, it seems to be the hardest challenge.

Havoc 12y ago

While I have confidence in the fundamental idea, the thought of actually enforcing / monitoring this seems somewhat laughable. (And thats coming from someone that has actual experience judging whether 1st world money was judiciously applied in a 3rd world country).