CATEGORY - DEFORESTATION

Another category creation as this is another becoming quite an issue worthy of its own slot.

Check the labels below for other, previous posts until I get time to bring 'em over.

ARTICLE

Guardian - The great green land grab

Indy - Million acres of Guyanese rainforest to be saved in groundbreaking deal

Indy - I give up, says Brazilian minister who fought to save the rainforest - Hmmn, non optimal. When guys who care give up, things are really getting bad.

BBC - Charles urges forest logging halt

Shame that this coincides with the Brazilian Enviro Minister resigning.

But at least some are still worrying, and talking, and talking about it.

The BBC's environment analyst, Roger Harrabin, says that Prince Charles' observation that saving the forests is the cheapest and most effective way of cutting CO2 emissions is "widely acknowledged".

With insights like that, I can see why he is one of the heavy hitters in reporting.

Odd there's no mention of such as Johan Eliasch's Cool Earth and others by way of actual doing stuff.

Guardian - Fears for Brazil rainforest after environment minister quits

Guardian - Seeing the wood for the trees

Times - (actually very old, but I have just been advised of it) - How you can save the rainforest - Describes the genesis of Cool Earth, which I now need to bring over from the archives to here, below)

Guardian - The rainforest's last chance

Guardian - Not cool - I wish I could comment, but am currently not able to on the site. This does seem damned odd. To quote the first poster (and look at that title): 'I'm slightly bewildered by this article - it starts out as if its going to be an expose of a dodgy 'charity', then pulls back, accusing them of just bad marketing.'

Guardian - Can money save the Congo basin rainforest? - But just think of the numbers of folk who can be employed to acquire, collate, publish and obsess about these numbers. I feel a conference is needed.

Observer - Should I preserve a chunk of wilderness? - the key is in the URL header

BBC - Brazil launches rainforest fund -

FT - Prince believes City can save rainforests - Hope he's right

Indy - The City and keeping the rainforests alive

Gaurdian - Battle for the Amazon - I very much admire the interactivity of the author with posters. Not alwasy practical, but by heck informative!

Observer - Chainsaw massacre: They clean our air, reduce carbon and will save the planet ... So why are trees public enemy No1? -

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Eliasch Review on International deforestation published

The international community should enable rainforest countries to halve deforestation by 2020 and make the global forest sector 'carbon neutral' by 2030. This is the recommendation of an independent report to the Prime Minister published today.

The Eliasch Review, 'Climate Change: Financing Global Forests', is an independent report commissioned by the Prime Minister and led by Johan Eliasch, Special Representative on Deforestation. It provides a comprehensive analysis of the financing and mechanisms needed to support sustainable management of forests and reduce emissions associated with deforestation.

The full report can be seen online at http://www.occ.gov.uk.

The full PR is pretty long, so I just popped in the first segment. If you want it all I am sure it is linked somewhere.

Mind you, I couldn't actually find much from the link provided either.

Mr. Eliasch was once involved with the Conservatives but moved, I believe, because of this issue (those in power can do stuff- fair enough) rather than any political ideology.

He also founded Cool Earth, a mitigation scheme. Hopefully altruistic as any moves to put money in such schemes' pockets via such as the above might cause a problem, when the review finds that...

- The international community should aim to support forest nations to halve deforestation by 2020 and make the global forest sector 'carbon neutral' by 2030 - i.e. with emissions from forest loss balanced by new forest growth.

- Reducing emissions from deforestation should be fully included in any post-2012 global climate deal at Copenhagen.

- National Governments should develop their own strategies to combat deforestation in forest countries, including establishing baselines, targets and effective governance and distribution of finances.

- In the long term, the forest sector should be included in global carbon markets.

- Public and private sector funding will be needed in the short to medium term as carbon markets grow.

- The international community should provide support for capacity building where necessary. Total capacity building costs are estimated at up to $4 billion over 5 years for 40 forest nations.

Newsnight championed his efforts a few years ago for one night, and then dropped it when the next thing came along, as do most BBC news or science programmes. If they actually stuck with things, good or bad, up or down, and continued a sensible narrative throughout, I'd respect their commitment to the cause of better environmental practices more.

Guardian - Money doesn't grow on trees

Gaurdian - Seeing the wood

Times - Rich nations 'should pay poor ones billions a year to save rainforests'

Indy - Marina Silva: We must slash emissions to prevent destruction of the rainforest - Need to get my head around how reducing emissions stops a tree being cut down, mind.

Gaurdian - Schwarzenegger's bid to save the rainforest

Gaurdian - Poor Brazilians rejoice as loggers return to pillage the rainforest - Shows the dilemmas faced

Telegraph - WWF proposes economically savvy ways to rescue the Amazon - Don't get good news too often!

Indy - Revenge of the rainforest - Doesn't do to test karma, I guess.

Indy - NEW - Fate of the rainforest is 'irreversible' - are 'quote marks' the new 'could'?

Ah... '...could be much worse than previously predicted, new research suggests'.'... the Amazon may become "committed" to substantial change'. 'Asked if this meant Amazon dieback had already started, Dr Jones responded that it probably had..' '...these changes could be reversible only over very long time scales'.

Now I see the quoted author has used a definitive 'should' himself in the penultimate para, but I clicked this link because of 'Fate of the rainforest is 'irreversible''. Is 'is' the same as 'could', 'suggests', 'may' and 'probably'?

Not to detract from the seriousness of this research, or what it 'suggests' that may inform future actions, but I would like better context to get my head around it all, and what may then be proposed.

What was... is interesting to me (because I did not know so there is value here) is that this not so much about the effects caused by deforestation, but deforestation-causing effects.

However, with my limited experience, faced with finite resources (human, willpower, financial, etc), with what we've got I'd err on devoting much more to preventing further forest loss through cutting the things down in swathes now through direct human economic activity, especially we have only 100 months to avoid a tipping point.

Guardian - NEW - Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change, scientists say - Notice something? We've gained a 'could', but also some extra scientist(s). And the climate ones are wheeled in too. Thing is, I remain unsure what much of this may mean, or what is proposed.

Telegraph - NEW - Amazon rainforest at risk of ecological 'catastrophe' -

Times - NEW - 85 per cent of Amazonian rainforest at risk of destruction, researchers warn


INFORMATION


MITIGATION?

Cool Earth - also via posts here and here
worldlandtrust.org -

'Dere was dese two fellas

And I am sure there will soon be another. Thing is, do we deserve, or need them?

Charles launches campaign to save ravaged rainforests

So to the multi-billionaire Mr. Eliasch and his Cool Earth, we can now add HRH. How long before Al decides to add saving the forests to his portfolio of investment opportunities... and hence things to get us to support?

Now I am all for awareness, so long as it gets things pointed in the right direction. But three (well, two, so far) white, rich, 'not really practical for us to do, but say, why don't you guys try?' chaps splitting the whole forest saving gig into ever-more fractured, labour intensive, camps (offices, staff, jollies, etc, before a twig gets any money - unless they are joining forces (if so not mentioned in the piece), which seems unlikely as there are egos that need to be spared before anything else)seems to suggest we are heading down a familiar route... again.

Watch this space. Not knocking trees down is now 'in'.

Sleeping Partners?

Or strange bedfellows? Ok, enough of the bed metaphors. Well, one more. I don't really care who hooks up with whom and will sleep easier so long as the intent is genuine and the results tangible.

Much has been made of Johan Eliasch's move (note: I'm pretty sure they mean 'donate' and not denote in the write-up) from Tory to Labour camp, and as is they way with the navel-gazing, feral beasties of the Westminster Village the environmental issues have taken second billing to the 'defection'.

But if... big IF... this means a guy who does seem to be smart and committed gets to whisper in Mr. Brown's ear then it looks a pretty good thing. If... Mr. Brown listens.

It will be interesting to see how this trend for multi-millionaires advising political leadership on motivating the masses in matters green pans out.

In this case, as I have always seen merit in Cool Earth as a quick, big fix (well, delay), I am hopeful.

BBC - Ex-Tory donor to be Brown adviser

BBC - A welcome hand - to which i added this above, with a couple of additions:

But if... big IF... this means a guy who does seem to be smart and committed gets to whisper in Mr. Brown's ear (rather obvious point about talking in opposition vs. doing in government taken) then it looks a pretty good thing. If... Mr. Brown listens.

It will be interesting to see how this trend for multi-millionaires advising political leadership on motivating the masses in matters green pans out. The whole jet/offset thing is a pity, as the concept of buying off excess shouldn't be allowed to fly, but I guess I can live with it so long as Mr. Eliasch doesn't end up on air at every stage telling us what to do even though 'it would not be, like, you know, practical for him not to'.

In this case, as I have always seen merit in Cool Earth as a quick, big fix (well, delay) after the Newsnight piece, I am hopeful.

Gee, eight guys talking. And some.

Warm words won't save us

I am interested, and hence would value any others' views, on the relative merits of what gets hyped, talked about... and actually addressed, for anything other than political, activist or ratings-driven agendas.

For instance, the other day I stumbled across what seemed to me an extraordinary discrepancy in positive climate word vs. deed, or effort vs. result, in the form of the launch of Cool Earth

Now, I stand ready to be persuaded otherwise, but if a years' worth of deforestation is responsible for a greater CO2 consequence (in terms of absorption) than the entire pollution (a mate of mine has pointed out that word seems to have been dropped in favour of 'emissions', with consequentially rosier allusions) created by the USA, then surely this warrants a serious mention at least? Or at least decent debate?

Or are we going to keep on with all this faffing about, arguing about who says what, with the big stuff locked in inertia and eco-chancers making capital out of sideshows?

I truly wish for clear leadership, and non-agenda-skewed information, based on genuine enviROIs, such that I can make decisions and act to improve my kids' future chances.

BBC - How Gr8 is G8?

COOL EARTH

This is a first for Junkk.com: a page dedicated to supporting a cause we truly feel is going to make a real difference: Cool Earth

No snappy headline, because this page will get revisited a lot so we can ensure it gets pushed to the front page of Junkk.com whenever we add something new. I think it is that important.

I became aware of it yesterday, when it launched, thanks to a short piece in Newsnight, which I blogged on earlier.

Frankly I cannot understand, with all the claimed media support for climate change initiatives, why this was not front page news, but maybe the return of the cold war of Big Brother is more pressing to some (or sells more papers and/or get more ratings).

One thing sold me. The entire annual carbon output produced by the USA is exceeded by the carbon sink LOST by deforestation. This puts d*cking about obsessing about carrier bags and 4x4s in stark focus. This planet will only be saved for our kids when we sweat the big stuff, and stop pandering to petty, negative issues (Junkk.com is a very small, but positive issue, so please keep on supporting us!).

I have already managed to contact those involved, who are very approachable.

And I will be checking out the site more thoroughly, and will revisit (I intend to score a few acres of our own to oversee) regularly with updates.

My main concern was the trading aspect, which set off some alarm bells and red flags.

I have been reassured that when you buy an acre, it is yours and will remain so, though there seems some variation on duration which I need to verify. It is also not for trading, as I very much would not want anything I had invested in being used to buy off bad behaviour elsewhere.

So, with great optimism, and the best will in the world, I am happy to say: Watch this space!

I can see the forest... and the trees!

If there is one thing to check out, I'd say it is this. To my initial way of assessing enviROI, it does add up, and could be the most exciting thing for a while in actually DOING something to help the planet: Cool Earth

Well, assuming we don't go up in a nice, quick nuclear ball of flame thanks to the new generation of small-willy testostocrats, if we are to avoid a slightly slower cook to oblivion maybe Mr. Eliasch has a more attractive long term plan to consider.

As I can't figure and/or trust most carbon sink enterprises, whose PRs get sent to my enviro site almost daily, I am prepared to give this one serious consideration.

Buy a bunch of suits' daft notions to skim off a major wadge of wonga claiming they go and plant something that will take decades to grow (assuming it works)... vs. paying a suit to help ensure an existing chunk of Earth's lungs - that's doing a nifty job already - doesn't get chopped down to make way for bio-fuel crops. The chart of the US carbon emissions vs. the consequence of deforestation says it all.

Well, D'uh.

I just hope that he's doing it for the right reason and not to make a vast killing, but even if he is it seems waaaaay better (though I shudder to hear Carbon Credits mentioned) than most alternatives.

Assuming Messrs Bush, Putin and Blair don't get us first, I'd say it seems a pretty decent idea to pursue.

I haven't seen it advertised anywhere as yet, and look forward to being pointed at it (if your PR agency is reading this, Mr. Eliasch, I'm at info [at] http://www.junkk.com, willing and happy to help - or I'm sure Google will get me there. I really like the idea of a live feed of my acre to help with the monitoring).

How it is the new colonialism is an interesting, if odd question in the circumstances, and just seems a tad of a PC stretch the way I saw it billed.