Why tackling deforestation is so important for slowing climate change
Tom Pugh
Mon, 1 November 2021
Dudarev Mikhail/Shutterstock
Humanity injects an almost incomprehensible 42 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO₂) into the atmosphere every year. The majority of this comes from burning fossil fuels, but a substantial portion, about 16%, arises from how we use the land. Most of these land-use emissions are caused by deforestation, particularly in the tropics.
In order to slow climate change, the global community needs to reduce this 42 billion tons of emissions to net zero, a situation where any remaining emissions are balanced by uptake elsewhere. A tonne of CO₂ has the same impact on the climate whether it comes from fossil fuels or forest loss, so halting deforestation is a necessary part of tackling climate change.
As part of its push for a deal at COP26, the UK government is expected to announce a plan to “halt and reverse” global deforestation by 2030. Just how much would this help limit global warming?
To understand this, we have to understand the concept of carbon budgets. The 2015 Paris Agreement aimed to prevent the global average temperature rising more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The amount of warming is tightly linked to the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere. This means that there is a fixed amount, or budget, of CO₂ that the world can emit without exceeding this target.
This budget is tight. Limiting future emissions of CO₂ to 460 billion tonnes, counting from the beginning of this year, will give a 50:50 chance of warming staying below 1.5°C. If emissions continue at 2019 levels, the budget will be exhausted in only 11 years, by 2032. So to have a decent chance of meeting the goal set in Paris, deep cuts in emissions are needed, declining towards net zero globally by about 2050.
Watch: COP26 pledge to end deforestation by 2030: Landmark deal or rerun of past failures?
Deforestation and the carbon budget
Many countries, including the UK, are aiming for net zero in 2050. But there are several benefits from pushing harder to stop deforestation by 2030. First, land-use emissions are large. At their current rate, emissions from land-use change would consume 15% of the global budget over the next decade alone. Every tonne of carbon lost from forests reduces leeway in decarbonising the rest of the world economy.
Read more: Climate crisis: what can trees really do for us?
Second, halting deforestation does not immediately halt all the emissions from past forest loss. A large portion of these are only released in the decades after the chainsaws fall silent, as carbon continues to be lost from the soil. An earlier halt to deforestation will allow these delayed emissions to get closer to zero before 2050, leaving less to balance elsewhere.
Third, the world’s forests are more than a store of carbon which needs protecting – they are also actively taking it up. By our recent estimate, forests are removing about 20% of the emissions that people put into the atmosphere each year. This happens because trees can grow faster with more CO₂ and because many forests today are filled with trees which are relatively young and vigorous, gobbling up the emissions which were released when older trees were cut down in the past.
Watch: Climate change: Household banks have invested billions in firms involved in deforestation, report claims
Climate change: Household banks have invested billions in firms involved in deforestation, report claims
Household banks and asset managers have invested tens of billions of pounds financing businesses involved with deforestation, according to a new report.
Calculations for the global carbon budget are made assuming that this uptake continues, but every bit of forest lost is an area no longer contributing to that uptake. In the tropics, the total area of forest lost since 1990 is nearly two million square kilometres, an area the size of Mexico. In some areas, such as the Amazon, these losses are at risk of pushing past tipping points, beyond which whole regions of forest switch from taking up carbon to releasing it.
What about the “reversing” component of the plan? This is less clear cut. The loss of complex and biodiverse old-growth forest cannot be reversed within the lifetimes of people alive today. But increasing the total area of young forest, if done properly, can help reach net zero by temporarily balancing limited emissions from industries where low-carbon alternatives are still some way off, such as aviation.
Reforestation is a tool for tackling climate change which does not rely on unproven technology, yet it can only ever be a temporary stopgap. The area of land that could be reforested is finite and limited by competing demands, such as food production or the growth of biofuels.
Allowing forests to naturally regenerate is often better than tree planting.
Mon, 1 November 2021
Dudarev Mikhail/Shutterstock
Humanity injects an almost incomprehensible 42 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO₂) into the atmosphere every year. The majority of this comes from burning fossil fuels, but a substantial portion, about 16%, arises from how we use the land. Most of these land-use emissions are caused by deforestation, particularly in the tropics.
In order to slow climate change, the global community needs to reduce this 42 billion tons of emissions to net zero, a situation where any remaining emissions are balanced by uptake elsewhere. A tonne of CO₂ has the same impact on the climate whether it comes from fossil fuels or forest loss, so halting deforestation is a necessary part of tackling climate change.
As part of its push for a deal at COP26, the UK government is expected to announce a plan to “halt and reverse” global deforestation by 2030. Just how much would this help limit global warming?
To understand this, we have to understand the concept of carbon budgets. The 2015 Paris Agreement aimed to prevent the global average temperature rising more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The amount of warming is tightly linked to the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere. This means that there is a fixed amount, or budget, of CO₂ that the world can emit without exceeding this target.
This budget is tight. Limiting future emissions of CO₂ to 460 billion tonnes, counting from the beginning of this year, will give a 50:50 chance of warming staying below 1.5°C. If emissions continue at 2019 levels, the budget will be exhausted in only 11 years, by 2032. So to have a decent chance of meeting the goal set in Paris, deep cuts in emissions are needed, declining towards net zero globally by about 2050.
Watch: COP26 pledge to end deforestation by 2030: Landmark deal or rerun of past failures?
Deforestation and the carbon budget
Many countries, including the UK, are aiming for net zero in 2050. But there are several benefits from pushing harder to stop deforestation by 2030. First, land-use emissions are large. At their current rate, emissions from land-use change would consume 15% of the global budget over the next decade alone. Every tonne of carbon lost from forests reduces leeway in decarbonising the rest of the world economy.
Read more: Climate crisis: what can trees really do for us?
Second, halting deforestation does not immediately halt all the emissions from past forest loss. A large portion of these are only released in the decades after the chainsaws fall silent, as carbon continues to be lost from the soil. An earlier halt to deforestation will allow these delayed emissions to get closer to zero before 2050, leaving less to balance elsewhere.
Third, the world’s forests are more than a store of carbon which needs protecting – they are also actively taking it up. By our recent estimate, forests are removing about 20% of the emissions that people put into the atmosphere each year. This happens because trees can grow faster with more CO₂ and because many forests today are filled with trees which are relatively young and vigorous, gobbling up the emissions which were released when older trees were cut down in the past.
Watch: Climate change: Household banks have invested billions in firms involved in deforestation, report claims
Climate change: Household banks have invested billions in firms involved in deforestation, report claims
Household banks and asset managers have invested tens of billions of pounds financing businesses involved with deforestation, according to a new report.
Calculations for the global carbon budget are made assuming that this uptake continues, but every bit of forest lost is an area no longer contributing to that uptake. In the tropics, the total area of forest lost since 1990 is nearly two million square kilometres, an area the size of Mexico. In some areas, such as the Amazon, these losses are at risk of pushing past tipping points, beyond which whole regions of forest switch from taking up carbon to releasing it.
What about the “reversing” component of the plan? This is less clear cut. The loss of complex and biodiverse old-growth forest cannot be reversed within the lifetimes of people alive today. But increasing the total area of young forest, if done properly, can help reach net zero by temporarily balancing limited emissions from industries where low-carbon alternatives are still some way off, such as aviation.
Reforestation is a tool for tackling climate change which does not rely on unproven technology, yet it can only ever be a temporary stopgap. The area of land that could be reforested is finite and limited by competing demands, such as food production or the growth of biofuels.
Allowing forests to naturally regenerate is often better than tree planting.
Bob Pool/Shutterstock
The science is clear: failing to rapidly reduce deforestation will make the enormous challenge of limiting climate change to 1.5° even tougher – perhaps impossible. The faster the world can do this, the more of the carbon budget will be available elsewhere.
That is not to suggest that halting, or even reversing, deforestation will be plain sailing – far from it. It must be done in a sustainable and equitable manner. The vast majority of forest loss is occurring in poor countries of the global south, at magnitudes ranging from the industrial-scale clearing of major agrobusinesses to the minor depletions of subsistence farmers. The livelihoods of many rural communities are intertwined with the forest – they must be genuine partners in efforts to protect them.
Decoupling local economies from deforestation without harming the people living there may prove as challenging as cutting emissions from the rest of the world economy. Halting deforestation has advantages that stretch well beyond the climate, including protecting biodiversity and securing clean water. Nonetheless, world leaders must not think of it as a quick or easy fix, or that it allows them to be less ambitious elsewhere.
COP26 the world's biggest climate talks
This story is part of The Conversation’s coverage on COP26, the Glasgow climate conference, by experts from around the world.
Amid a rising tide of climate news and stories, The Conversation is here to clear the air and make sure you get information you can trust. More.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The Conversation
Tom Pugh receives funding from the European Research Council, through the TreeMort project, and the European Forest Institute.
The science is clear: failing to rapidly reduce deforestation will make the enormous challenge of limiting climate change to 1.5° even tougher – perhaps impossible. The faster the world can do this, the more of the carbon budget will be available elsewhere.
That is not to suggest that halting, or even reversing, deforestation will be plain sailing – far from it. It must be done in a sustainable and equitable manner. The vast majority of forest loss is occurring in poor countries of the global south, at magnitudes ranging from the industrial-scale clearing of major agrobusinesses to the minor depletions of subsistence farmers. The livelihoods of many rural communities are intertwined with the forest – they must be genuine partners in efforts to protect them.
Decoupling local economies from deforestation without harming the people living there may prove as challenging as cutting emissions from the rest of the world economy. Halting deforestation has advantages that stretch well beyond the climate, including protecting biodiversity and securing clean water. Nonetheless, world leaders must not think of it as a quick or easy fix, or that it allows them to be less ambitious elsewhere.
COP26 the world's biggest climate talks
This story is part of The Conversation’s coverage on COP26, the Glasgow climate conference, by experts from around the world.
Amid a rising tide of climate news and stories, The Conversation is here to clear the air and make sure you get information you can trust. More.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The Conversation
Tom Pugh receives funding from the European Research Council, through the TreeMort project, and the European Forest Institute.
Zero deforestation commitment: Empty promises or a workable plan?
A pledge to end deforestation by 2030 is the first headline agreement from COP26. But environmentalists say the world's forests will not be saved by a political declaration alone.
Greenpeace activists paint the word 'crime' on a barge at the site of an illegal logging operation in Brazil
More than 100 countries have pledged to end deforestation by 2030 to combat global heating at the UN climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland. But environmentalists, skeptical of the commitment, say more needs to be done to end the so-called "chainsaw massacre" of the world's forests.
The deal commits 105 signatory states to work to together to halt and reverse forest loss, while "delivering sustainable development and promoting an inclusive rural transformation."
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) — which advocates for improved forest management — told DW that it was pleased to see the number of countries involved, covering 85% of the planet's forests. Crucially, the deal includes Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Indonesia — home to most of the world's wildlife-rich tropical forests as well as to most of its deforestation.
The agreement is important because deforestation is one of the most significant drivers of climate change after fossil fuel combustion. But with the failures of previous international forest protection agreements firmly in their minds, environmental organizations say the agreement lacks specifics.
"Fundamentally, the world's forests will not be saved by a political declaration," FSC told DW, "unless it is followed up by specific political and financial initiatives to make forest protection and sustainable forest management economically attractive solutions for the people who depend on the forests for their income and livelihood."
But what about the money?
Funding will play a key part in the success of the agreement. It's is currently backed up by €16 billion ($19 billion), one-third of which will come from private sector investors and asset managers, including Aviva, Schroders and AXA.
But groups such as the Rainforest Alliance, an intergovernmental organization that represents up to 50 forested tropical countries in climate negotiations, say an additional $100 billion a year over the next decade could be required to bolster the agreement.
"Forests, for developing nations, are a resource. And unfortunately, still, trees are worth more dead than alive. Governments are able to issue a concession to cut down trees for timber to sell back to the West or to develop commercial agriculture," the coalition's managing director for media and communications, Mark Grundy, told DW in Glasgow.
That robs the earth of crucial carbon sinks and leads to forms of land use that generate even more emissions, but "brings monies into the government's coffers," said Grundy.
"If we're going to stop that, then financing for the carbon of those forests needs to be of high-enough value to offset that concession."
Why the focus on Indigenous communities?
The countries with the greatest loss of primary forest are Brazil — by a very long way — the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Indonesia and Peru. Some 12 million hectares of tree cover in the tropics was lost in 2020 alone. And a third of that occurred in important humid tropical primary forests, resulting in carbon emissions equivalent to the annual emissions of 570 million cars, according to data from the World Resources Institute, a global research non-profit.
These forests are also home to Indigenous groups – and the agreement has placed a strong emphasis on such communities as "guardians" of the forest.
A recent UN report found that deforestation rates are up to 50% lower in territories occupied by Indigenous groups and stated that one of the best ways to tackle the problem is to recognize their rights.
Indigenous rights activists have welcomed the move.
The International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA), which promotes indigenous rights, told DW that despite accounting for just 6% of the world's population, Indigenous peoples protect nearly a quarter of the global land surface, including areas of significant biodiversity.
"(The agreement) explicitly recognizes the rights of Indigenous peoples, which is significant, especially when you look at the list of signatory governments," Stefan Thorsell, Climate Advisor for the IWGIA, said.
But Thorsell added that the declaration didn't specifically reference territorial or tenure rights for Indigenous communities, as they face being ejected from their land to make way for logging and other activities.
"Without legal recognition of their territories, Indigenous peoples struggle even more in defending their forests and other vital ecosystems," said Thorsell.
Rights safeguarding Survival International, which advocates for the survival of tribal people, voiced concern that conservation efforts can lead to abuses of Indigenous groups.
Fiore Longo, head of Survival's Decolonize Conservation campaign, said forest offset projects enable those in the Global North to continue polluting while Indigenous lands are taken for afforestation offset projects. Such schemes allow individuals or companies to invest in environment projects to neutralize the emissions they create.
"The same goes for the private sector 'investment,' which we believe will largely be for the purchase of carbon offsets, so will do nothing to reduce emissions or help stop climate change," said Longo.
Indigenous groups in Brazil protesting a bill they say would limit the recognition of reservation lands during the summer of 2021
Didn't we agree to this before in 2014?
A lot of this will sound familiar, with a very similar agreement being struck in 2014. At that time, 40 countries signed up to the New York Declaration on Forests, which pledged to half deforestation by 2020 and end it by 2030. That was largely unsuccessful, but proponents do hope this time will be different.
According to the World Wildlife Fund, the greater focus on private sector financing in 2021 will help with implementation.
"Many corporations are even more powerful than these developing countries. So we need all hands on deck. We need alignment, we need philanthropies, we need private capital. We need financial institutions to step up," Josefina Brana Varela, WWF's Vice President and Deputy Lead for forests told DW in Glasgow.
Another key difference is the much broader commitment to the deal, with key forest nations such as Brazil signing on this time. The FSC say the number of countries backing the deal is probably it's "strongest point," given that it includes the most important forest countries as well as the developed countries needed to financially support the efforts.
No comments:
Post a Comment