Viewpoints: Should California cap and trade use forestry offsets? No
Plan won’t stop actual emissions
By Jeff
Conant
Special to The Bee
Special to The Bee
Published: Sunday, May. 19, 2013 - 12:00 am | Page 5E
Last Modified: Sunday, May. 19, 2013 - 8:37 am
When
Californians passed AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, we
committed to one of the most forward-thinking
pieces of climate legislation in the country, with comprehensive
strategies to reduce carbon emissions from nearly all sectors of the
economy. Unfortunately, the California Air Resources Board is
considering a move that will undermine the best intent of this
law by linking it to a benign-sounding yet dubious and untried scheme
to protect rain forests in Mexico and Brazil.
Many peasant farmers and indigenous people who live in those forests oppose the proposal, fearing it will repeat an
all-too-familiar pattern of land-grabbing, without actually stopping deforestation. Californians should oppose it, too.
The
rigorous standards set by AB 32 have already been undermined by ARB's
decision to allow the industrial facilities
like power plants and refineries that account for 85 percent of the
state's emissions to meet their pollution reduction targets by buying
carbon offset credits. Friends of the Earth, Sierra Club, Center for
Biological Diversity, and the California Environmental
Justice Alliance, among others, opposed the use of offsets when it was
proposed – and we still do.
Now,
through an agreement that former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed in
2010 with the governors of Acre, Brazil,
and Chiapas, Mexico, ARB is poised to further weaken AB 32 by allowing
up to half of the offsets to be met by a scheme to reduce deforestation
in two of the poorest and most remote states in Latin America.
The
scheme is known as REDD, for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and
Degradation. Under this proposal, instead
of reducing their own emissions, California polluters could instead pay
the governments of Acre and Chiapas to protect their tropical forests,
thus capturing and "offsetting" industrial emissions.
A win-win, right? Not so fast.
In
Chiapas, Schwarzenegger's agreement set in motion a dynamic that has
increased social conflict and led several peasant
farmer and indigenous organizations to rise up in protest. In 2011, in
an effort to fast-track the scheme, Chiapas' then-governor began making
payments to one group of jungle-dwelling indigenous people on the
condition that they stop growing crops in the forest
and guard the forest against "invaders" – usually other poor indigenous
farmers. Pending funds from California, the money came from Chiapas'
public coffers for the time being. The deal threw fuel on the fire of an
already simmering agrarian conflict and angered
Chiapas citizens, who hadn't been consulted.
Two years later, the fund has dried up, that governor is out of office, and Chiapas is literally bankrupt. But rural
conflict continues – and deforestation has not been reduced.
Californians should want no part of this mess.
Proponents
of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation scheme
have more hope in Acre, in Brazil's
western Amazon, which is often touted as a model of how to protect the
rain forest. But many groups there – among them the Union of Rural
Workers of Xapuri (which environmental martyr Chico Mendes once led),
academics and indigenous peoples' organizations
– tell a different story.
They
charge that, since the state's Payments for Environmental Services Law
went into effect, logging has more than
doubled and the number of cattle has tripled. How could this be? With
money flowing from the state to landholders for the carbon they
sequester, land prices are going up, leading to concentration of land in
the hands of ranchers who can profit by protecting
token bits of forest while grazing and logging the rest.
Some
payments are also being made to poorer forest dwellers on condition
that they refrain from impacting the forest
through cutting, burning or planting. But this has the perverse effect
of shutting them out of their lands, reducing them to welfare recipients
without offering support for longer-term solutions.
Until and unless California has the ability to guard against such perverse effects, Californians shouldn't want any
part of this, either.
Let's
not forget that offsets don't reduce pollution. They merely displace
emissions reductions from one place (in
this case, California), to others (Chiapas and Acre). This means that
emissions will continue here in the state. Further, California's
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation program – to be
taken up by the Air Resources Board this summer – will
not only displace emission reductions – it could also displace real
people in Acre and Chiapas.
Let's not shirk our responsibilities by allowing California to accept offsets from the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation
and Degradation program, when it's more effective – and more just – to cut actual carbon emissions here at home.
Jeff Conant is International Forests Campaigner for Friends of the Earth.
From: Andrew Miller [mailto:andrew@amazonwatch.org
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 10:59 AM
To: Conant, Jeff
Cc: Bosques ATI; 'foei_landrights@lists.foei.
Subject: Response needed
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 10:59 AM
To: Conant, Jeff
Cc: Bosques ATI; 'foei_landrights@lists.foei.
Subject: Response needed
Viewpoints: Should California cap and trade use forestry offsets? Yes
tate can help save other regions
By Tony Brunello and Dan Nepstad
Special to The Bee
Special to The Bee
Published: Sunday, May. 19, 2013 - 12:00 am | Page 5E
Last Modified: Sunday, May. 19, 2013 - 8:37 am
We love our forests in California. After a century of rapidly losing
them to farming and logging, we finally succeeded in virtually ending
deforestation in California. We were driven by our interest in the
natural beauty, the wildlife, the sustainable timber
supplies and the water-purifying functions of old-growth redwoods along
the coast, the blue oaks growing across the Central Valley and the
mixed pine forests of the Sierra. It was only possible because we had a
clear vision of the importance of our forests
and a successful strategy for protecting them.
California has an opportunity now to help forest-rich states in Brazil, Mexico and other nations take a similar step to keep their forests. But why should Californians care?
First, we are part of the problem. Much of the palm oil that is hidden in our cosmetics and foods is grown on recently cleared lands in Indonesia and Malaysia. We make furniture, build decks and cover our houses and businesses with ipe, teak and mahogany extracted from tropical forests.
Second, tropical forests are part of the solution. Their trees are a giant reservoir of carbon that is emitted into the atmosphere when they are cut down, logged or burned. The sum of these activities around the world releases about the same amount of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year as all of the world's cars, trucks and buses combined. Reducing emissions from tropical forests is one of the cheapest ways for the globe to reduce its carbon footprint.
Finally, California can help tropical partner states where the world has largely failed. We can send a much-needed signal to tropical nations and states that California – and the world – want to help in reducing tropical deforestation.
The opportunity before California could have large impacts beyond our border – accepting limited carbon offsets from states that meet rigorous criteria for reducing tropical deforestation. Carbon offsets in California's cap-and-trade program play a limited role in overall state reductions, and any tropical forest offsets could – and should – also play only a minor role within the program.
California's Air Resources Board states that more than 400 million metric tons of the state's greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by 2020 to meet our legal mandate. They estimate that roughly 30 percent of those reductions will come from the cap-and-trade system while the rest will come from our regulations for cleaner cars, renewable energy and energy efficiency regulations.
California should provide limited space to allow "sector-based" forest carbon offsets into our cap-and-trade system for only those tropical states that meet strict economywide rules, such as those developed here in California in partnership with the state of Acre in Brazil and the state of Chiapas in Mexico. See stateredd.org to see the recommended rules. According to these recommendations, no state could trade emissions offsets with California unless they have strict statewide deforestation baselines and targets, ensure local communities' lives are improved, respect indigenous peoples' rights, and meet or exceed the environmental standards we have here in California.
Acre began to build the laws and systems that are needed to switch from the forest-clearing rural economy to the forest-maintaining rural economy 13 years ago. It is working. It has already achieved emissions reductions of more than one-third of California's mandate by 2020. Acre, Chiapas and another 16 tropical states from around the world have been meeting with California for the last four years through the Governors' Climate and Forests Task Force.
The tropical states have slowed deforestation, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than 3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. But they have seen only a trickle of positive incentives. Their political will is flagging. These are not isolated forest carbon projects. They are forest-maintaining rural development. And our tropical state partners can't do it alone.
It is time for California to help other forested states that are trying to mirror our environmental and economic progress. Accepting limited international forest offsets is the right direction for California policymakers.
Tony Brunello is the executive director of the Green Technology Leadership Group, partner at California Strategies and former California deputy secretary for climate change and energy. Dan Nepstad, a scientist, is director and president of the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) International Program in San Francisco, and a lead author of the forthcoming fifth global assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.
California has an opportunity now to help forest-rich states in Brazil, Mexico and other nations take a similar step to keep their forests. But why should Californians care?
First, we are part of the problem. Much of the palm oil that is hidden in our cosmetics and foods is grown on recently cleared lands in Indonesia and Malaysia. We make furniture, build decks and cover our houses and businesses with ipe, teak and mahogany extracted from tropical forests.
Second, tropical forests are part of the solution. Their trees are a giant reservoir of carbon that is emitted into the atmosphere when they are cut down, logged or burned. The sum of these activities around the world releases about the same amount of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year as all of the world's cars, trucks and buses combined. Reducing emissions from tropical forests is one of the cheapest ways for the globe to reduce its carbon footprint.
Finally, California can help tropical partner states where the world has largely failed. We can send a much-needed signal to tropical nations and states that California – and the world – want to help in reducing tropical deforestation.
The opportunity before California could have large impacts beyond our border – accepting limited carbon offsets from states that meet rigorous criteria for reducing tropical deforestation. Carbon offsets in California's cap-and-trade program play a limited role in overall state reductions, and any tropical forest offsets could – and should – also play only a minor role within the program.
California's Air Resources Board states that more than 400 million metric tons of the state's greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by 2020 to meet our legal mandate. They estimate that roughly 30 percent of those reductions will come from the cap-and-trade system while the rest will come from our regulations for cleaner cars, renewable energy and energy efficiency regulations.
California should provide limited space to allow "sector-based" forest carbon offsets into our cap-and-trade system for only those tropical states that meet strict economywide rules, such as those developed here in California in partnership with the state of Acre in Brazil and the state of Chiapas in Mexico. See stateredd.org to see the recommended rules. According to these recommendations, no state could trade emissions offsets with California unless they have strict statewide deforestation baselines and targets, ensure local communities' lives are improved, respect indigenous peoples' rights, and meet or exceed the environmental standards we have here in California.
Acre began to build the laws and systems that are needed to switch from the forest-clearing rural economy to the forest-maintaining rural economy 13 years ago. It is working. It has already achieved emissions reductions of more than one-third of California's mandate by 2020. Acre, Chiapas and another 16 tropical states from around the world have been meeting with California for the last four years through the Governors' Climate and Forests Task Force.
The tropical states have slowed deforestation, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than 3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. But they have seen only a trickle of positive incentives. Their political will is flagging. These are not isolated forest carbon projects. They are forest-maintaining rural development. And our tropical state partners can't do it alone.
It is time for California to help other forested states that are trying to mirror our environmental and economic progress. Accepting limited international forest offsets is the right direction for California policymakers.
Tony Brunello is the executive director of the Green Technology Leadership Group, partner at California Strategies and former California deputy secretary for climate change and energy. Dan Nepstad, a scientist, is director and president of the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) International Program in San Francisco, and a lead author of the forthcoming fifth global assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andrew E. Miller
DC Advocacy Coordinator
Amazon Watch
Washington, DC
Cel: +1-202-423-4828
On May 6, 2013, at 5:50 PM, Conant, Jeff wrote:
Friends – today we have sent the letter below, (and here)
to the state of California asking that they reject REDD in the state’s global warming law. We have also sent this press
release. Please share with your networks as you’re able.
Cheers,
Jeff
Amazon
Watch—Asia Pacific Environmental Network—Battle Creek
Alliance—California Environmental Justice Alliance—Carbon Trade
Watch—Center
for Biological Diversity—Center on Race, Poverty and the
Environment—Communities for a Better Environment—Filipino American Coalition for Environmental Solidarity—Food
& Water Watch—Forests Forever—Friends of the Earth-US—Greenpeace
International—Global Community Monitor—Global Exchange—Grassroots Global
Justice Alliance—Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice—Green
Party of Alameda County—Health of Mother Earth
Foundation (Nigeria) —Justice in Nigeria Now! —Indigenous Environmental Network—International Indian Treaty Council—Movement Generation: Justice and Ecology Project—Oilwatch
International—Rainforest Action Network—
Sierra Club California—Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous Peoples
The Honorable Jerry Brown
Governor of California
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Via fax: (916) 558-3160
Mary Nichols
Chairman, California Air Resources Board
1001 “I” Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Via fax: (916) 327-5748
Re: Climate Change Policy – International Forest Offsets in California’s Cap and Trade Program
Dear Governor Brown and Chairman Nichols,
Following the recent release of the recommendations put forward by the REDD Offsets Working Group (ROW) we would like to use this opportunity to explain why we urge
you not to approve the use of international forest offsets as a compliance option within California’s emissions trading scheme.
For years our organizations, most of which are based in California, have
been working toward the protection of forests, preventing catastrophic
climate change, and promoting ecological justice and social equity. In
this context we applaud the State of California
for considering new ways to curb its emissions and protect the last
remaining tropical forests. However, ROW’s proposal to use rainforests
as an offset to replace industrial emissions would achieve none of these
objectives.
Science tells us that in order to have a realistic chance of stopping
catastrophic climate change, we need bold action on reducing industrial
emissions and tackling
deforestation at the same time. Doing just one of the two will simply
not be enough. Unfortunately, ROW’s proposal is not only unlikely to
deliver real, additional and permanent emission reductions, but it would
also prevent Californians from getting the benefits
of AB 32 at home. By allowing enterprises to buy international forest
offsets, the amount of industrial emissions within the
state would be greater than otherwise
allowed by law, exposing people here in California to greater health
and environmental risks, and preventing progressive Californian
companies from benefitting from new technologies and innovations.
While many problems exist with offsets in general, there are significant
issues unique to tropical forests which make them broadly unfit to
offset industrial emissions as proposed by ROW. One of these is
permanence: end-of-pipe emissions stay in the atmosphere
for centuries, if not millennia, where they contribute to climate
change, whereas reductions in forest emissions cannot be reasonably
guaranteed for such a period of time given how quickly forests can be
degraded by companies, pests, and even the impacts of
climate change. Other inherent problems that prevent subnational forest
offset projects from actually reducing emissions are:
non-additionality, in which offsets are used to protect a forest area
that would have been protected anyway; and leakage, whereby
the drivers of deforestation (such as timber companies) merely shift
from one part of the country to another, or across an international
border. Due to those issues, the inclusion of subnational forest offsets
in California’s cap and trade program would likely
increase rather than decrease emissions relative to AB 32’s objectives.
Tropical forests have unique social, economic and
cultural significance to those who live in and depend on them for their
livelihoods. Independent investigations into the promotion of
international forest offsets have raised serious concerns
related to human rights violations and there is major opposition from
indigenous peoples and local communities in both Chiapas, Mexico and in
Acre, Brazil (the two jurisdictions where California would most likely
obtain its initial credits), to the proposal
put forth by ROW. Similar concerns have arisen in Nigeria and
Indonesia, which are under consideration for future inclusion in the
program. Given these concerns, we are compelled to point out that many
of the key features of the proposed REDD program, including
improved forest governance, the development of relevant legal
frameworks, and the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities
(including their full, effective participation and free, prior, informed
consent), are beyond the regulatory authority of the
State of California.
For these and other reasons, other major emissions
trading schemes such as the European Union ETS have rejected of the
inclusion of international forests as an offset option. Additionally, a
comprehensive assessment of REDD+ conducted by
experts in derivatives trading has found that “using carbon markets to
finance REDD... is likely to be a drain of resources, both in terms of
money and time, away from the very serious problems REDD seeks to
address.”[1]
We would therefore ask that you not permit the use of international
forest offsets for compliance in California as proposed by ROW, since
they will not deliver real, additional, and permanent emissions
reductions and could lead to serious human rights violations
and social problems.
To really tackle tropical deforestation at its root, California
policymakers should consider examining how the state’s existing
policies, including those related to procurement, public investment,
fuels, and other issues, may enable rainforest destruction through
contributing to demand for petroleum, timber, soy, paper, palm oil, and
other commodities.
We appreciate California’s interest in helping to protect tropical
forests and would be happy to discuss with you steps the State could
take to achieve that end. You may contact Jeff Conant at Friends of the
Earth-US at jconant@foe.org;
(510) 900-0016).
Sincerely,
Amazon Watch
Asia Pacific Environmental Network
Battle Creek Alliance
California Environmental Justice Alliance
Carbon Trade Watch
Center for Biological Diversity
Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment
Communities for a Better Environment
Filipino American Coalition for Environmental Solidarity (FACES)
Food & Water Watch
Forests Forever
Friends of the Earth-US
Grassroots Global Justice Alliance
Greenpeace International
Global Community Monitor
Global Exchange
Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice
Green Party of Alameda County
Health of Mother Earth Foundation (Nigeria)
Justice in Nigeria Now!
Indigenous Environmental Network
International Indian Treaty Council
Movement Generation: Justice and Ecology Project
Oilwatch International
Rainforest Action Network
Sierra Club California
Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous Peoples
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario