The U.S. Secret Service and the press are on higher alert with the arrival of U.S. congressional delegations at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Poznan as the second week of the conference gets underway. While the official Bush delegation is remaining low-profile -- even evading questions at today's press conference -- most Democratic congressional teams are pitching better times just around the corner on Capitol Hill.
One of the hottest topics of the conference is Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation -- REDD. Getting policy discussions underway in the coming year is a top priority for environmentalists heading toward the Copenhagen conference in December 2009. REDD has had a rocky time the last few days here, however, with major U.S. environmental groups petitioning the convention to free it from the shackles of a technical panel. If it is released, the good news is that the approaches of the UNFCCC and the U.S. seem to be converging on some issues (despite U.S. delegation chief Harlan Watson's admission in today's press conference that he didn't know the details of the U.S. position on REDD).
Provisions of REDD were part of the major Senate climate bill discussed earlier this year. In November, many members of the House of Representatives released a draft set of principles for their version of climate legislation, and it also contained REDD provisions. This is important because in early 2009, at the request of President-elect Barack Obama, Congress will draft legislation to reduce U.S. emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. It is very likely that this new draft legislation will contain REDD provisions.
In the U.S. legislative debate, market and non-market sources of funding have been part of the REDD provisions. Non-market funding, such as revenue from setting aside a portion of allowances, can be used to help developing countries do the necessary preparation to reduce deforestation. Market funding can pay for reductions once a country establishes its monitoring system, its emissions baseline, and a plan for reducing deforestation and channeling money down to the ground. A market and non-market REDD package is essential because national circumstances differ, country capacity varies greatly, and successfully tackling the problem of deforestation will require vast amounts of money for many decades. The Poznan delegates need to move forward on this and stop making excuses.
Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) [UPDATED]
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 1:38 pm
08 Dec 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
naught101 Posted 2:27 pm
08 Dec 2008
WTF? That make Australia's pissweakness look GOOD.
We're looking at at least a minimum of 5% by 2020 (although I think that might be on 2000 levels, meaning ~4%), and our increase has been almost double that of the US.
check out http://www.envirowiki.info, the knowledge database for environmentalists and activists.
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 3:40 am
09 Dec 2008
Dear UNFCCC Friends in Poznan,
I want to at least try to gain your quick help. I'm not sure if you've heard, but yesterday the "AWAREness Campaign on the Human Population" submitted an idea for how we think the Obama Administration could change America. It's called "Ideas for Change in America."
I've submitted an idea and wanted to see if you could vote for it. The title is: Accepting human limits and Earth's limitations. You can read and vote for the idea by clicking on the following link:
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/accepting_human_limits_a ...
The top 10 ideas are going to be presented to the Obama Administration on Inauguration Day and will be supported by a national lobbying campaign run by Change.org, MySpace, and more than a dozen leading nonprofits after the Inauguration. So each idea has a real chance at becoming policy.
Thanks.
Sincerely yours,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on the Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilityscience.org/content.html?contentid=1 ...
Permalink
Jonas Posted 4:58 am
09 Dec 2008
There's a great report showing that REDD can be yet another new round of imperialism, this time of the Green kind.
Indigenous peoples and local farmers' rights risk being trampled under 'reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation' (REDD) schemes.
The report -- titled "Cutting Corners: World Bank's forest and carbon fund fails forests and peoples" -- was issued by the Forests and the European Union Resource Network (FERN) and the Forest Peoples Program (FPP) at the start of UN climate negotiations in Poznan, Poland.
"In this flawed process forest communities have not been properly consulted. As a result, donors could be complicit in a new global drive reinforcing old top-down policies that will only lead to more forest destruction," said Saskia Ozinga, Coordinator of FERN. "We have seen from the EU's FLEGT process, which aims to control illegal logging, that a proper consultation process will take years, but trying to shortcut consultations will just lead to long-term failure."
====
REDD is a threat to forest people:
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/1202-fern_redd.html
Many farm associations from developing countries, as well as indigenous peoples and local NGOs (not the big Euro-American NGOs), are all against REDD, because it means stealing their forests and livelihoods, and selling them on the global capitalist market.
REDD needs a lot of work.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:35 pm
09 Dec 2008
Other analysts say REDD -- in a form that recognizes rural peoples' rights -- offers the best hope for preserving forests in the future while simultaneously fighting global warming.
"REDD can benefit biodiversity conservation as well as indigenous and rural peoples," wrote Daniel Nepstad, Stephan Schwartzman, and Paulo Moutinho in a report published last year. "To succeed, national REDD programs must be consistent with UNFCCC and other UN principles, be transparent and have the active involvement of indigenous peoples and forest communities."
"Rejecting REDD will not defend indigenous rights. Substituting official aid from developed countries for carbon market funding will not be a better, less risky alternative for reducing deforestation. Indigenous rights abuses, often caused by the same activities that drive deforestation, must be addressed directly."
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
TalleyGreenCanary Posted 2:34 am
11 Dec 2008
TalleyGreenCanary
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:53 am
11 Dec 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink