文章 Articles

Hard sell

Saving the rainforests is an effective and cheap way of cutting carbon emissions. But is buying trees to stop deforestation the answer? Guy Shrubsole reports.

Article image

Gold first lured outsiders to claim the rainforests. Later, medicines became the prize, then land for ranching cattle, soya and, more recently, biofuels. Now a different part of the Amazon is ours to buy: its massive stocks of carbon. A new scheme launched in the United Kingdom this month aims to exploit the surge in interest in saving trees to save the planet, and offers individuals the chance to pay to protect swaths of rainforest. 

Called Cool Earth -- and set up by the Swedish entrepreneur Johan Eliasch and the British member of parliament Frank Field -- the scheme says it will “price deforestation out of the market” by securing forest in local trusts, and watching it “around the clock to keep the carbon where it belongs”.

It might sound familiar; schemes to buy up and protect the rainforests have been around since campaigns to highlight their plight peaked in the 1980s. But climate change has brought those concerns into new focus, and the organisers of Cool Earth hope to capitalise on the recent boom in ethical consumerism, carbon labels and offsetting services. 

The problem is clear. Deforestation releases massive amounts of carbon. The recent Stern review (for the UK government) into the economics of climate change said greenhouse gas released from the 150,000 square kilometres of tropical forest destroyed each year now accounts for 18% of global emissions -- more than from any single nation.

Conversely, this makes tackling deforestation a cheap way of fighting global warming. A recent report from the international consultancy firm McKinsey identified forest conservation as the “single largest opportunity for cost-effective and immediate reductions of carbon”. And the most recent report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that “forest-related mitigation activities can considerably reduce emissions from sources, and increase CO2 removals by sinks, at low costs.”

Each square acre of Amazon rainforest absorbs and stores up some 260 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2). To protect it, Cool Earth will charge £70 (US $140) per square acre (0.836 square metre), which works out as 27 pence (54 US cents) a tonne. As far as saving carbon goes, that is at the very cheap end of the scale. Offset companies, such as Climate Care, will typically charge £7.50 (US $15) per tonne of CO2.

Cool Earth operates as a charity and denies it is in the offset business (although its website offers companies the chance to go “carbon neutral”). “We are not offering an offset or any guilt alleviation mechanism,” says Matthew Owen, a spokesman for Cool Earth. “If people want to use Cool Earth as one, there is not much we can do, since we think it’s important to advertise how much CO2 an acre stores.” Field calls Cool Earth’s work “offsetting plus”.

So who is buying? So far, outgoing British prime minister Tony Blair, magazine editor Ian Hislop, rock star Jarvis Cocker and Mark Ellingham, founder of the Rough Guides series of travel books, number among supporters. Donors are almost entirely individuals, with donations ranging from £5 to £5,000, says Owen. The travel agency First Choice says it is planning a large investment. Field talks of getting philanthropists to unite to buy land tactically, so that “buck for buck [dollar for dollar], you’re making a bigger impact”.

Others have tried before to sell the British public shares in the rainforest. The World Land Trust has bought 142,000 hectares (350,000 acres) of endangered habitats with individual donations since 1989. RainforestForever.org sells “tree kits”, the deluxe editions complete with a framed certificate of ownership. But certificates are seldom guarantees against chainsaws. WWF’s figures for land ownership in the Brazilian Amazon show 35% to be “public or private lands in dispute”, which, they say, shows “why any initiatives to encourage land purchase as a strategy for conservation are likely to be limited”. Cool Earth says it will place microchips in protected trees and display the location of preserved areas on the Internet.

Perhaps more worrisome to potential investors is the sense that Cool Earth is taking land from native Brazilians. Eliasch was accused of “green colonialism” in 2006 when he bought up a piece of rainforest the size of Greater London to protect it, forcing the closure of a sawmill and putting 1,000 people out of work.

He says: “You either keep the forest standing, which takes jobs away from indigenous people who need to feed themselves, or you cut down the trees, which affects the climate. In the long term, you have to protect the forest.”

Contrary to such criticisms, says Field, Cool Earth’s policy aim is to “disadvantage the west”, forcing polluting nations to compensate rainforest states for the ecological services they perform. The resultant source of income has “huge potential” which, he says, “will begin to make overseas aid redundant”.

The US-based Rainforest Action Network discourages direct purchase of tropical forests, as “most ‘buy-an-acre’ programmes ignore the fact that there are people who live in and depend upon the rainforest”. Cool Earth insists it works in a different way, by leasing land from the Brazilian government. It says this will ensure “full access for local people to protected areas for rubber tapping, nut and fruit extraction and other traditional trades”.

Whether or not Cool Earth succeeds in its ambition to price deforestation out of the market, the idea of paying countries such as Brazil not to chop down their forests is gaining momentum. Negotiations continue on how rainforest nations could be compensated for such “avoided deforestation” in a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, and deforestation will be a key issue on the agenda at the United Nations climate talks in Bali in December.

British chancellor of the exchequer – and incoming prime minister -- Gordon Brown announced last autumn that the UK would work with rainforest countries to “explore ways of mobilising international resources to assist in sustainable forestry management”. In this year’s national budget he proposed an “environmental transformation fund”, to deliver £50 million (US $100 million) to protect the Congo Basin forest.

Field claims that while these initiatives will take time to get off the ground, schemes such as Cool Earth can act immediately. “Acting in consort takes time,” he says. “And the one commodity the world no longer has is time.”


Copyright Guardian News & Media Ltd 2007

Homepage photo by Eecue


Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous


如今, 气候变化已经是无法逆转的事实,如果要罪魁祸首的发达国家花钱买树来制止破坏森林,这可能吗?

Can it be true?

Climate change is already an irreversible reality today. The leading perpetrators of the developed countries are now said to spend money to stop the destruction of rain forest - can it really be true?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

目标正确, 但行动不正当!

政府间气候变化委员会(IPPC)和McKinsey的报告建议, 是应该指出抑制森林开发可能为抗击气候变化提供最佳的成本效应。然而,只是以金钱购买森林来停止对树木的砍伐是不足的。首先,一旦森林被可信赖的组织购买之后,当地人将迁搬到别处,除非为他们提供其他谋生的选择和发展机会。其次是, 即使你有能力收购所有的森林,而剥夺当地居民的发展权利是不道德的行为,除非给予他们的补偿金能够让他们保持或者提高目前的生活水准,同时具有可发展的机会而不对森林造成破坏。因此,重点并不在于森林,而是对森林开发的同时能够保存, 并且能获得持续的发展。所花费的金钱能够转换为教育,培训,科技和创新来协助这一群人管理可持续的森林资源,或者制定无森林概念的生活,由此而来,所消费的将会是正当并且有效。

Right direction, but wrong track!

It is right to point out that curbing deforestation offers probably the most cost-effective way battling against climate change, as IPPC and McKinsey reports suggest.

However, simply buying forests to stop them being chopped down is not a sustainable option.

Firstly, indigenous people will move on to another forest when the one they relied on is bought, unless they are provided with alternative livelihood and development oppotunities.

Secondly, even you can buy out all forests, it is simply not ethical to deprive locals of rights to develop themselve, unless the money spent can enable them to have the same and higher standard of life, as well as oppotunities to develop, without damaging forests.

Therefore, the key is not about forests, is about developing forest dependents' ability to survive and develop sustainably. Only if the money spent can be converted into education, training, technology and innovation helping these dependents either manage forest resources sustainably or establish non-forest means of livelihoods, the spending would be justified and effective.

Tian Ming

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous




John Whiting

Negative equity

The Cool Earth scheme reminds me of a joke my father once made. "Today I saved twenty dollars!" he proudly announced. "I saw a sign that said TWENTY DOLLAR FINE FOR SPITTING ON THE FLOOR, and I didn't spit on the floor."

Even if no more forests were destroyed, the carbon footprint of our collective extravagance would still tip the planet over the edge of climate sustainability. It just might take a little longer.

John Whiting