World Growth Chairman, Alan Oxley, said today unless climate change negotiators meeting this week in Bonn concentrated on finding cheaper ways to reduce emissions, the negotiations would fail.
“With unemployment rising in the industrialized world and trade and growth collapsing in the developing world, proposals to cut emissions at the cost of reduced jobs and slower growth will be politically unacceptable,” said Mr. Oxley.
He said climate change negotiators had to recognize governments now had a political imperative to promote growth.
“Expansion of sustainable forestry world wide has been recognized by the IPCC, the UN’s climate change research body, as the cheapest and most effective way to reduce emissions,” said Mr. Oxley.
A recent report published by World Growth – Winners All: How Forestry Can Reduce Both Climate Change Emissions and Poverty – A Pro-Development Program highlighted the importance of this.
It showed expansion of sustainable forestry in developing countries like Indonesia, the Congo and Brazil would increase the size forest carbon sinks, said Mr. Oxley
The bigger sinks would absorb more emissions and reduce pressure to cut them, and thereby the cost of doing so, explained Mr. Oxley.
He said research recently released by Greenpeace showed the same thing, but Greenpeace skirted over that to contend no carbon credits should be allowed for forestry in developing countries.
Greenpeace argued there would be so many it would reduce the price of carbon credits in a global trading scheme.
Mr. Oxley said the price of credits was less important than reducing emissions.
“Expansion of sustainable forestry would also support economic growth in poor countries,” said Mr. Oxley. “Unfortunately, that is not a Greenpeace objective.”
“Greenpeace’s approach is shaped by its opposition to forestry and its desire to raise costs for carbon-based energy industries rather than find cheaper ways to reduce global emissions.” said Mr. Oxley.
If climate negotiators follow Greenpeace’s lead, they will alienate developing countries and there will no new agreement to reduce emissions, said Mr. Oxley.
He pointed out China plans to increase it forests to 20 percent of total land area by 2010, abating 50 Mt of carbon dioxide, but Greenpeace’s approach would not allow China to count that or earn credits for it.
“With unemployment rising in the industrialized world and trade and growth collapsing in the developing world, proposals to cut emissions at the cost of reduced jobs and slower growth will be politically unacceptable,” said Mr. Oxley.
He said climate change negotiators had to recognize governments now had a political imperative to promote growth.
“Expansion of sustainable forestry world wide has been recognized by the IPCC, the UN’s climate change research body, as the cheapest and most effective way to reduce emissions,” said Mr. Oxley.
A recent report published by World Growth – Winners All: How Forestry Can Reduce Both Climate Change Emissions and Poverty – A Pro-Development Program highlighted the importance of this.
It showed expansion of sustainable forestry in developing countries like Indonesia, the Congo and Brazil would increase the size forest carbon sinks, said Mr. Oxley
The bigger sinks would absorb more emissions and reduce pressure to cut them, and thereby the cost of doing so, explained Mr. Oxley.
He said research recently released by Greenpeace showed the same thing, but Greenpeace skirted over that to contend no carbon credits should be allowed for forestry in developing countries.
Greenpeace argued there would be so many it would reduce the price of carbon credits in a global trading scheme.
Mr. Oxley said the price of credits was less important than reducing emissions.
“Expansion of sustainable forestry would also support economic growth in poor countries,” said Mr. Oxley. “Unfortunately, that is not a Greenpeace objective.”
“Greenpeace’s approach is shaped by its opposition to forestry and its desire to raise costs for carbon-based energy industries rather than find cheaper ways to reduce global emissions.” said Mr. Oxley.
If climate negotiators follow Greenpeace’s lead, they will alienate developing countries and there will no new agreement to reduce emissions, said Mr. Oxley.
He pointed out China plans to increase it forests to 20 percent of total land area by 2010, abating 50 Mt of carbon dioxide, but Greenpeace’s approach would not allow China to count that or earn credits for it.
0 comments: