***********************************************

WORLDWIDE FOREST/BIODIVERSITY CAMPAIGN NEWS

U.S. Proposes to Use Forests to Fight Global Warming

***********************************************

Forest Networking a Project of Forests.org

http://forests.org/ -- Forest Conservation Archives

http://forests.org/web/ -- Discuss Forest Conservation

08/04/00

OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY

The United States is proposing that countries get equal credit in

their Kyoto pledges from removal of carbon by growing forests as from

actual reductions in emissions. Clearly forests have a significant

role to play in storing carbon, and this should be reflected in carbon

accounting. But steps must be taken to ensure that other

environmental considerations such as biodiversity conservation and

wilderness ecosystem protection are not undermined by carbon forestry,

and that the benefits of the Kyoto targets are not watered down by

providing a means to dodge limiting emissions. In my opinion the

relatively modest Kyoto targets should have to be met strictly through

reductions in fossil fuel emissions and minimizing land-use changes to

maintain existing carbon sinks. This is because carbon stored in

forests is impermanent, as climate change is predicted to lead to

forest dieback, and re-release of stored carbon. Only after Kyoto

targets for emission reductions are met should carbon removal by

growing forests be entered into carbon accounting, and only with

important safeguards. Accounting for carbon removal by forests under

the Kyoto agreement may provide perverse incentives to log remaining

old growth and regenerating natural forests for plantations.

Protecting existing natural forests, both old-growth and secondary,

will require strict prohibitions against allowing plantations

developed by clearing natural forests to count in carbon accounting.

Only under these conditions should the developed World's efforts to

weaken their commitment to reduce carbon emissions be considered.

g.b.

*******************************

RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:

Title: U.S. Proposes New Strategy to Fight Global Warming

Source: Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company

Date: August 2, 2000

By: ANDREW C. REVKIN

Preparing for renewed international negotiations on cutting levels of

heat-trapping gases that may be warming the climate, the United States

is proposing that countries get just as much credit for using forests

and farmers' fields to sop up carbon dioxide, the chief warming gas,

as they would for cutting emissions from smokestacks and tail pipes.

Scientists have known for decades that trees and other plants absorb

carbon dioxide as they grow and some soils do as well. In theory,

pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere would allow countries to

emit some heat-trapping, or greenhouse, gases without adding to the

overall problem.

Clinton administration officials and some scientists said last night

that incentives to plant trees and to farm in ways that lock away

carbon were essential for stabilizing the climate. In addition, they

said, bringing farmers and foresters into the battle is likely to be

crucial if the Senate, which has so far firmly opposed ratifying any

international climate treaty, is to change its view.

But the position is being criticized by some private environmental

groups, which have pressed to cut the burning of coal and oil, which

caused most of the carbon dioxide buildup in the first place. They

point to uncertainties about how long plants and soils could continue

to absorb carbon.

And the proposal is at odds with the stance of the European Union

which, given its relative lack of open land for tree-planting, would

be at a disadvantage.

The State Department laid out the United States' approach in documents

filed last night with a United Nations office that is overseeing talks

aimed at carrying out the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an international

agreement aimed at averting any dangerous climate warming. Thirty-

eight other industrialized countries were scheduled to file their

proposals last night, as well.

The Kyoto agreement has been signed by the United States and more than

100 other countries but has not yet been ratified, and many details

remain to be ironed out, with two rounds of negotiations coming in

September and again in November.

If the agreement is ratified, the United States would commit itself to

cutting its emissions of carbon dioxide by 2010 to 7 percent below the

emissions in 1990. Given the growth in the economy and fuel use since

1990, administration officials say, the only way to come anywhere near

that target is by adopting every possible strategy, including the

agricultural approach.

Vice President Al Gore was deeply involved in crafting the Kyoto

treaty and any deadlock in talks would be a blow to him.

On the other hand, although Gov. George W. Bush of Texas has said he

believes global warming is a significant problem, he opposes

ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, saying it would unfairly burden

the United States.

White House officials said Mr. Gore was being apprised of the proposed

strategy.

Michael Oppenheimer, chief scientist of Environmental Defense, a

private group, said that whatever program finally emerges in the next

rounds of talks, it must not allow any country to get too much credit

for things it is already doing, like, for example, planting trees on

land that was clearcut several years ago.

"Done well, credit for forests and farming could help jumpstart a

solution to the global warming problem," Dr. Oppenheimer said. "Done

poorly, it could undermine the credibility of the whole Kyoto

agreement."

David B. Sandalow, the assistant secretary of state for oceans and

environmental affairs, said the United States would not want any final

climate plan to permit loopholes allowing clearcutting or other bad

land practices to get credit.

But, taking a position at odds with some environmental groups, he

added that the country's position would be to try to get credit for

most of the carbon dioxide being absorbed by the country's trees and

crops -- about 300 million metric tons a year is the projection for

that tally by 2010.

That compares to the projected total emissions of more than 2.1

billion metric tons of carbon dioxide a year from industry, cars and

other sources if current energy trends continue, he said.

He added that keeping some focus on farming and trees would keep the

cost of fighting global warming down. Estimates are that it will be

much cheaper for a country to absorb pollution than to reduce the

output of these gases.

"We need strong incentives for parties to adopt practices that protect

the atmosphere at low cost," Mr. Sandalow said last night.

Canada, Russia, Australia and other countries with lots of forests and

farming are all tending to align with the American position.

Also, according to several Japanese news services, Japan last night

submitted similar plans, anticipating a large role for tree planting.

Its focus is probably not so much on current events but on an

anticipated round of talks extending actions on global warming to the

third world, where Japan and other rich countries could get credit for

investing in forest projects.

Some private environmental groups are vigorously opposing this

approach.

Jennifer Morgan, the director of the climate change campaign at the

World Wildlife Fund, an international group, said that forests and

soils are, at best, a temporary storehouse for carbon, and one that

can be broken open by later changes in practices or by unforseen

forces like wildfire, droughts, or insect infestations -- all of which

could abruptly unlock millions of tons of banked carbon.

"Soil can be a great absorber of carbon, but if you plow too deeply

two years in a row you can release it all back into the air," she

said. "We need to find the most secure way of reaching these goals,

and that is to focus on cutting emissions from things like power

plants."

Last night, a White House official said that some environmental groups

-- historically focused on cleaning pollution -- were being too

inflexible on the issue.

"Carbon is carbon, right?" said the official.

###RELAYED TEXT ENDS###

This document is a PHOTOCOPY for educational, personal and non-

commercial use only. Recipients should seek permission from the

source for reprinting. All efforts are made to provide accurate,

timely pieces; though ultimate responsibility for verifying all

information rests with the reader. Check out our Gaia's Forest

Conservation Archives & Portal at URL= http://forests.org/

Networked by Forests.org, Inc., gbarry@forests.org