Losing our Biological History, and Perhaps Ourselves, in the Sixth Mass Extinction
Richard Leaky and Roger Lewin’s book The Sixth Extinction traces the history of life on the planet as we understand it in biology, paleontology and related disciplines, and tries to find a place and meaning for the human species. The fossil record demonstrates five mass extinctions in the history of life on the planet after the Cambrian explosion (in the last 500 million years), where up to 65% of extant species went extinct. Scientists estimate that we are in the midst of a sixth mass extinction and this one is man-made. Coming to terms with mass extinction and subsequent species renewal (granted within geological not human timeframes), one might conclude that the extinction we are experiencing does not matter. The history of life on Earth tells us that extinction like change is inevitable. Why the mass extinction we are driving matters can be found in a mixture of tangible and intangible values. Leaky and Lewin suggest three ways that we can value biodiversity: 1) the tangible benefits we can extract from our environment, such as food, raw materials, and medicines, 2) the less tangible benefits, the maintenance of the physical environment, in its circulation of gases, chemicals, and moisture, and 3) the intangible benefits, such as the esthetic pleasure individual humans derive from their experience of the diversity of life around them.
The value of the first two is obvious, as is the fact that their loss is detrimental to our own existence. No one would reasonably argue for destroying the planet’s biota to the point where it no longer sustains human life. But as with climate change, there is considerable uncertainty about the exact impacts of species loss. We know there are consequences, but we do not fully understand them. How many species can we lose without significant change, and at what point will the Earth’s ecological and biological systems stop functioning altogether?
The third, intangible method of valuation needs more consideration as well. What does the loss of millions of species, most un-recorded, mean for understanding our history as well as our future? I would draw an analogy. After the U.S. invasion of Baghdad in 2003, little was done to stop the looting and pillaging of museums and other cultural sites (perhaps because it simply wasn’t possible). The world watched in horror as pieces of our human cultural heritage, in a place some would consider the cradle of civilization, were stolen or altogether destroyed. We feel a tremendous loss when something that is considered an irreplaceable part of our cultural heritage is destroyed and we make efforts to protect and preserve such heritage wherever we can. Should we not feel some similar attachment to the multiple components of our biological heritage? To the multiple species that are an integral part of how we have come to exist today and that shape existence on our planet. I guess the parallel question is if climate change is causing the extinction of millions of species, is there a place for intangible valuation within climate policy? Can we find a way to account for nature without an economic calculation? If the intrinsic value of our cultural heritage is any indication, our biological heritage deserves equal consideration. In destroying Earth’s species, we are collectively looting the world of treasures that we cannot replace.
The Georgia Tech Climate Policy Blog: A Religious Revival
Due to popular demand I have decided to revive the climate policy blog. I am going to take the opportunity to open with a somewhat taboo topic–religion. On Friday I attended an interesting talk hosted by Professor Judy Curry in Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. The presentation, given by Dr. David Gushee, Distinguished Professor of Christian Ethics, was titled ‘Understanding Conservative Religious Resistance to Climate Science.’
Dr. Gushee explained that one of the reasons Evangelicals have disregarded environmentalism is because the environmental movement took shape amongst the ‘sex, drugs and rock and roll’ of the 60s, and for better or worse environmentalism become associated with these characteristics. There are also concerns about the way the environmental movement has been interpreted in terms of population control and deism. Part of the problem may be that religion hasn’t ever really been welcomed into the climate change debate. Dr. Gushee pointed out that as scientists we are often not comfortable discussing religion. We like to convey climate change in levels of scientific certainty, leaving religion as a category outside of the debate. As policy makers or advocates we often engage various forms of economics and politics but not directly religion.
What we are facing in climate change or in the destruction of our global ecosystems more generally is not an exclusively political or scientific or economic issue, but a human issue. It is important to engage all aspects of that humanity. Turning a blind eye to aspects of life that make us professionally uncomfortable will not work, especially when they are aspects that are so fundamental to our societies.
Dr. Gushee’s presentation reminded me of an organization I came across while at a conference on Eastern European environmental governance in Oxford, the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC). ARC is a secular organization that promotes conservation around the world by engaging local communities in the environmental messages that are found in their religious texts and traditions. Martin Palmer, ARCs Secretary General, stated the importance of working with the world’s religions as such, “Religious institutions have outlived every dynasty, every empire and they will outlive every ideology including the state. They will be there in a 1000 years’ time. When religions move, they move for generations not for a lifetime.”
To address climate change, we need the collaboration of most if not all of the world’s societies. We might more successfully get such collaboration by communicating to the heart of these societies. In the United States this requires in part finding a way to engage the religious right. As pointed out by Dr. Gushee, the Bible holds its own messages of conservation. Being heard is sometimes a matter of locating and delivering the right message. Can environmentalists and climate scientists engage with evangelical and other conservative religious communities to build common ground? The only way to find out is to do what Dr. Gushee does through his work and to start the conversation. Perhaps it is time for climate discourse to experience a religious revival.
Hopenhagen or Brokenhagen: Copenhagen Accord leaves some satisfied, many more disappointed
A deal was reached in Copenhagen between the major emerging economies and the United States (the BUICS)…It is being called the Copenhagen Accord. I think no one is quite certain what to make out of the result. Some have called it an absolute failure (particularly from the EU and G77 perspective). Some have called it an initial beginning step. I suppose is it is a mixture. President Obama swept in at the last minute cut a quick deal with China, Brazil, India and South Africa. The United States will try to make minimal reduction targets, and will work to leverage 100 billion a year by 2020 for developing countries mitigation and adaptation finance. In exchange the emerging economies will begin to account and report their emissions and try to achieve intensity reductions. It is good that these countries are joining the international regime, but many see it as just too little too late. The manner in which the accord was agreed completely subverted the negotiation process of the past two years. The accord, which most nations merely ‘took note of’ does not follow the format laid out in the Bali Action Plan, and does not address many of the important issues. Every other country was left to either accept it or to be dissatisfied, but that is neither a democratic nor a consensus based process. The BUICS might as well have had their own meeting in advance, made their agreement and come to the negotiating table to present their intentions. In the end that is what the COP amounted to. The accord does give some certainty to REDD, directly recognizing the importance of the program, and linking it to a planned $30 billion fund which should operate between 2010 and 2012. Considering that this was one of the few things most countries agreed on; it is a significant achievement. Hopefully the absence an international agreement (not just a BUICS agreement) will not leave the program struggling to find life. As President Obama concluded, ‘we still have to work for a legally binding agreement.’
In other words COP15 has pushed the real work into the indefinite future and wasted a golden opportunity to do something more substantive. All of the world’s leaders had come to the table and the whole world was watching. In the end this didn’t matter. In explaining the need to break from the Kyoto Protocol, avoid legal obligations and commit the developing world, President Obama explained in a press briefing that, ‘We [the US] were coming with a clean slate because we had been on the sidelines for many years. The Kyoto Protocol and other accords called on developed countries to engage in mitigation activities and to help developing countries with finance.’ The agreements left no responsibilities action for developing countries. While there are very poor agrarian countries, there are also emerging industrializing countries like India and China. Leaving them out of an agreement was unacceptable to the United States and led to the fundamental split in perspective that deadlocked the negotiations. President Obama is correct that the agreement brokered by the BUICS cut the deadlock an achieved a compromise between these perspectives. But he is not correct that the United States was coming to Copenhagen with a clean slate. Our failure to engage for the past 12 years left us undoubtedly behind the rest of the developed world, but this doesn’t make our slate clean; it makes it inadequate. No great leader ever led standing behind and waiting on others to act.
It was a pleasure to follow this experience and to better understand how international political negotiations take place. Many of the delegates and even commentators to the blog called for action outside of international decision-making institutions. As demonstrated by this COP the construction of a climate regime at the international level is tedious and slow. Yet it is an important first step in that it sets the guidelines or the goals countries will try to achieve. No country (the United States included) can ignore climate change. Green growth has now become the only plausible model of development, and publics around the world are now paying attention. Despite the disappointment of the absences of an agreed legal or at least political commitment, the United States, China and India have finally dipped their toes into the water of the climate change regime. While it is not the same as diving in and swimming, these countries will eventually submerge completely (hopefully figuratively and not literally). In the meantime, it is up to all of us to do what we can from the grassroots. Change begins with one turned light switch, one recycled article, one un-purchased product, one living tree at a time. Thank you for allowing me to share this experience with you.
Cheers,
Janelle Knox-Hayes
COP refugee stranded in Paris: Talks make some progress
I spent quite a bit of time in Copenhagen airport today, waiting for the snow to clear. There is a very interesting display by Vestas (a large solar wind producer) and Lego to demonstrate the power of natural energy. At the center of the display a 3 meter moving Lego windmill has been constructed. Around it are several rather neat displays that show the potential of wind power. Apparently, a single turbine repays its investment in 9 months. If you haven’t left Copenhagen yet, it is in terminal 2. The surrounding displays have moving Lego scenes of daily activity. There is a mountain factory, a state of the art house, a boat installing solar installations, a ski resort and a building topped by a hot water pool, all powered by the wind (in this case you have to blow into a device to start the electricity production). As you can see from the picture, European swimwear shares in the environmental ethic–less is more.
As for the COP, I missed the details in my travel travails, but Air France is good to its stranded passengers and I am in a rather nice hotel suite enjoying BBC news. It seems today saw some progress. The developed countries have committed to an 18% reduction target, but there is still discussion of whether or not developing countries will make targets of their own. The 2 degree temperature rise target has not yet been reduced, and a number of developing countries are demanding a $200 billion per year in funding. The US has offered to leverage $100 billion by 2020, but this depends on what the emissions cuts developing countries, particularly China agree to. Key US players including Secretary Clinton and Senator Kerry are lobbying for some action from the US. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister, He Yafei encouraged the move, saying the financial issue is important.” Secretary Clinton has prepared a major funding plan for developing countries, ‘It is no secret that we have lost precious time in these past few days. We can’t continue to let this be about us and them. The President is planning on coming tomorrow, obviously we hope there is something for him to come for.’ UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown offered his own sentiments, ‘In these few days in Copenhagen, which will be blessed or blamed for generations to come, we cannot let the politics of narrow self interests prevent our chance of survival,’ UN SecBan Ki-moon, remained optimistic ‘I believe we can seal a deal still in Copenhagen.’
I hope there is more progress tomorrow, both for the COP and my own journey to Atlanta.
Cheers,
Janelle
Sorry, this is a bit late, I have to catch my flight tomorrow and like the rest of Copenhagen I got caught in the snow tonight. Anyway I had a very eventful day outside of the COP.
I finally got to the Copenhagen film festival and saw two fantastic films. I would like to screen both of these films and several others at Georgia Tech in the Spring. The first, called Hope in a Changing Climate, showed the power of restoring soil structure and natural vegetation. In China and Ethiopia degraded desert wastelands were converted to green oases in a matter of a mere fifteen years, by replanting trees, changing agriculture and grazing behavior. Vegetation is 90% water and prevents soil erosion, and organic soil stores 3 time more carbon than vegetation. If REDD succeeds, the restoration of millions of hectares of land could perhaps be tied in through an extension program Reducing Emissions from Degradation, Deforestation and Ecosystem Restoration (REDDER). Sounds long, but trust me it is the next big thing! 
After the film, director John D. Liu shared some profound conclusions, ‘We have to think beyond our localities, a restored ecosystem anywhere is a benefit to all of humanity. We need to have a species consciousness and act in the interest of everyone on the planet. This is the only way to prevent global catastrophe.’ The second, a film called Green by Patrick Rouxel, traced the destruction of forests in Indonesia for palm oil production. There is no dialogue in the film, only a mourning hymn in the background. Seeing the destruction of these forests and the species that depend on them puts in perspective what is at stake. Perhaps what is even sadder is the reminder that most of the industrialized world was once covered with forests. They are hundreds of years gone and our collective consciousness doesn’t even remember them.
My guest bloggers didn’t make it to the actual blog (this is hard work folks!), but I had dinner with two of them (Harro Van Assault, Vrije University Amsterdam and Kanako Morita, Tokyo Institute of Technology) and they shared some really good insights and news from the inside. Connie Hedregaard stepped down from her position as COP President. This is unusual and unfortunate for a number of reasons. One, it signals (as though everything else didn’t) that things are not going well and two, she is one of the few (if not the only) woman to ever make it to that position. A big message of this conference is that we need to involve the work of women, particularly in developing countries. One of the delegates even commented on Hedregaard’s Presidency, the great work that she was doing and the strong signal it sent to women all over the world. The official reason for her to step down was that someone more official (Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen) was able and willing to lead the HLS, but this is not how other COPs have operated. There is also the fact that the Danish ministry lost credibility with the leaked Danish draft text, which particularly upset the G77. But I can’t help but wonder if she would have been so easily pushed aside if she were not a woman. I am not sure that Prime Minister Rasmussen is going to do anything different in her place and he doesn’t bring any continuity to the process. Meanwhile, outside, there was a NGO walk-out where badge members left the conference to protest the fact that numbers have become so restricted. A Dutch business leader decided to join the demonstration and was subsequently trapped outside without his coat. The protesters were not allowed back in…
During the plenary there were two speeches that caught everyone’s attention, one by Hugo Chavez, a 10 minute rant about the failure of capitalism (would really like to see this). The second a speech by Robert Mugabe, which underscored the importance of the environment. His new-found environmental ethic made most viewers uncomfortable, especially given his record on human rights and rule of law. May be able to get more details tomorrow. If not, I will sign off at the end of the conference with some analysis of the final result from Atlanta. Thank you to everyone for reading!
Cheers,
Janelle Knox-Hayes
Governor Schwarzenegger gets pumped up and calls for action from citizens everywhere at Hopenhagen
Goodmorning East Coast readers. I don’t have access to the COP conference site today, so I am wondering around the city at a number of different parallel events. I have also asked a few friends from other organizations who got passes to submit short ‘guest blog entries’ so may be able to post these later in the day. Aside from more protests, the big news on local Danish stations this morning while I was eating breakfast was that the Governator was at a local gymn getting pumped up for the Copenhagen Climate talks.
The City of Copenhagen is running a number of events in the city square under the 
rubric of ‘Hopenhagen’. At the City hall this morning Governor Schwarzenegger spoke at a meeting of mayors, with mayors from around the world, and said ‘It is wrong to think the solutions have to come from the federal government. No great movement was ever top down; it happened at the grassroots level. We need action from everyday citizens.’ Along with some of the mayors present, he highlighted the great work happening in States like California and in major cities like Hong Kong. When it comes down to it, addressing climate change is up to all of us. The actions of individuals to minimize the energy we use, the waste we create and the resources we consume will make a difference.
Live From Copenhagen: Take Me to Your Climate Leader
Today was a very full day as I tried to get in as much COP as possible before I am denied access tomorrow. The line is getting longer, but the Danish National Guard provided tea and coffee to mitigate the freezing wait. By Thursday the COP will be virtually closed to observers.
I attended an interesting CNN/Youtube discussion between Kofi Anan, Yvo De Boer, Darryl Hannah, Thomas Friedmann, and Bjorn Lamborg. The questions were provided from around the world tube by youtube clips. I am not sure why Bjorn Lamborg (noted environmental skeptic) came to Copenhagen at all, but he moderated his views to focus on the need of energy and food for developing countries. Freedman expressed the need to economize and incentivize clean energy, ‘There is only one thing as big as mother nature and that is father greed.’ I believe the full session is available on youtube. Afterward I snatched a photo with Thomas Friedman.
The opening plenary of the High Level Session (HLS) saw a number of dignitaries stress the importance of what needs to happen in the next three days. Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations, compared what is happening here with the meeting that created the United Nations. ‘We are on the cusp of an agreement; we are on the cusp of history.’ He favored the developing world and most NGOs with a reminder that until a new agreement is reached ‘the Kyoto Protocol is the only legally binding treaty we have, and it must be maintained.’ COP President Connie Hedegaard reiterated the fact that the key word for the next two days must be compromise, ‘Success is still a possibility, but we can fail. You the parties must commit, compromise and deliver now.’ Finally Prince Charles delivered a rather moving speech, ‘We cannot have capitalism without nature’s capital. We cannot sustain our economy without sustaining nature’s economy.’
Yet ministers are arriving tomorrow, and not nearly enough progress has been achieved. In the closing session of the Kyoto Protocol working group, the inadequacy of negotiation over the past week and half became apparent. The chair tried to summarize the group’s progress and prepare a concluding report for the HLS (of ministers and heads of state) to begin tomorrow. India highlighted that ‘one of the most important issue is not complete’ (i.e. agreement to keep the Kyoto Protocol). Switzerland complained that the process ‘has been chaotic and that this should be the exception not the norm. We are not clear on what to report, and your explanations are not explanations.’ The chair suggested that clarity was something the delegates should provide through their negotiations, but that his responsibility is to produce a report. The delegate from Algeria retorted ‘It is very difficult to report to the COP/MOP, when we have nothing to report’. The meeting was moved to a smaller room and closed to the public so that parties could try to come up with something to deliver to their ministers tomorrow. Dozens of frustrated observers marshaled outside, wondering how they can bring pressure to bear on their officials when so much of this process is not transparent.
Finally, I was abducted by aliens demanding to be taken to my climate leader. I wasn’t sure where to take them. Leaders are willing to sacrifice of themselves to achieve the greater good, such a group is yet to emerge out of these negotiations. However, I have heard that South Korea has offered to accept binding commitments to try to lead the way for other emerging economies. This might be just the olive branch the negotiations need.
Live From Copenhagen: US national progress while talks delayed under more geopolitical maneuvering
The draw has been decided and I have been given one of the few secondary passes for Tuesday. Thanks very much to Heike Schroeder and Diana Liverman (from Environmental Change Institute, Oxford) for their efforts in this regard. By Thursday it is likely they will close the conference to all but a small number of observers.
In the afternoon, Steven Chu highlighted some promising new technologies such as liquid-metal building batteries…very interesting heating potential. He said we won’t get the reductions needed without major infrastructure overhaul. ‘It is often said today if Thomas Edison came back to look at our power plants he would recognize them.’ Lobbying for this is part of the US’s ongoing science presentations. There were some very strong statements made from US policy makers and public officials in a WBCSD panel about US legislation. With the coalition building efforts of Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman we are likely to see climate legislation, which would create a US based emissions market in the next year. If not, the EPA will act independently to regulate emissions. Gina McCarthy indicated that last week the EPA released an endangerment finding (years if not decades in the making) which gives it the authority to regulate air emissions since they endanger public health. It is a prospect much grimmer to polluters than Congressional legislation.
I got some details from inside sources on the REDD draft text. Several key goals have been achieved. The first is the issue of rights, with a statement in the preamble something to the effect that the rights of indigenous peoples will be respected. Safeguards have been built into the text at all levels for three key issues 1) carbon accounting and integrity 2) social safeguards to protect indigenous rights (in terms of involvement in REDD, and in having a positive impact from REDD) and 3)biodiversity safeguards to ensure that forest biodiversity is enhanced and ecosystem services are not degraded. Markets will also be a component of the financing mechanism but will be coupled with other types of funds. The downside is that the text has been watered down, and all ‘shall’ and ‘should’ statements have become ‘will encourage’ statements. Nevertheless, in negotiations where disagreements over a few words can be crucial, the existence of all of the components is an excellent starting point.
Finally, conference negotiations were suspended again today. After Australia reiterated its sentiment that is not possible to discuss a revised Kyoto framework when it is not clear the two tracks should remain, the G77 walked out and boycotted discussions for most of the day. 
In a briefing to civil society, COP President Connie Hedegaard assured everyone that despite ‘the procedural issues’ things really are being accomplished behind closed doors. She said we will have an agreement by the end of the week, and it will be two-track. In other words the architecture of the Kyoto Protocol will be maintained, as opposed to creating something altogether new. She said that the time to act is now and pressure will never be higher. It has taken years to get 110 heads of states around the negotiating table; this opportunity is too good to waste. There is a valid point to this, but I am not certain whether it is based on positive past experience or just desperately hopeful. There are certainly procedural issues delaying discussions, but determining what to do with the Kyoto Protocol is something far more fundamental. What is becoming clearer is that the G77 have a very strong negotiating point in their alliance with China. If the G77 walk away they can bring China and India with them and that is simply unacceptable.
I think what China is really after is financing from Annex 1 countries for other parts of the developing world, for example Africa, which is quickly becoming one of its major trading partners and source of raw materials. If China boosts African economies (with other nation’s funds) it enhances their ability to purchase Chinese goods, and extends the resources it can extract from Africa. The games about ‘developing status’ and domestic energy intensity reductions, but not international targets are really more about China giving itself ultimate flexibility, not about a failing concern for the global climate. China understands the problem clearly, and would very much like to be a low-carbon, high-tech and energy efficient society. It has far more to gain from these negotiations, in terms of technology access and international status, than to lose. I think some sort of an adjustment of its obligations that satisfies the United States and other Annex 1 countries is absolutely possible, even under the existing Kyoto Framework.
Cheers,
Janelle Knox-Hayes
Mayhem at Bella Center, Badges More Precious than Gold
I learned a very valuable lesson this morning, protect and defend your conference badge at all costs. My badge disappeared from my bag yesterday under mysterious circumstances, I suspect espionage. I subsequently spent 3 hours this morning, crowded into a long, freezing line. At the gates it couldn’t be described as a line really, it is more of a mob. But I am very impressed by the civility and dignity of Danish police managing the crowd. They do a very good job under what must be very trying circumstances. Updates to follow later on REDD program, plenary statements, presentation from Steven Chu (US Energy Secretary), and the outcome of bid for a pass to keep the blog alive. As much problem as the oversubscription is causing (40,000 registered for 15,000 spots–really something that should be addressed before the fact next year) I think it is fantastic that this event has so much awareness and presence. There are so many people here and outside who want to stand witness. No leader wants to come here to fail, and they are most definitely coming. The pressure is high, and it leaves an air of optimism, even if it is a bit of overcrowded opdtimism…
COP Forest Day 3: REDDy to save forests
COP Forest Day 3 was a terrific event, and highlighted a lot of the potential as well as issues with REDD. The Report of the Informal Working Group on Interim Finance for REDD estimates that every month more than 1 million hectares of tropical forests are lost, resulting in the release of more greenhouse gases than the monthly emissions of the entire European Union. It will take years to fully operationalize REDD, but launching the project at scale could accelerate development and save forests that will otherwise be irreplaceably lost. The first issue is funding, at least $23-30 billion will be needed over a five year period to launch REDD quickly. This sounds like a lot, but considering the $700billion bailout package that went to Wall Street earlier this year, the amount is really not insurmountable. One analyst today suggested that Goldman Sachs will receive in bailout bonuses $23billion this year. I haven’t verified the figure, but there is a serious point about priorities; where there is a will there is a way. Eventually, the REDD program could operate with its own market, private investors funding the projects, and selling the credits to compliance parties. Although a number of groups are lobbying to find a way to finance REDD through bilateral or multilateral funding agreements and without the use of market mechanisms, because of the inherent fears associated with these, i.e. sudden crashes, failure of demand, etc.
Another key issue is rights. There is no precedent for the ownership or sale of carbon reductions from forests, and ownership and management systems for the forests themselves will have to be established. Couple this with asymmetry of knowledge and access to resources for the indigenous groups that live with the forests and there is potential for abuse and unjust allocation of rights. Finding a way to ensure that local groups benefit from the programs and still have access to some of the traditional uses of the forests is difficult to balance with the need for private ownership in REDD. The agreement that will be reached this week is just a starting point. All of the definitions, the programs, the rules of operation, and the institutions to manage the program will have to be built or adapted.
The governance and transparency that will be needed to operate REDD is another consideration. Some of the REDD countries have terrible records of corruption. REDD would create an incentive structure by which developing countries would reduce their emissions form deforestation and forest degradation, relative to an agreed national reference level, with funding from developed countries. There needs to be serious reporting, monitoring agencies and protections built in to make sure that the funds are actually be used for sufficient forest conservation. Part of this is about building social capital on the ground, but the first stage of this starts in Copenhagen. In a moving speech, Wangari Maathai Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and Goodwill Ambassador for the Congo Basin Forest Ecosytem explained “I have never been threatened because we don’t money, even though we are not a big organization. Occasionally, I have felt threatened because of corruption, lack of transparency, efforts by people to cheat you. This one thing we should keep in mind. We can leave here with a lot of money or we can leave here with very little, but the most important thing, the thing that will make a difference is if there will be honesty, transparency, and we will avoid corruption whether at the top or the bottom. If we can change that culture, than REDD will benefit the people.”
Looking at some of the stunning photos and video presentations, both of the forests and the cultures that live in them I felt somehow saddened by all of this. Don’t get me wrong, the progress on the program is incredibly positive and it has the potential to do a lot of good, first for actual conservation of the forests, for biodiversity and even for communities in forested areas. But there is inherently something wrong with the need to transform the existence of forests and biodiversity into commodities to preserve them. I don’t mean to lay the blame at any particular group (developed or developing); the problem is systematic. We privilege economic growth, development, modernization over everything else and it is driven by a never ending need for more. This is why we have a climate change problem, deforestation, biodiversity loss, etc. in the first place. The solutions may be pragmatic and achieve the intended objectives, but they destroy inherent value and meaning in doing so. Systems ecologists have come to realize the complexity required to produce these forests. A layered rainforest might appear to be 100 years of growth, but when you consider the complex interactions of all of the flora and fauna from microbial to mega required to produce and sustain it, the forest in fact represents 10,000 years of growth. Live forests are far better than dead in any way we can maintain them, but a market mechanism will never understand nor adequately value 10,000 years.
Cheers, Janelle Knox-Hayes
Janelle Knox-Hayes
