Jun 8th 2009
From Economist.com
TREES are one of the most efficient systems of carbon capture and storage on the planet. They breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen, locking the carbon into their roots, trunk, branches, twigs and leaves and the soil. They are so good at this that about 20% of the
greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere can be attributed to deforestation. In the run-up to the climate talks in Copenhagen <http://en.cop15.dk/> in December, bright minds around the world are negotiating a formal scheme for reducing the loss of trees as a way of lowering the world's carbon emissions.
Avoiding deforestation means that many landowners must forgo the right to cut down their trees, so that the world at large can benefit. As such, carbon emissions from deforestation are a classic example of "environmental externality". So long as this remains the case, forests will continue to be cut down. To resolve the problem, it has been suggested that the people who forgo their rights are compensated. There is already a market for what are called "voluntary" credits in avoided deforestation.
Companies and people can decide to offset their carbon-emitting activities by buying credits in avoided deforestation projects. The voluntary market was worth $705m in 2008, according to Ecosystem Marketplace <http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/ > , a consultancy, more
than twice their value of $335m in 2007. Growth is expected to continue.
At present, avoided deforestation projects and the credits they create are of variable quality. Some companies stay clear of the market by generating their own offsets. Marriott, a hotel group, has a project <http://www.marriott.com/green-brazilian-rainforest.mi > in the Juma
rainforest reserve in Brazil. Anyone who visits its hotels for ten days is offered the opportunity to offset the carbon emissions associated with their stay for $10. Although Marriott customers can be sure they are getting more than hot air for their money, the same is not true everywhere. Money is being spent on credits of dubious ecological value.
As the world moves towards negotiating a deal to reduce carbon emissions that may involve extensive cuts, there are calls to formalise the process of creating avoided deforestation credits. It is important work. The climate bill
<http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_ content&task=view&
id=1560> going through the American Congress envisions that large numbers of offsets would come from international forestry schemes. The new mandatory trading market would be far larger than the tiny voluntary market.
The process for setting up a formal trading scheme goes by the acronym REDD <http://www.undp.org/mdtf/UN-REDD/overview.shtml > , which stands for reducing deforestation and degradation. Landowners who forgo their rights would be able to sell REDD credits that had been verified by trusted third parties in accordance with recognised international standards. Nonetheless there are huge issues to overcome, not least in verifying that deforestation has been avoided. Michelle Chan of Friends of the Earth, a pressure group, says that over the past few years many countries have been funded to become "REDD ready". When the mandatory market emerges, then, there will be schemes that can supply them. She says that many poor countries with forests are eyeing the scheme hopefully but there are problems with land tenure and the rights of indigenous people.
Governments should be banned from selling carbon rights over the heads of indigenous peoples in the proposed formal trading scheme. Negotiators will need to be careful to create property rights that are enforceable. They also need to be cautious about the growing practice among traders of developing derivative products based on promises to deliver carbon credits for a specified price. This is already happening for some REDD projects. In 2008, REDD projects made up 14% of the forest carbon credits traded on voluntary markets, according to a report <http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/cms_documents/ StateOfTheVolun
taryCarbonMarkets_2009.pdf> issued on May 27th by Ecosystem Marketplace. So even though REDD credits do not formally exist, a way is being found to trade them. REDD "credits" trade at a lower price than other kinds of forest carbon credits, a signal that the market recognises their risk.
A survey of buyers of forest carbon credits by a company called EcoSecurities <http://www.ecosecurities.com/> has found that 44% of customers would be willing to buy options to purchase credits, prepay for credits or buy ownership in a share of the project. Where REDD is concerned this may be risky, because it remains to be seen which projects will qualify. Investors could end up with worthless credits, which could harm the credibility of a scheme that has not even really been born.
The world desperately needs a way of incorporating the cost of carbon into the economic system. The cost, however, is to place global ecological security in the somewhat shaky hands of the global financial marketplace.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário