According to a new study published in the Sept. 11 2008 edition of London-based science journal Nature, old growth, or primary forests, continue to absorb carbon from the atmosphere. This contrasts with decades of thought that these forests are "carbon neutral", releasing as much carbon as they capture.
The finding will have big consequences.
Firstly, more urgency will be placed on the conservation of old-growth forests because leaving the forests standing now makes greater economical sense, not only ecological value. Scientists consistently argue that the value of captured carbon is thought to outweigh the value of harvested timber.
Up till now, calls for conservation of such forests are often opposed on economic grounds in regard to logging operations. Since economic gains from environmental services and values are still not clear, forest conservation of old forests could be logically deemed an "economic loss".
With a greater understanding of forests' important role in mitigating climate change, more countries, particularly industrialized nations mandated with emission reduction, will be interested in preserving the forests. Countries can now expect obvious economic gains, saving on climate change mitigation through conservation investments.
Secondly, the finding is likely to change the landscape of global climate change regimes. According to the Kyoto Protocol, preservation of the forests are not acknowledged as a mitigation scheme since the protocol only recognizes changes to the carbon stock by afforestation, reforestation and deforestation.
With the finding that carbon sequestration by old-growth forests is scientifically proven, countries like Russia, Canada, Australia and the United States will get some "fresh air" in their congested emissions. Those countries possess vast old forests.
They will without doubt urge the next frameworks of climate change regimes to provide "more credits" for leaving the forests untouched.
The study unveils that old-growth forests in Russia, Canada and Alaska, the United States, alone have the potential to absorb more than 1 gigatonnes of carbon annually, or about 10 percent of the global net uptake of carbon dioxide. If this new finding is elaborated at the next climate change negotiations, it will ease their mitigation burdens to some extent. Therefore, those countries will be more confident in meeting their emission targets.
Apparently, the pendulum will swing swiftly in favor of those countries, which ironically contributed to the bulk of past emissions. With a "healthier" carbon balance due the contribution of their old-growth forests, they are likely to reassess their investments on climate change mitigation.
Many mitigation schemes, like REDD-related projects, will be evaluated. Under REDD frameworks, Annex I (industrialized) nations can "buy" carbon budget emission reductions to meet their emission targets from developing countries.
The reductions are seen as a "positive" balance because developing countries are not mandated with any reduction targets.
In fact, some "North-South Alliances" on REDD are now emerging. Nonetheless, with the new development on the contribution of old-growth forests in their carbon balance, the developed nations might not need to invest in as much as they do. They could even expect more economic windfalls if their carbon balance proved a net positive.
On the other hand, the latest development might disappoint countries with expectations of tangible benefits. Indonesia itself, for instance, now actively collaborates with some industrialized nations, such as Germany and Australia, for REDD-related projects with such expectations.
Overall, the new scientific findings will provide some industrialized nations with more bullets in climate change negotiations.
If it is the case, the future landscapes of the climate change regime is likely to see more pressure on developing countries, like Indonesia, that are main emitters. Instead of economic payments, the countries could be burdened more with mitigation-associated costs. This would be a sour consequence.
No comments:
Post a Comment