No rainforest in going to be preserved in a nation that continues on a path of exponential growth of population like Liberia. The nature of exponential growth is that it always looks sustainable until the catastrophe hits and everything collapses and there's nothing that can be done to save anything and probably mass starvation.
The fertility rate is 5.16 in Liberia which corresponds to doubling the population about once every 25 years. Then if fertility ever drops back to steady state (2.1), you double the population at least twice more because of population momentum.
The hopeful factor in Liberia is that the fertility rate is dropping. IT was 5.85 in 2000. If it doesn't drop fast, no payment for forests will help. If it does drop fast, the locals will enjoy their environment and work to preserve it.
Right now Liberia has about the population and land area of Virginia, which means it's already overpopulated. Around mid-century it will have at least quadruple the population. Then -- if fertility drops very fast down to replacement level -- it will quadruple again. That will be sixteen times the density of Virginia. And that is the best case scenario.
>Right now Liberia has about the population and land area of Virginia, which means it's already overpopulated.
First, that assumes Virginia is 'optimally populated'.
Second, according to Google, the population of Liberia is 4.294 million (2013) and the population of Virginia is 8.186 million (2012), so using your Virginia-baseline, Liberia can about double its population before being considered over-populated. The Indian state of Kerala, meanwhile, has 34.8 million (2012) people in a smaller area (~38k mi^2 vs ~43k mi^2).
It never ceases to amaze me that political parties who fundamentally believe in the importance of "the market" don't trust it for reducing emissions. Hypocrisy at it's worst.
Well, they will help them build capacity to protect forests, and prevent new logging licenses to be granted, as well as place more forests in a "protected" status.
It's not like they just ask to stop and give them cash, like the headline suggests.
If trees keep getting cut down, the payments will stop.
FTA:
The country agrees to place 30% or more of its forest estate under protected area status by 2020. It will also pilot direct payments to communities for protecting the forest.
Ultimately the Norwegians will pay for results, with independent verification that trees remain standing.
I love the idealism of this but:
1) the price is far too low to have any effect, I am guessing.
2) won't this money go straight into someone's pocket?
3) how on earth do they expect this to be enforced?
We do this in several other countries already. We only actually pay the money if they meet certain goals. Currently we have 4 billion NOK (632 million dollars) still standing in a bank account, because the countries we intended to pay the money to hasn't met the goals we set as a pre-condition. Then again we paid 3 billion NOK (474 million dollars) last year, so it does work to some extent.
2) won't this money go straight into someone's pocket? 3) how on earth do they expect this to be enforced?
Sometimes #3 can be solved by #2. "Hey corrupt minster/police chief/army general, want more of that bribe? Get your corrupt police officers/soliders to stop those people cutting down trees! Since you don't have to obey the law that much, beat up those peasants who are chopping down trees"
The problem here is: cutting down trees creates jobs; receiving 150m doesn't. You still have to distribute them somehow and make these people figure out what to do.
The headline is sensationalist, what they are doing it paying for the government not to issue more logging licenses (easy to verify) and putting forests on "protected" status (as well as other concrete, targeted projects).
It's not like they are handing out cash to the government against a promise.
Where does the demand go? Not only one has to pay Liberia and various parties not to cut trees but one also needs to reshape the demand (for trees) or make sure that the demand is redirected to renewable resources and/or to tree plantations. To me, it seems to be the hardest challenge.
If countries like Norway feel that standing trees provide a service to them, they should pay to keep them up.
It's not charity, the trees are providing a marketable good by processing CO2 emissions.
While I'm not an environmentalist, I do believe in markets as a way of solving larger problems and I think it would be interesting if a market was built on resource preservation.
For instance, if a type of tree processes more CO2, they should be worth more than one that does not and that can be expressed in whatever this marketplace would be. If I had more connections at a government level, I might be interested in such an idea but as it stands now the sales cycles would be too long to get a market like that going.
Because it's a public goods problem. If one country pays, all countries benefit equally, and the country that pays generally spends more than its benefit from that payment. So each country is better off not paying, regardless of what everybody else does, even though we'd all be a lot better off if everybody paid.
The problem, of course, is not in the fact that clearing Carbon CO2 emissions from the air. It's the fact that it might be worth more - in dollars - to cut those trees down and sell them. Perhaps not in this case, but certainly in other cases where countries have tried to sell protecting their own territory environmentally and balanced that against the worth of the resources on the market.
Thus the dollar worth of clearing CO2 emissions doesn't clearly align with the self-interest of doing so over buying trees to make paper and other goods. (The self-interest, of course, is in not dying in the future from some climate change related disaster.
That's why worldwide governmental intervention is needed to make sure the dollar value of keeping those trees up aligns with actual self-interest.
Algae processes more CO2 than trees. You could convert the forests into logging land and just set up massive platforms on the ocean that manage algae. Maybe not even that.
Pretty negative response in this thread to one of the only countries really making serious efforts to preserve the last few remaining tracts of rainforest on earth.
I really really like this idea as long as the money does not go to bureaucrats. If governments and people were serious about pooling money and purchasing land for conservation (ala Ted Turner) and/or supporting conversation efforts, the planet might have a fighting chance.
So you're saying we might have a fighting chance against environmental depredation if instead of using government bullying, we used the private sector to buy those lands, so long as we could guarantee the money wouldn't go to bureaucrats?
You might want to look into libertarianism, as it has been saying that for a long time now, and it has very good arguments as to why it works better than the alternatives.
While I have confidence in the fundamental idea, the thought of actually enforcing / monitoring this seems somewhat laughable. (And thats coming from someone that has actual experience judging whether 1st world money was judiciously applied in a 3rd world country).
How is enforcement going to be a large issue? Doesn't every forest have a forester (Not sure if that is what it's called, but we have people who "takes care" of forests in Denmark). If a forester sees people cutting down trees with large machinery, he would just call the police?
I doubt anyone cares if Mr. Random goes into the wood with his axe, chops down a tree he can carry and runs off with it.
[+] [-] WildUtah|11 years ago|reply
The fertility rate is 5.16 in Liberia which corresponds to doubling the population about once every 25 years. Then if fertility ever drops back to steady state (2.1), you double the population at least twice more because of population momentum.
The hopeful factor in Liberia is that the fertility rate is dropping. IT was 5.85 in 2000. If it doesn't drop fast, no payment for forests will help. If it does drop fast, the locals will enjoy their environment and work to preserve it.
Right now Liberia has about the population and land area of Virginia, which means it's already overpopulated. Around mid-century it will have at least quadruple the population. Then -- if fertility drops very fast down to replacement level -- it will quadruple again. That will be sixteen times the density of Virginia. And that is the best case scenario.
[+] [-] ThisIBereave|11 years ago|reply
First, that assumes Virginia is 'optimally populated'.
Second, according to Google, the population of Liberia is 4.294 million (2013) and the population of Virginia is 8.186 million (2012), so using your Virginia-baseline, Liberia can about double its population before being considered over-populated. The Indian state of Kerala, meanwhile, has 34.8 million (2012) people in a smaller area (~38k mi^2 vs ~43k mi^2).
[+] [-] berberous|11 years ago|reply
What? Can you explain this? Sorry if it's obvious, but I can't seem to grasp what you mean by population momentum.
[+] [-] TheCoelacanth|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icebraining|11 years ago|reply
It wasn't successful: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/23/ecuador-a...
[+] [-] threeseed|11 years ago|reply
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/julie-...
It never ceases to amaze me that political parties who fundamentally believe in the importance of "the market" don't trust it for reducing emissions. Hypocrisy at it's worst.
[+] [-] tribaal|11 years ago|reply
It's not like they just ask to stop and give them cash, like the headline suggests.
[+] [-] sauere|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] azernik|11 years ago|reply
FTA:
The country agrees to place 30% or more of its forest estate under protected area status by 2020. It will also pilot direct payments to communities for protecting the forest. Ultimately the Norwegians will pay for results, with independent verification that trees remain standing.
[+] [-] jonknee|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nakedrobot2|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Skinney|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmc|11 years ago|reply
Sometimes #3 can be solved by #2. "Hey corrupt minster/police chief/army general, want more of that bribe? Get your corrupt police officers/soliders to stop those people cutting down trees! Since you don't have to obey the law that much, beat up those peasants who are chopping down trees"
[+] [-] blaabjerg|11 years ago|reply
> Under the terms of the agreement, Norway will help Liberia to initially build up the capacity to monitor and police the forests.
> Liberia will refrain from issuing any new logging concessions until all existing ones have been reviewed by an independent body.
> Ultimately the Norwegians will pay for results, with independent verification that trees remain standing.
[+] [-] lunarcave|11 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/24/us-norway-oilwealt...
[+] [-] bulltale|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ezhux|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Expez|11 years ago|reply
Well, indirectly it might be, as some of the profits from invested oil money are made available to the government to spend each year.
[+] [-] guard-of-terra|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tribaal|11 years ago|reply
The headline is sensationalist, what they are doing it paying for the government not to issue more logging licenses (easy to verify) and putting forests on "protected" status (as well as other concrete, targeted projects).
It's not like they are handing out cash to the government against a promise.
[+] [-] imaginenore|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Apocryphon|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aikah|11 years ago|reply
And I doubt any low level worker will get real money,given the insane level of corruption there.
And for god sake,why would Norway care? this constant meddling into african politics by the west is upsetting.It's not help,it's arrogance.
[+] [-] yawz|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ljd|11 years ago|reply
If countries like Norway feel that standing trees provide a service to them, they should pay to keep them up.
It's not charity, the trees are providing a marketable good by processing CO2 emissions.
While I'm not an environmentalist, I do believe in markets as a way of solving larger problems and I think it would be interesting if a market was built on resource preservation.
For instance, if a type of tree processes more CO2, they should be worth more than one that does not and that can be expressed in whatever this marketplace would be. If I had more connections at a government level, I might be interested in such an idea but as it stands now the sales cycles would be too long to get a market like that going.
[+] [-] DennisP|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aqueous|11 years ago|reply
Thus the dollar worth of clearing CO2 emissions doesn't clearly align with the self-interest of doing so over buying trees to make paper and other goods. (The self-interest, of course, is in not dying in the future from some climate change related disaster.
That's why worldwide governmental intervention is needed to make sure the dollar value of keeping those trees up aligns with actual self-interest.
[+] [-] tedks|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] toasted|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cpursley|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] innguest|11 years ago|reply
You might want to look into libertarianism, as it has been saying that for a long time now, and it has very good arguments as to why it works better than the alternatives.
[+] [-] Havoc|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sbhere|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshdance|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nyrina|11 years ago|reply
I doubt anyone cares if Mr. Random goes into the wood with his axe, chops down a tree he can carry and runs off with it.
[+] [-] Expez|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neol|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neol|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] soegaard|11 years ago|reply
Oh boy - been in the CS business too long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_(computer_science...
[+] [-] GreenGiant|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]