Interesting argument they're putting forward... but is it similar to saying that I am incurring an economic loss by not robbing a bank so therefore I should be compensated for it????



A MULTIBILLION-DOLLAR plan to protect forests and reduce global warming is to be backed by an alliance of nations that are home to more than 80 per cent of the world's tropical rainforests.

Read Article Here

I agree and disagree with this concept. I think the developed nations should be helping developing nations to build infrastructure so they can have more environmentally friendly industries. However, I don't agree that we should be paying them for keeping forests. It is everyone's responsibility to try and reduce greenhouse gases, and if you are a tropical country, the solution is much more obvious. Don't cut down trees.

I think this is a vent of their anger for being the scape goat for developed nations. The US needs to pick up its act, otherwise noone is going to listen.

Evan

It's not a question of being compensated for the economic loss of not robbing a bank. It's a question of being compensated for not being able to generate wealth in the same manner that First World countries were able to.

These developing countries generally have growing populations that need feeding, housing etc. They have the option of doing nothing and remaining poor, or turning their forests into farms to grow food (with a once-off bonus of selling trees for timber), or receiving money from the developed world for helping them fix a problem that the First World created in the first place.

It is the height of arrogance to expect developing nations to remain undeveloped and poor so that developed nations can feel good knowing that the rainforests still exist. Developing nations have the same right to generate wealth from their land in the same way that Australia, USA, Canada, NZ etc did 200 years ago. It's now a question of what form will that wealth generation take? Agriculture or carbon sequestration? A continued reliance on foreign aid for basic services hasn't worked for decades and won't work in the future. We can't condemn them to poverty.

I think that it's high time that developing nations were treated as equals on the world stage. They now have a bargaining chip that developed nations will take seriously. They are currently patronised by the developed nations and generally thought of as quaint holiday spots where the locals live in villages "untouched by time" - which just means no education, no clean water, no health services, no electricity, no workplace OHS, and a reliance on economic scraps falling from the First World table.

Good on 'em for demanding a slice of the pie called World Wealth.

Agree Timjim.

It will be cheaper than other schemes going around like spreading Iron across the ocean to encourage algae growth...

I suspect the point of no return will be reached a long time before the nations of Earth agree on anything to fix global warming.

i saw this on the newsfeed, but wanted to post it here, as it seemed relevant and i wanted to comment.

Brazil's Government has announced a record rate of deforestation in the Amazon, months after celebrating its success in achieving a reduction.

During the last five months of 2007, more than 3,000 square kilometres were lost.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/24/2146057.htm

looks like timjim was on the mark.

two points to consider in this situation:

1. what are all the soybeans being used for, and why is there such a high demand and increase in production? oil? livestock feed? tofu? my money's on the livestock feed, a completely inefficient way to feed people.

2. why aren't wealthy nations paying for carbon credits in these rainforests? if they are going to be knocked down to generate wealth, then it seems it is just as justifiable to pay them not to knock them down in order to generate wealth. it's easy for wealthy nations to play the "ethics" card on poorer countries, but it is not just or fair.