Thursday, March 29, 2007. 7:16am (AEST)
Govt announces $200m to stop deforestation in Asia

Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull has announced a $200 million plan to help stop deforestation in Asia.

The Government is under pressure from the Opposition and climate change economist Sir Nicholas Stern to do more to tackle global warming.

Mr Turnbull says a global response is needed and the $200 million project will be used to plant trees and reduce illegal logging in South-East Asia.

"The funding will go, given the nature of our geography, will largely go to South-East Asia," Mr Turnbull said.

(Excerpt)

"It's just extraordinary that the Howard Government can be putting money into the South-East Asian fire problem while practising the same broad scale logging, burning and atmospheric pollution in southern Australia."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1884181.htm

Howard is a joke. Need I say more?

This post has been edited by ecochann: Mar 29 2007, 09:33 AM

I can't understand it when people try to tell other people to "tidy up their act" if the person saying it (ie Australian government0 can't tidy up their act and lead by example!

Shocker!

One could also liken it in political terms as 'clutching at trees vs straws'.

Howard's solutions on climate
March 30, 2007 02:15am

THE plan by Prime Minister John Howard to commit Australia to a global fund to arrest illegal logging and forest destruction, particularly in developing countries, may well be good conservation.

It certainly is an attempt at effective politics. It does not hit the target, however, on either score.

The Federal Government was late to enter the global warming debate and now clearly is trying to establish environmental credentials of a fashion.

With the federal election perhaps only seven months away, such credentials are under scrutiny as public opinion sharply shifts to greater concern for the future.

(Excerpt/s)

To realise that, however, would take billions upon billions of dollars. A total of $200 million over five years is but a drop in the ocean.

Mr Howard's save-the-world's-forests initiative also is an attempt to weaken persistent criticism by the environmental lobby of Australia's refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol.

What is clear, however, is the Government will not be able to avoid some form of effective domestic policies on greenhouse emissions.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0...5006336,00.html

it's just typical of him. Once again dodges the issue of ratifying Kyoto and tries to pretend he is doing good by making others change when he isn't prepared to change a thing himself.

Easiest way of avoiding your own problems is by making someone else do it.

Except it does not solve the problem at all.

How many millions are being made by the loggers?

- Stephen

Let's rephrase the commitment.
Aust Gov will combat illegal logging by providing funding to SE Asian developing countries, in particular Indonesia.
Or, Australia will give $200 million to Indonesia to combat illegal logging.
Or, Australia will give $200 million to Indonesia.

How would you describe Australian - Indonesian relations over the past ten years? Strained? Would this go some way to placating our nearest neighbour, and perceived hot-bed of discontented terrorists? Does this plan have anything to do with forest management, and more to do with international relations?

But let's think about this. I haven't seen the fine print, so I'm not sure how it will work.
Most of the carbon emissions are associated with forest being converted to cropping lands so that the locals can feed themselves. The timber is exported to Australia because there is a demand for it because the State Govts keep putting Aust native forests into parks.
It's a bit rich to just demand a stop to all Indonesian logging, because the locals would lose an opportunity for a sustainable industry. Besides, Aust would lose a permanent supply of timber.
If Aust Govt plan is to fund people to re-plant the forest after it has been logged, then, the C emissions would be negligible. Even the Stern report says that regrowing forests after harvesting is carbon neutral.
And if the Indonesian forest management system was certified to the FSC system invented by Greenpeace and WWF to manage native forest logging in third world countries, then the system may be sustainable. And yes, FSC DOES certify clearfelling of old-growth tropical rainforests. That's because FSC lets indigenous social concerns over-ride environmental concerns at times.

In short, there is a chance that the whole plan might work. C emissions drop off, Indonesian villagers maintain an income, forests are regenerated after logging and not converted to croplands, timber keeps coming into Australia, international relations are restored.

US signs on to Aussie forest pact
April 07, 2007 09:01am

THE United States has agreed to work with Australia on the federal government's global forests plan to address climate change.

The Federal Government last week announced the launch of an international fund to prevent deforestation in the developing world and committed $200 million to targeting Australia's northern neighbours.

Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull discussed the plan in Washington today with White House Council on Environmental Quality chairman James Connaughton, Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs Dr Paula Dobriansky, and other senior US officials.

(Excerpt)

Mr Turnbull will travel from the US to Jakarta tomorrow for talks with the Indonesian government.

Further meetings are planned in the coming weeks and months with Britain, Germany, Brazil, New Zealand and Japan. The project aims to help developing nations assess and promote the sustainable use of forest resources and enforce laws protecting them from such activities as illegal logging.

The federal opposition has cautiously welcomed the announcement of the fund, but the Australian Greens and conservation groups accused the government of hypocrisy, saying it had failed to protect forests in Australia

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0...5005962,00.html

Tuesday, 10 April 2007, 03:47 GMT 04:47 UK
Snowy forests 'increase warming'


Planting trees in snowy areas may worsen global warming as their canopies absorb sunlight which would otherwise be reflected by the snow, a study says.

The report in US journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says the pine forests of Europe, Siberia and Canada may contribute to warming.

Only tropical forests effectively cool the earth by absorbing carbon dioxide and creating clouds, the report says.

(Excerpt/s)

"Our new study shows that only tropical rainforests are strongly beneficial in helping slow down global warming," Govindasamy Bala of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory says.

Another author of the report, Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution, said the report suggested it is "more important to preserve and restore tropical forests than had been previously realised".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6540119.stm

I'm posting an article in the downloads section of the forum about "performance payments". I wonder whether this is the theory that the government is working with in this latest shell out of money overseas. Looks like it can have some positive benefits to people in these low-income economies.

He probably will run a 20 million dollar advertising blitz in Asia that cost 180 million to make, delegate and administer.....

Or

He will invite the Luminate over for a 20 million dollar dine out..yadda yadda.....

I really should ask, who is getting paid what, when and what for?

sad, but probably not far from the truth......Keating was right John Howard, you are like a puff of smoke, you put gloss on everything so much that a tram ticket looks great.....

This post has been edited by Red: May 6 2007, 09:37 PM

I'm just a little bit confused on how $200m will actually stop Deforestation?

CP/M User.

The plan was that other countries would equal that amount of money, so I imagine it could go some way to help it. However, the problem is much bigger than this.

If you can solve the social problems of Indonesia, and there is much less poverty, there will be much less illegal logging. It is a major fault of all the current governments of the world that they want to bandaid solutions instead of getting to the root of the problem. It is the same with terrorism, and it is the same with animal poaching. Relieve poverty, and increase education, and a lot of the problems will solve themselves. There are obviously other problems, but governments should approach them the same way. Try to actually fix the root of the problem rather than have a bandaid solution which will get you re-elected.

Evan

Okay, I was trying to put a more local perspective on my question by thinking about how $200m would solve the same sort of problem in Tasmania. In their case Deforestation occurs because of job opportunities - so in that case I fail to see how $200m will make a difference. Unsure if I heard correctly the other day, though I thought I heard something along the lines of this industry increasing tourism - this might have been on the 7:30 Report. I fail to see how this would improve tourism.

Anyway just getting back to SE Asia perhaps the situation is different from Tasmania - perhaps money can be used to replace cleared bush with more bush (if that makes sense).

CP/M User.

From a global perspective and global warming is a global problem, I'd imagine a dollar goes a lot further in SE Asia.

I have not figures to support this , but I suspect an acre tropical rainforest absorbs more C02 than an acre of Australian bush.

Of course I am only addressing the issue of global warming in this post, I know there are other concerns such a land degradation and wildlife habitat to be concerned about locally.

'NSW_Farmer' wrote:

From a global perspective and global warming is a global problem, I'd imagine a dollar goes a lot further in SE Asia.

I have not figures to support this , but I suspect an acre tropical rain forest absorbs more C02 than an acre of Australian bush.

Yes well from what I've heard it's the CO2s which allow plants to photosynthesise and convert CO2 into Oxygen. In that respect it's been suggested that Old growth forests don't absorb as much CO2s as a constantly growing forest (not that I'm saying I don't like Old Growth Forests) - I've got mixed emotions about this cause in areas I would have described as old growth, the air is to me is refreshing. Other elements which play roles with the bush is rain or perhaps passing showers which triggers a satisfying smell - which triggers a great sensation.

Of course I am only addressing the issue of global warming in this post, I know there are other concerns such a land degradation and wildlife habitat to be concerned about locally.

Yes well it could just happen to have an impact elsewhere, like I said earlier post elsewhere about the planet being an entity in itself which triggers conditions (or events) which play roles in other areas.