Folks - here's an exchange between another subscriber to climate-
watch and me that I thought might be of interest to this list.  I've
just included 3 entries from the last of the thread.

-----------

Hi Rae - I agree.  Much was lost because of unreasonable and
arrogant demands and the like.

I really love your ideas about protecting biodiversity and old growth
although I keep asking myself, "as a credit against what?"  I'm
unconvinced that any sort of credit scheme makes sense if it
means a credit against pollution reduction.  Less pollution
reduction means more pollution - pure and simple.  I mean we're
benefitting from these "credits" that nature provides now, whatever
they may be, and of course, they are not nearly enough or we
wouldn't be in the fix we're in.  Quantifying the credits doesn't make
them more than they already are. To do so, twisting natural
processes into some sort of license to pollute such and such
an amount will not help.

Credit? Credit should be given where credit is due. What I am
coming to believe is that the credit for nature's services should not
be applied to human society at all, but back to nature in the form of
the services human society may provide it by protecting and
restoring the natural resources that mitigate global warming and
climate change. There is balance in this - nature provides society a
service, society provides nature a service - a mutual protection
"credit", if you will. Both nature and human society win. Of course,
the "how" of this working in our upside down profit-driven world is
beyond me at the moment, but I think it is a better way to begin
thinking about this credit business.

In sum, I'm all for acknowledging the carbon sequestering services
of nature and supporting policy that would protect old growth and
the other "services" of nature for this reason particularly and a host
of other reasons as well.

I'm against any plantations, ocean "seeding", or any other
schemes to manipulate nature so that it will provide more carbon
sequestering.  So far we have proven that we do not know nature
well enough to manipulate it and be able to predict and understand
all the unintended consequences of our actions.  Given this, our
only certain path towards reducing the threat of global warming is
to reduce the pollution that causes it.  We should keep our focus
on the causes.

Best,

Mike

> Michael - A great chance was lost, in my opinion, for the allowing
of
> carbon credits for OLD GROWTH forests only. I know all the
> plantation-sink schemes made it virtually impossible to get any
> carbon sink scheme through without gross corruption of it, but
> latest research is turning up the vast superiority of old growth
> forests in carbon sequestration,  there really really should be a
> biodiversity credit scheme as well and old growth forests
> completely fit both, it evens up the balance quite a lot for
> undeveloped countries that have managed to retain their forests
> ...... I think it is just such a plus, plus, plus. Regards Rae
> Lindgren -----

my message that Rae, above, was responding to:

> Peter - I agree with all you say and I don't mean to say that
> understanding the carbon cycle is not part of understanding global
> warming and mitigating its effects -- it is!.  Understanding and
> developing carbon sinks is one thing, using them for economic
> advantage and the continuation of polluting activities is another.
>
> the COP-6 Global Warming negotiations at The Hague have failed to
> produce substantive climate-protective results - climate
> threatening business-as-usual prevails. One reason that the
> negotiations were doomed from the beginning is because they
> blatantly ignored issues of justice and equality. The talks
> centered around the issue of "carbon sinks" and using them as
> credits against CO2 emissions.
>
> Clearly, accounting for the ways the terrestrial carbon cycle works
> is a part of understanding global warming and climate change. It
is
> less clear that some sort of mathematical accounting of the actual
> sequestering of CO2 by plants will help to curb runaway emissions
> - - NO mathematical formula is going to change the fact that
> releases are increasing.  Yet, this was the focus - the main issue
-
> for the COP-6 Global Change conference at The Hague. Where are our
> priorities? One would think that the negotiations would focus
on
> more substantive issues such as reducing the production and
> releases of greenhouse gases -- a sure cure. Follow the money!
>
> Global problems require global solutions.  If carbon sink schemes
> are to be allowed into the accounting, they should benefit all.
> The amount of CO2 consuming vegetation that a nation has or will
> have is dependent on many factors both in the present and in the
> future. These include geography, climate, soil condition, available
> land mass, landuse needs and priorities, industrialization,
> agriculture, political structure, forestry, poverty, war, and
> degree of resource exploitation by other nations -- to name a few.
> Clearly, nation- based CO2 accounting schemes have the potential
> for blaming the victim. If credits are to be allowed, it is an
> environmental injustice to disallow credits to those country who by
> some circumstance have less CO2 consuming plant life.
>
> What sort of idea of justice is it to give the biggest reward, in the
> form of a pollution credit, allowing them to pollute even more, to
the
> largest producer of CO2? If there are any credits to be awarded on
> a national basis, perhaps they should go to those who release the
> least.  Certainly it makes no sense to award them to those who
> pollute the most.
>
> Mike

+++++++++++++++++++++
Michael R. Meuser,
Environmental Sociologist
[log in to unmask]

http://www.mapcruzin.com/
Environmental Communication, GIS, WebMaps,
Community Research, Environmental Justice,
and Right-to-Know Advocacy

Interested in global warming? Join
Climate Watch - send a blank email to
[log in to unmask]
http://www.mapcruzin.com/climate_change_2000/index.html