
Scientists say halting deforestation 'just as urgent' as reducing emissions - ciconia
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/04/climate-change-deforestation-global-warming-report
======
mc32
Deforestation is a great issue in developing economies. It's something which
must be addressed. What's not mentioned is that human population growth is the
main driver of this pressure.

Given our abilities to manage disease and such, more efforts should go into
educating women in developing allowing them to become more independent and
have more control over their reproduction. When people move from agrarian
societies to urban, they don't need more than replacement numbers --but in
many developing economies the effort to stall growth is overshadowed by other
less effective efforts.

China would not be where it is without the great effort (though hamfistedly
implemented) it put into controlling growth --it was only necessary to dampen
growth while the country caught up economically and now natural forces are
effectively resulting in pop stability (unlike India, for example).

~~~
PinkMilkshake
> China would not be where it is without the great effort (though hamfistedly
> implemented) it put into controlling growth

I would not advocate this authoritarian approach (I'm not saying you are).
Part of the solution is what you said earlier, education. But population
stabilizes on it's own as a country goes through the Demographic Transition.

See:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition)

Or for something more light-hearted:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348)

~~~
adrianN
The question is whether the population will naturally level out before or
after the last old growth rain forests are gone.

We need to empower women in those countries and enable people to make a living
in other ways than selling timber and slash-and-burn agriculture. Breeding and
selling rare butterflies[1] is one option that I've heard of, but obviously
that doesn't scale. I don't find it unreasonable to just pay people for not
cutting down rain forests. First world countries have a responsibility here.
After all we cut down all our old growth forests and now demand that
developing countries don't do the same.

[1] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kenya-
butterflies/kenyans...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kenya-
butterflies/kenyans-sell-butterflies-to-save-rainforest-idUSL0378588120070803)

~~~
Jedi72
People always throw these concepts around as though 'First world countries' is
4 or 5 individual people. I didn't cut down any forest, neither did my family.
Perhaps my family trade was training birds in those forests, so I was
personally very disadvantaged by cutting them down. So should I have to pay
other countries not to cut theirs down now? My point is, these high-level
thoughts are theoretically sound but can never be applied to the real world.

~~~
adrianN
If you value intact ecosystems and diversity you should definitely pay for
them. You can't just tell poor countries not to exploit the resources that
they have and hope they comply. Especially when your country's wealth is build
on clear cutting, strip mining, and pollution. Even if you think that the past
has nothing to do with you, the simple argument that you have money and like
Orangutans and they have nothing but a forest should be enough.

------
CalRobert
Meanwhile even a country normally viewed as responsible is cutting down
ancient forest to get to the coal beneath. Bit of a double whammy.
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/09/berlin-
startup...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/09/berlin-startup-
offers-1m-to-save-ancient-hambach-forest-from-coal-mining)

~~~
sampo
George Monbiot opines that Germany has never been particularly responsible:

[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/19/world-...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/19/world-
leading-eco-vandal-angela-merkel-german-environmental)

~~~
ItsMe000001
My government (Germany) just "lost" _(their feeling, esp. voiced by minister
of the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital infrastructure (BMVI) who is
from the most conservative coalition partner and sees tougher standards as a
problem)_ on the EU level when they voted for tougher CO2 limits for cars.
German governments have always valued the car industry (or any other for that
matter) higher.

On the other hand, I'm from East Germany, and the area was a huge dump. _very_
dirty rivers, ash mountains, it was really bad. A few decades later: Mostly
paid for by West Germany (due to their still being far less industrial power
in the Eat) rivers are actually wonderful. The river through Nuremberg, where
I live now, (still?) is dirty and stinks (probably runoff from agriculture) -
but the two rivers in East Germany where I used to grow up now have
_wonderful_ clean water. The ash mountains were removed, which took thousands
of trucks and a few years, there now is new industry in that spot. It is much,
MUCH cleaner than before. Similar efforts took place in West Germany in areas
where there had been lots of dirty industry and mining. As a student I got to
be on an educational tour and was shown a lot of projects, they had achieved
incredible improvements in formerly devastated areas.

Also, courts and cities are starting to try to fight pollution by cars, e.g.
by placing bans and restrictions on Diesel powered cars, at this point often
against the federal government which fears loss of jobs (the great thread from
the car industry whenever they are asked to build cleaner cars).

So, good as well as bad in Germany. I think we are way too dependent on the
car industry. It's not just the known manufacturers themselves, the amount of
directly dependent industry is even bigger. One in seven jobs and ~14% of GDP
is in or depends on the car industry ([https://www.thelocal.de/20150924/what-
the-vw-scandal-means-f...](https://www.thelocal.de/20150924/what-the-vw-
scandal-means-for-germanys-economy)).

~~~
CalRobert
If Germany cares about their car industry they'll force ten percent per year
drops in ICE sales to force them to compete in electrics.

------
danielecook
Whatever happened with the idea of using drones to plant 1 billion trees?

I was in Iceland earlier this year - a country largely devoid of trees. There
aren’t any because the Vikings chopped them all down. Despite the cold -
however - they do grow there albeit much slower then elsewhere.

In any case, it seems to me we could be seeding a lot of barren locations so
they’ll become forests within 20 years.

~~~
iNerdier
Sheep.

They’ve tried and sheep tend to eat all the saplings. Unlike in other places
the sheep are not penned in, they’re free to roam which means any area you
want to try and re-forest in a fairly hostile environment to begin with has to
be expensively fenced off until they get to a fairly good size.

~~~
rienbdj
Can’t fence in the sheep? Fence in the trees.

~~~
adrianN
It's a lot harder to build a fence with a drone than to airdrop a sapling.

------
lucidguppy
Number one cause for amazon deforestation is cattle.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_ra...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest#Causes_of_deforestation)

All the more reason to go vegan.

~~~
krageon
Or don't keep cattle in the rainforest. Not every problem with cattle has to
be solved by making an impractical and enormous swing in your life.

~~~
tao_oat
Cattle are kept in the rainforest, yes, but the forest cut down for grazing is
far outweighed for the forest cut down to groy soy to feed the cattle.

------
fallingfrog
I wish that we didn't keep getting headlines containing phrases like
"scientists say this" "according to scientists" and so on. I mean, how much
does it hurt to be specific? Sometimes it just turns out to be a single grad
student or something like that. The article doesn't even say who they are but
even "A group of 40 scientists signed a statement saying.." would be an
improvement.

------
screye
I sometimes wonder about the right of a country to use rapid deforestation /
dirty energy as a way to development.

100-200 years ago, every modern developed economy did the same and cemented
their positions as dominant economies. There is no question that these
countries have been the majority contributors to climate change over the last
2 centuries.

Morally speaking, are underdeveloped countries not entitled to the same. Why
should they use more expensive and cleaner fuel as payment for a problem
that's not their fault ?

I see the fault in my own argument, which is that we are all on this together
and massive collective action is the only recourse we have.

But, the perceived injustice faced by underveloped countries is probably not
misplaced.

The onus is certainly on the west to take an initiative.

~~~
toast0
The onus is definitely on the existing developed nations to persuade
developing nations not to deforest.

That likely means paying to protect the forests, and also to encourage the
kind of economic development that would have happened with deforestation as
well. All of the timber logistics and processing industry, as well as the
agriculture that would develop in the cleared lands is compelling. Certainly
maintaining pristine forests employs some people and could promote tourism
(depending on access issues), but that doesn't really compare.

But developing countries also crave independence and self-sufficiency, so it
must be done with a light touch.

------
gaius
If you want to take direct action join the Woodland Trust
[https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/membership/](https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/membership/)

We are actually out there planting trees like it’s going out of fashion

------
wawhal
Sure. The greater problem is how do we achieve that. With a growing
population, deforestation has become necessary to meet agricultural and
accommodation needs of humans. As sad as it sounds, people need food and
shelter.

The problem boils down to controlling population and also handling population.
If people want to keep buying new houses, there is more demand for
deforestation. The agricultural demand for deforestation increases with the
amount of food wastage we observe these days. Such incremental improvements in
lifestyle could help us save forests.

~~~
2_listerine_pls
vertical agriculture

~~~
eaenki
What about preventing new births and drone controlling every pristine forest
with multiple task-forces ready to jet there when the bad boys try to touch it
? While vertical agriculture might in some measure work - it’s ugly AF

------
nickik
Ironically in the first world we have reforestation and the wild reclaiming
more and more land. While in the third world more and more forest are cut.

------
gregknicholson
In a capitalist economy, why would anyone maintain a forest? Unless you get
enough direct personal benefit, or someone else is paying you enough, you
wouldn't.

This isn't a failure of capitalism; this _is_ capitalism.

~~~
CalRobert
Because not maintaining it is too expensive after you pay for the
externalities. Which you must, of course, in any reasonable regime.

~~~
kornakiewicz
Not in Q4.

~~~
CalRobert
Thus the "reasonable" bit.

------
nakedrobot2
Why can't a few billionaires of the world buy up a large % of the rainforests?
Seriously. Besides the fact that they would rather let their wealth sit in a
hedge fund, I mean.

~~~
Nasrudith
Because that would only get them paper. Trees are poached even when offically
off limit and enforcement carries its own problems - especially with the
optics involved. Even if they started on the rental foreign aid model they
would rapidly wind up in trouble via Morton's forks. Government engaged in
travesties (even worse if done in defense of the tree subsidies) or becomes a
dictatorship - do you stop the cash flow? Not to mention the money infamously
usually fails to be distributed equitably driving the desperately poor to make
more short term decisions.

------
agumonkey
Talking about that, how can a small group plant trees (with seeds) ? Is it
subtle and complex ? or is it possible to do on a hike ?

~~~
adrianN
Just plant a couple of trees every day:
[https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/short-film-
showca...](https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/short-film-
showcase/india-man-plants-forest-bigger-than-central-park-to-save-his-island)

------
perilunar
"By protecting and restoring forests, the world would achieve 18% of the
emissions mitigation needed by 2030 to avoid runaway climate change"

So no, it could NOT "really be as simple as saving trees".

~~~
dang
We changed the url from
[https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/10/science-
says...](https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/10/science-says-saving-
the-planet-could-really-be-as-simple-as-saving-trees/) to its original source.
Bonus: a non-baity title.

