Don’t blame the trees!Saving forests is still the best way to save the planet

SSome have recently questioned whether forests are really the climate solution they have long believed they were. That’s because some companies emit huge amounts of carbon and the markets that finance them are struggling. But achieving a livable climate is impossible without saving our intact forests, replanting some, and finding more direct means of payment than carbon offset programs.

A 2021 study led by Brazilian scientists showed that the Amazon emits more carbon dioxide than it absorbs. Huge carbon sinks appear to have become chimneys. The paper reflects a 2019 analysis of Canadian forests, which showed it has been a net emitter since 2001.

This year, as burning forests blanketed the skies across eastern North America, one New York Times columnist even suggested that the trees might be doing so on purpose, to fight for the other side.

Forests absorb and emit carbon every day. During photosynthesis, they absorb light from the air and use it to make leaves, branches, fruits, and other plant parts. Solid carbon is released back into the atmosphere when burned or decomposed.Carbon always comes and goes; the important numbers to watch are net Change.

Forests damaged by logging, roads or the climate crisis itself become more prone to fires and may grow more slowly than in the past.They are absorbing carbon dioxide₂, just not as much as they released. Globally, however, forests continue to add far more carbon than they lose. To the extent that the forests may be biased, they are still on our side.

Another challenge to the reputation of forests is the carbon offset market established to fund tree conservation and planting. Most transactions are between companies that voluntarily offset greenhouse gas emissions by paying to save or replant forests. Recent reports show they often fail to deliver the climate benefits promised and can create divisions in communities.

A New York Times column about dangerous trees conflated market failure with the alleged failure of forests to store carbon. This is wrong, but understandable. In a November press release, Verra, a leading company in certified carbon trading, said: Carbon markets are the best and most accessible tool for protecting our forests.

If this were true, we would have very few forests left. In fact, the largest reduction in deforestation in history occurred in Brazil in the early 2000s. It is powered by 24 million hectares (59.3 million acres) of new protected areas (much of it aimed at enabling a sustainable forest economy rather than pushing people out), large tracts of Aboriginal land declared a decade ago, a law enforcement blitz and credit Targeted incentives such as restrictions. Voluntary carbon schemes pay nothing for this.

Forests are life-giving allies in the climate fight, and we know how to support them. By far the most cost-effective and environmentally beneficial thing we can do is to protect the intact forests that still cover large areas, especially in the tropics and boreal regions.

The tropics have the largest above-ground carbon stocks, while the boreal forests of Canada, Alaska and Russia have the largest deep forest soil carbon stocks.

AThe second priority is that we need to restore our forests. About half of the Globe’s forests have been cleared, with the remaining 80% affected by development.A study published last month in the journal Nature It is said that re-growing forests can absorb 226 billion tons of carbon from the atmosphere. At 2022 levels, this is equivalent to 23 years of global carbon emissions.

This is certainly an overestimate, not limited by budget or the realities of convincing local owners to plant trees. We found that the climate crisis has actually prevented the Amazon forest from returning to its former lush state. The question remains, however, that there is enough space and there is an urgent need to not only end deforestation but also reforestation.

To pay for it, our best option is a combination of traditional public funding and large-scale carbon financing deals, such as the Amazon Fund launched by Brazil and Norway in 2008. More deals are currently being developed for the entire country and states to reduce carbon emissions. Deforestation, a so-called jurisdictional approach, can be scaled and could resolve many of the accounting and equity issues of voluntary carbon programmes.

Brazil is now ready to approve a domestic carbon cap-and-trade system, but unfortunately this will exclude deforestation. On December 1, it launched a global permanent fund for tropical forests that would pay/penalize countries based on the area of ​​forest they protect/cut down, rather than the amount of carbon contained in it.

This simplicity is welcome as people recognize that forests are webs of wildlife linked to human culture that do more than just balance the giant carbon equation.

• John W. Reed co-author Evergreen: Save the great forest to save the planet, and is Founder and former president of Conservation Strategy Fund.Paul Moutinho is a Co-Founder and Senior Researcher, Amazon Environmental Institute