Forest list archive: msg00093

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: CO2 sequestration and population



Dear Raquel & Erich Schaitza,

> You have always fought generalization. That is not true for more than half
> of Latin America. Growth rates have been decreasing in Brazil (pop. growht
> is under 2% currently) and in other South American Countries like Argentina,
> Uruguay and Chile. Religious grounds are not that strong in urban areas in
> these countries (for the good or the bad :-)
> Besides, population density is quite low, although population is not evenly
> distributed.

Sorry. I was writing from my impressions of the Pope's last visit to
South America. And from what I've read in TIME & NEWSWEEK magazine, he
seems quite hard on contraceptions.

But I'm most encouraged that the present discussion seems to be one of
the very few where contributions are many and flames are few, if any at
all. It's a very healthy & informative one. But most of all, it's good
to see contributions coming from people like yourself & our good friend,
Julio Centeno. I believe list members from developing countries need to
speak up & be heard.

So you see, the problem before us is a very massive one, with many
related issues & problems as well. The question now is whether the
forests of developing countries should be the carbon sink for the CO2 of
the developed ones. If so, what's next? Toxic & nuclear waste too? We
have, in recent times toxic waste been dumped illegally in Malaysia that
could wiped out a certain percentage of the local population.

Carbon offsets or GHG mitigation through global reforestation was
initially proposed by Freeman Dyson, a physicist, towards the end of
1970s. Forest management for this purpose may be classified into 5
areas:

1. Reducing the rate of deforestation
2. Increasing net area of forests through reforestation
3. Increasing carbon stock levels in existing forests
4. Usage of wood for fuel instead of petroleum
5. Increasing the efficiency of wood (eg. downstream processing)

Deforestation is a global problem. Unfortunately, some NGOs have
employed this as ammunition against developing countries. As I have said
earlier, European logging operations have ravaged the African continent
over the last few centuries - and are still doing so. But NGOs are
silent here. Why? Even WWF International offered nothing more than a
slap on the wrist.

Much deforestation with developing countries could attribute to
development & construction of infrastructures. However, some NGOs see
this as a wrong. It's OK for developed countries to build cities & dams,
but not developing countries. Why? In the recent report, 'State of the
World's Forests' published by the FAO, developing countries are labeled
as the greatest source of deforestation in the last 20 years. If FAO had
used a 100 year time series instead. The results will be quite
different. Most developed countries will show a net loss of forest areas
instead.

But I'll continue to take in contributions made by other list members.
IUFRO 2000 will be in KL. Maybe, out of this discussion, something may
arise to help us change the world at IUFRO 2000.

'Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water, or do
you want to change the world' - Steve Job to John Scully.


God bless.


Nelson Wong
MTC



Follow-Ups:

[Metla] [Main Index] [Thread Index]

Mail converted by MHonArc 1.1.0