I just read a fascinating article from the Science and Technology section of The Economist. The essence of the article is about a new lidar monitoring technology (The Economist is calling it a Lidar-tector) which is a light detection and ranging system that works by broadcasting electromagnetic waves towards a target and then building up a picture from the reflection. This technology is now being used for forest conservation purposes to determine the carbon content of trees. How does it work?:
"In the case of lidar, the waves are in the form of an infra-red laser beam. And in the case of the forests of south-western Nepal, the target is the trees. During a forest survey, an aircraft-borne lidar sweeps a beam that fires about 70,000 pulses a second over the canopy. A sensor on the aircraft records the time it takes to receive the backscattering of pulses, and that is used to compute distances to the forest canopy and to the soil beneath".
Further:
"The result, when processed through the computers of Arbonaut, a Finnish natural-resource-management company, is a three-dimensional image of the forest that can be correlated with, and calibrated by, the efforts of the chaps with the tape measures. And that, in turn, can be used to estimate the amount of carbon stored in the plot examined, and extrapolated to calculate the carbon stored in larger areas of forest that have been scanned by lidar, but not measured with tapes."
In the world of carbon sequestration projects, there is a lot of mendacity and mistrust when it comes to reporting numbers. In particular, policymakers and scientists are keen to know the carbon content of various forests to determine which ones are more worthy of preservation than others. While this may sound absurd, it is useful information for carbon trading scheme projects (which I do not completely agree with and will blog about shortly). Additionally, it provides further impetus to contain these forests and allow them to sequester carbon. In so doing, countries like Nepal can:
Showing posts with label Deforestation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Deforestation. Show all posts
Friday, June 3, 2011
Friday, October 29, 2010
Guest Entry: A short story on Brazil's colonial forests
By: Diogo Cabral
Are there any positive aspects of deforestation? Well, since humanity spent most of its time on Earth devastating forests, there must be! Historians tends to be very careful when judging past human actions. Indeed, for pre-modern humans, the forest had to be used. We can imagine the astonishment with which those men and women would react to the idea of preserving the forest. With the exception of a tiny intellectual elite – in fact, only a small portion within that elite – the conversion of forest was not seen as something bad.
Most people conceived of clearing and burning the forest as the inevitable progress of the great human "home". Snakes, scorpions, spiders, mosquitoes, fleas, ticks, ants and other forest dwellers can be just minor annoyances when one has nylon tents, rubber boots, mosquito repellent, and antidotes to poisons; but not when one’s only weapons are scythes, firebrands and the faith in the Creator. Clearing the forest was not necessarily "destruction", but a natural transition from a dark, messy and dangerous space to a lighted, orderly and reliable place.
In fact, when one speaks of forest destruction or degradation, one misses much of the bigger picture. The “declensionist narrative” – as it is known in the historiographical community – flows in an one-way street: this kind of account tells the story of the decaying forest or that the forest environment was devastated but misses the wider implications. More fruitful is to view deforestation as a two-way street or, to use more philosophical terms, as a dialectical process.
Deforestation is not only an effect suffered by the forest because the deforesters themselves change along the way; conceptions about nature and abundance were transformed; techniques were modified and capital was created; cultural identities and boundaries were recreated; social inequalities were softened or hardened; the world, after all, is hardly the same after deforestation. This is not to say that nothing bad stemmed from past deforestation or that “this is the way things had to happen”. The environmental-dialectical vantage point only stresses that historical events do not occur in isolation but in networks or totalities. It's a more comprehensive approach to write history.
This conception can help us understand more completely the implications of different uses of the forest in the past. Of special importance is the study of the fortunes of the forests of less developed countries like Brazil. “Deforestation is a tragedy”, wrote the American historian Shawn Miller, “deforestation is an unmitigated disaster if little or no benefit is taken in the process”. He was referring to the process of economic appropriation of Brazil’s coastal forests. Unlike the United States or Canada, Brazil did not develop a vibrant timber industry in the colonial period. Most of the tropical rain forest was burned and not timbered. Colonists burned the woods to obtain biomass ashes, a powerful fertilizer for the soil. In fact they obtained huge profits raising sugarcane using this method.
At the end of eighteenth century, the Portuguese America, with half the settled area of British America, exported roughly the same value in commodities. The problem – although not a problem to the colonists themselves at the time – is that sugar plantations generated less economic linkages (or development) than timber exploitation. Because of the gigantic land lots, only the later sugar plantations were driven to market to obtain firewood. So small demand did not encourage competition and entrepreneurship in the timber sector. So capital investment and technological advancement in the milling industry were not present. So the production of iron – an indispensable raw material to the building of sawmills – was not encouraged inside the colony. And so on.
It must be said, however, that the small commercial harnessing of the Brazilian timber was not only due to the workings of sugar plantations. The forest itself posed serious difficulties to the establishment of a staple timber economy. The main problem was that, unlike temperate hardwoods and conifers, tropical hardwood species are pretty much scattered across the landscape. It is very difficult to find a cluster of, let’s say, rosewood. An all extractive economy, by definition, is built on a homogeneous basis of natural resources. In fact, all early modern extractive economies were organized upon large spatial concentrations of resources: animal skins, fish, wood and all kinds of "spice".
Standard products are especially important in international timber markets where demand in most cases is for very specific uses. Ironically, because of their greater wealth, the forests of the tropics provided very little incentive to commercial exploitation on a large scale.
Diogo Cabral is a visiting PhD student in Environmental History at UBC. He is visiting from the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro in Brazil.
Are there any positive aspects of deforestation? Well, since humanity spent most of its time on Earth devastating forests, there must be! Historians tends to be very careful when judging past human actions. Indeed, for pre-modern humans, the forest had to be used. We can imagine the astonishment with which those men and women would react to the idea of preserving the forest. With the exception of a tiny intellectual elite – in fact, only a small portion within that elite – the conversion of forest was not seen as something bad.
Most people conceived of clearing and burning the forest as the inevitable progress of the great human "home". Snakes, scorpions, spiders, mosquitoes, fleas, ticks, ants and other forest dwellers can be just minor annoyances when one has nylon tents, rubber boots, mosquito repellent, and antidotes to poisons; but not when one’s only weapons are scythes, firebrands and the faith in the Creator. Clearing the forest was not necessarily "destruction", but a natural transition from a dark, messy and dangerous space to a lighted, orderly and reliable place.
In fact, when one speaks of forest destruction or degradation, one misses much of the bigger picture. The “declensionist narrative” – as it is known in the historiographical community – flows in an one-way street: this kind of account tells the story of the decaying forest or that the forest environment was devastated but misses the wider implications. More fruitful is to view deforestation as a two-way street or, to use more philosophical terms, as a dialectical process.
Deforestation is not only an effect suffered by the forest because the deforesters themselves change along the way; conceptions about nature and abundance were transformed; techniques were modified and capital was created; cultural identities and boundaries were recreated; social inequalities were softened or hardened; the world, after all, is hardly the same after deforestation. This is not to say that nothing bad stemmed from past deforestation or that “this is the way things had to happen”. The environmental-dialectical vantage point only stresses that historical events do not occur in isolation but in networks or totalities. It's a more comprehensive approach to write history.
This conception can help us understand more completely the implications of different uses of the forest in the past. Of special importance is the study of the fortunes of the forests of less developed countries like Brazil. “Deforestation is a tragedy”, wrote the American historian Shawn Miller, “deforestation is an unmitigated disaster if little or no benefit is taken in the process”. He was referring to the process of economic appropriation of Brazil’s coastal forests. Unlike the United States or Canada, Brazil did not develop a vibrant timber industry in the colonial period. Most of the tropical rain forest was burned and not timbered. Colonists burned the woods to obtain biomass ashes, a powerful fertilizer for the soil. In fact they obtained huge profits raising sugarcane using this method.
At the end of eighteenth century, the Portuguese America, with half the settled area of British America, exported roughly the same value in commodities. The problem – although not a problem to the colonists themselves at the time – is that sugar plantations generated less economic linkages (or development) than timber exploitation. Because of the gigantic land lots, only the later sugar plantations were driven to market to obtain firewood. So small demand did not encourage competition and entrepreneurship in the timber sector. So capital investment and technological advancement in the milling industry were not present. So the production of iron – an indispensable raw material to the building of sawmills – was not encouraged inside the colony. And so on.
It must be said, however, that the small commercial harnessing of the Brazilian timber was not only due to the workings of sugar plantations. The forest itself posed serious difficulties to the establishment of a staple timber economy. The main problem was that, unlike temperate hardwoods and conifers, tropical hardwood species are pretty much scattered across the landscape. It is very difficult to find a cluster of, let’s say, rosewood. An all extractive economy, by definition, is built on a homogeneous basis of natural resources. In fact, all early modern extractive economies were organized upon large spatial concentrations of resources: animal skins, fish, wood and all kinds of "spice".
Standard products are especially important in international timber markets where demand in most cases is for very specific uses. Ironically, because of their greater wealth, the forests of the tropics provided very little incentive to commercial exploitation on a large scale.
Diogo Cabral is a visiting PhD student in Environmental History at UBC. He is visiting from the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro in Brazil.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Giant weeds, eco-fascists and a solar powered plane...
Remember that scene from Honey I Shrunk the Kids where the shrunken kids end up in the yard, completely engrossed in towering blades of grass and weeds? Well, such a reality -- minus the shrinking -- could be on us at any moment. According to officials in eastern Ontario's Renfrew County, a giant and dangerous weed is now present in Ontario.
Known as Giant Hogweed, it can stand as tall as six metres and its sap can cause blindness and skin damage similar that of a fire or chemical burn. Apparently it has also been spotted in southern Ontario. You can read a lot more about it here. Interestingly, it is already present in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia. Of course, when it finally hits Ontario -- ever closer to the Centre of the Universe -- it becomes big news.
The spread of big dangerous plants reminds me of the film The Happening, which I just watched a few days ago. SPOILER ALERT. In the movie, people start killing themselves -- in ever so creative ways -- when an airborne toxin gets into their system. What's causing the toxin? Pissed off plants, of course. We better keep Mark Wahlberg and M. Night Shyamalan on speed dial, just in case this Hogweed starts going after us. They'll know what to do.
On a movie-related note, I recently watched Daybreakers, where vampires have taken over the world in 2019 and are running low on human blood. You'd think eventually someone, somewhere, even vampires, would learn from the collapse of the cod fishery in Atlantic Canada.
Well, those people that might be translating such learnings into the protection of natural lands are now being branded as fascists. Bill Bennett, the Liberal Minister of Mining in British Columbia, lampooned proponents of the Keystone Valley receiving National Park status as eco-fascists. Bennett already has a history of lashing out, so Mr. Campbell, I suggest you get rid of this guy before he further derails your already wimpering 'green' provincial mantra. And Mr. Bennett, if you're going to compare environmentalists to the likes of Mussolini and Hitler, I suggest you at least spell the term fascist correctly.
And finally, I am impressed but feel oddly unsettled with the news of a solar powered airplane completing a 26 hour test flight. I'm all for renewable energy and air travel is a major source of carbon emissions, but knowing that solar energy is the only source fueling the plane would not inspire great confidence. I know, I know, give it time so it can prove itself and soon the world will be a better place, but at least I know that top-notch airplane fuel is fairly trustworthy. Then again, just over one hundred years ago, they thought the Wright Brothers were crazy. Maybe it just takes time to normalize to the situation.
Known as Giant Hogweed, it can stand as tall as six metres and its sap can cause blindness and skin damage similar that of a fire or chemical burn. Apparently it has also been spotted in southern Ontario. You can read a lot more about it here. Interestingly, it is already present in Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia. Of course, when it finally hits Ontario -- ever closer to the Centre of the Universe -- it becomes big news.
The spread of big dangerous plants reminds me of the film The Happening, which I just watched a few days ago. SPOILER ALERT. In the movie, people start killing themselves -- in ever so creative ways -- when an airborne toxin gets into their system. What's causing the toxin? Pissed off plants, of course. We better keep Mark Wahlberg and M. Night Shyamalan on speed dial, just in case this Hogweed starts going after us. They'll know what to do.
On a movie-related note, I recently watched Daybreakers, where vampires have taken over the world in 2019 and are running low on human blood. You'd think eventually someone, somewhere, even vampires, would learn from the collapse of the cod fishery in Atlantic Canada.
Well, those people that might be translating such learnings into the protection of natural lands are now being branded as fascists. Bill Bennett, the Liberal Minister of Mining in British Columbia, lampooned proponents of the Keystone Valley receiving National Park status as eco-fascists. Bennett already has a history of lashing out, so Mr. Campbell, I suggest you get rid of this guy before he further derails your already wimpering 'green' provincial mantra. And Mr. Bennett, if you're going to compare environmentalists to the likes of Mussolini and Hitler, I suggest you at least spell the term fascist correctly.
And finally, I am impressed but feel oddly unsettled with the news of a solar powered airplane completing a 26 hour test flight. I'm all for renewable energy and air travel is a major source of carbon emissions, but knowing that solar energy is the only source fueling the plane would not inspire great confidence. I know, I know, give it time so it can prove itself and soon the world will be a better place, but at least I know that top-notch airplane fuel is fairly trustworthy. Then again, just over one hundred years ago, they thought the Wright Brothers were crazy. Maybe it just takes time to normalize to the situation.
Monday, April 26, 2010
A desperate paper plea coming to a Facebook page near you...
If you're young, you probably won't print this blog post. But you really should. Print five copies for your friends, even. And please, don't feel guilty about the environmental impact.
This is the message being put forth by one of North America's largest copy paper companies, Domtar. An article published in today's Globe and Mail details the new strategy being taken by Domtar. Quite simply, the company believes that the "think before you print"mantra endorsed by environmentalists is "just bull" and that people should not feel bad about printing. Indeed, it is very proud -- and it should be -- of its use of FSC Certified process and the fact that three trees are planted for every one used.
Domtar appears to be convinced that it is the environmental issue hurting its business -- sales are expected to slide significantly over the next several years -- and so it has put together a campaign called Put it on Paper to convince people that printing isn't nearly as bad for the environment as people make it out to be. Moreover, because young people don't seem to print too often, much of the campaign will be aimed at Facebook and Twitter, where most young people live. Don't worry, printed material will also be part of it.
Domtar is right, the environmental issue is hurting its business. And I'm glad it is, as it means that more recycled paper is being used and, more importantly, less paper is being used overall. Its 'green' practices should not overshadow the underlying fact that using virgin materials is rarely, if ever, more environmentally sustainable than recycled products.
But where I think Domtar is wrong is in its targeting of the environmental issue as its main enemy. Paper is being used less frequently not because of its environmental impact, but because the alternative is so much more convenient. It has little to do with telling people printing is OK.
Why don't kids print out all the emails from their friends, Domtar asks? Because their square foot laptop can store as many emails as would fill their house if all of them were printed. And specific messages can be found in less than a second. Filing cabinets just can't do that.
Clutter is a problem, too. I'm in the process of moving out of my rental house and I've been rifling through piles of old pages I was encouraged to printout in earlier years. All of it is going to the recycling bin. Electronic forms of that stuff would be much more convenient.
We should not get rid of paper entirely. It most definitely has its place. I have been raised by a family with a vested interest in the printed word and still enjoy reading the newspaper, magazines and books in printed word over their electronic versions. But Domtar is a copy paper company and is encouraging the increase of printing things like emails. Sure, some things should be printed, specifically those things that are very important, and multiple copies should be made in the same way that we use backup drives on our computers. But printing with the mindset or in the volume proposed by Domtar seems ridiculous.
It is nothing more than a desperate plea from a company that sees its future going down the toilet. That, unfortunately for Domtar, is the nature of capitalism. As more and more industries start to grind to a halt, I just hope that the pleas are at least somewhat accurate and realistic, and more importantly, that alternatives can be found so as few as possible jobs are impacted.
Photo Credit: MSNBC
Friday, October 23, 2009
Climate change contrasts: The frustrating reality...
Mr. Jagdeo was speaking later that evening as the keynote speaker for the launch, but a group of students and faculty were able to meet with him earlier in the day to discuss some of his initiatives, particularly what he and his country are offering in the global climate change arena.
Guyana sits in the northern part of South America and is largely made up of rainforest. The destruction of the rainforest in South America has been one of the key tenets of the global environmental movement for decades and as the global climate change debate unfolds, it is becoming clear that deforestation is one of the biggest players. Indeed, approximately 20% of the world's GHG emissions are a result of deforestation, as huge amounts of CO2 are released to the atmosphere through the process of cutting them down. More importantly, the forests, which use CO2 to grow, can no longer capture and sequester large amounts of CO2, leaving more to sit in the atmosphere and warm the climate.
Guyana, however, is providing the world with an unprecedented offer. Rather than making an absolute killing on its rainforest resources and harvesting all of it, it is offering to conserve its rainforest in exchange for a substantial amount of funding from the developed world. Using a variety of variables, Guyana estimates that the amount of funding required would be equivalent to $4/tonne of CO2. If put on some of the world's pre-existing carbon markets (ex. EU) it would be a steal, as a tonne of CO2 is currently trading in the $20 range.
What Mr. Jagdeo is really offering is a different way to value our environment. The true costs of exploiting our environment have long been evident, but these days it is really being brought to the forefront of the mainstream mind. If we can put a formal economic value on something that has up until now been without a one, it will allow things like forests to be integrated into our economies and hopefully discourage unsustainable environmental exploitation.
It was certainly an inspiring discussion. Here in front of us was a real-life world leader talking about real-world stuff. This man will be going to Copenhagen and meeting with other world leaders to try to convince them to buy into this system. Some called it refreshing to hear a world leader being so proactive about the climate issue. Indeed, it is certainly better than what you hear about in Canada.
Just today, the Globe & Mail reported that Canada's Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, has effectively quashed any hope of Canada signing on to any global GHG reduction agreement that many are hoping will be forged in Copenhagen this December. Instead, Prentice considers the meeting act as a catalyst to smooth out future meetings where an agreement can be formalized. Considering the success of the last big climate agreement, Kyoto, Copenhagen may very well turn out to be a bust.
The Canadian federal government's position is not unique. Plenty of other countries are not prepared to legally commit to significant emissions reductions.
It is certainly disheartening to realize that the inspiring Guyanan President you meet one day will be pitching his wonderful ideas to the likes of unenthusiastic Jim Prentice types.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Stern on contemporary issues surrounding climate change...
Does everyone remember the Stern review on the economics of Climate Change? It was a 700-page report produced by Nicholas Stern, an economist in Britain. Released in October 2006, Stern wrote this paper to convince the British government and the world in general, that not taking action on climate change will have serious repercussions on the world economy. His two big buzz words were “mitigation” and “adaptability”.
Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions could be done through environmental taxes, carbon trading schemes and the more technological carbon capture and storage (CCS), which Chris has touched on in the past. Adaptability refers to the sustainable changes that we (mainly developed world) must make to our lives to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. This includes everything from driving less to minimizing our use of air conditioning. Adapting to new conditions brought about by climate change can be difficult, but these changes are critical for the well-being of our planet.
This video features an interview between Allan Greg and Stern. It is quite lengthy (27 minutes) but I encourage you to briefly look through it. Stern talks about his new book "The Global Deal" and gives insight into some of the real issues that surround climate change today. There are several interesting points that come out of the interview but the only one I will touch on is Canada’s role (Canada's role in the video starts at 21 minutes and 15 seconds). In brief, Stern says that Canada’s must have more of a leadership role on the equity aspects of climate change.
Being more vocal on deforestation for instance (deforestation accounts for 20% of global emissions) can set an example for developing countries who clear cut their forests. Canada’s abundance of forestry is highly advantageous from an economic point of view, but adopting more sustainable policies and showing the world that we actually care about our trees, can go a long way.
Stern also points to the massive renewable energy potential for Canada, especially for wind. Developing technologies in Canada like carbon capture or more efficient automobiles can demonstrate the feasibility of these technologies and create an impetus for other countries to explore them. Why should we explore them? We have money for research and development in Canada. Alas, money is not sufficiently allocated to these areas.
I guess anyone can ignore Canada’s leadership seeing as we are one of the highest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases in the world. Nonetheless, collaborating with other countries and being more vocal on the numerous problems associated with deforestation can be highly useful. Maybe Canada’s role on deforestation policies will be better solidified at Copenhagen.
Key message: Climate change is complex. Collaboration on this issue is of fundamental importance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)