To: All Activists
From: Jim Jontz
Date: December 1, 2000
HAGUE TALKS END WITHOUT AGREEMENT
No agreement is better than a bad agreement, but it is disappointing
that the international climate change talks ended in The Hague this past
Saturday without resolving any of the important issues around
implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. In the end, the U.S. retreated
from its original meritless proposal to claim as much as half of the
nation's obligation for carbon sequestration from "business as usual"
forestry. But the Europeans didn't feel comfortable with what the U.S.
put on the table at the last minute, and no agreement was reached.
If there is good news from The Hague, it is that forests are at the
center of the controversy over how industrialized nations meet their
obligation to reduce greenhouse gases. Failure to reach an agreement
now could, in fact, result in a better agreement later -- IF forests are
addressed in a much more responsible manner than they were at COP-6.
Environmental groups were united in rejecting the U.S. proposal to count
"business as usual" forestry for a substantial part of its obligation.
Business as usual forestry means giving the U.S. and other nations
credit for doing nothing, in essence, except for managing forests the
way they would have been managed anyway. That's not doing anything for
climate, and it's not good for forests, either! Just look at the
massive clearcutting of the South to feed chip mills, the short rotation
logging of industry land in the Northwest that is killing salmon, and
the pitiful state of logged over areas in Maine's North Woods to
understand why "business as usual" isn't acceptable.
In the end, the U.S. still insisted on counting some "business as usual"
forestry. Had trust in the U.S. evaporated because of the ridiculous
proposal they put on the table early in the week? Did the U.S. wait too
late to put a serious proposal on the table that the Europeans could
consider? It is disapointing that an agreement wasn't reached, but what
is equally disappointing -- and perhaps a source of hope -- is that the
issue of what kind of forestry activities would be counted never really
got on the table at. The U.S. should give up on "business as usual"
forestry: "that dog don't hunt." But what about real protection of
forests, real steps to reduce the role of logging in generating
greenhouse gases, and real steps to increase the natural capacity of
forest ecosytems to collect and store carbon? Regrettably, neither the
U.S. nor the Europeans considered how qualitative limits could promote
the right forest activities, protection and restoration.
Look at our nation's landscape. Eastern forests have an enormous
capacity for regeneration: ample rainfall, good soils, a long growing
season in the South. Open space is desperately needed, as is relief
from the industrial forestry practices that are murdering biodiversity
in areas like the Southern Appalachians. Look at the Northwest too,
including the North Coast of California, the Coast Range of Oregon, and
the "checkerboard" lands east of the Cascades. Massive industrial
logging has resulted in forests that are a pale shadow of their former
selves. Why wouldn't the U.S. want rules that would open the door for
restoration of these forests, soaking up enormous amounts of carbon and
providing the many other public benefits of healthy, mature forests?
The U.S. should wake up to the opportunities that would be created by
proposing strict rules limiting forestry activities under Kyoto to real
forest protection and restoration. A greater commitment to reducing
emissions, and forest rules that limit creditable activities to real
forest protection and restoration -- how could the Europeans turn down
such a proposal? Unfortunately, it was never made at The Hague. Let's
hope that it can be made at the next international climate meeting in
Germany this spring, for the sake of climate and forests both.
For more information contact Darcy Davis, NW Climate and Forest
Organizer, American Lands, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] or by
phone (503) 978-0132
