Un-deforestation

A whole lot of good here

World leaders have been on planes between Rome and Glasgow this past week, working on how to word promises about pollution, climate change and carbon emissions. How much to make of all these promises is anybody’s guess. Especially because there are some very large missing pieces, including the world’s leading polluter, China.

While presidents and prime ministers from other countries have gathered in at least a show about how seriously they take climate change, the top brass in China is staying home. President Xi Jinping was supposed to address the climate conference in Glasgow in the form of a written statement. Which, if the statement is anything like the Paris promises from 2015, won’t amount to much.

Call us cynical, which wouldn’t be inaccurate, but statements made by regimes without a free press or the rule of law probably don’t matter. Which was always the problem with the Paris Accords all those years ago:

A promise made by, say, mainland China, to make an effort to try to reduce carbon emissions maybe in the years to come, as shown by its government’s numbers, might not inspire much faith. But you can bet that if the United States signed off on such a promise, a lawsuit by an environmental group would quickly find itself in a federal courtroom, and a ruling might come down no matter the economic consequences.

Even after the Paris Accords, mainland China kept building coal-fired plants. And continues to this day. And plans to continue tomorrow. Climate is truly a global issue, and carbon in the air isn’t confined by national boundaries.

Again, how much to make out of all these promises is anybody’s guess. Our guess would be: Not much.

But just because something isn’t perfect doesn’t mean it can’t be good. And word came Tuesday morning about something that could prove very good indeed.

At this COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, the world’s leaders (well, some of them) promised to not only end, but reverse, deforestation.

And not in 2075, but by 2030. In nine years.

Even Brazil’s leaders were among the signatories. That country has had whole stretches of Amazon rainforest cut down by industry.

Boris Johnson, the host of the event and prime minister of the UK, sounded giddy: “We have to stop the devastating loss of our forests. End the role of humanity as nature’s conqueror, and instead become nature’s custodian.”

The countries that have signed the pledge account for 85 percent of the world’s forests. Something like $20 billion has been pledged by richer countries to go to poorer countries to restore damaged land, etc.

Un-deforestation would be a welcome development (or undevelopment) for the world. And not just because all those trees can help filter carbon from the atmosphere and reduce warming. Although that’s a big deal in itself, maybe the biggest.

Deforestation threatens all kinds of animal and plants species. According to National Geographic, the South American rainforest influences regional and maybe global water cycles. Millions of people make their living in those forests—and we don’t mean by cutting the trees down.

Yet in the last few years, mankind has cut down rainforest acreage about the size of South Africa. According to the World Resources Institute, if deforestation were a country, it would rank third (behind China and the United States) in carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions.

So to have the world take deforestation seriously is an important step. But … you knew there’d be a but. These promises have been made before. More than once. Every few years, some outfit concerned with deforestation will get signatures from the world’s leaders. And promises will be made, Scout’s honor, no fingers crossed. And somehow those promises are never kept.

Remember the New York Declaration on Forests? Back in 2014, many countries signed off on that pact, also pledging to end deforestation by 2030. But by 2019, reports said that declaration had all but failed. And the voluntary non-binding pledges amounted to a lot of hot air.

Then again, in 2014 a lot of countries with a lot of forests—think Brazil— didn’t sign. This time they did.

And since there is real money behind the effort now, that might make a real difference. Let’s hope.

So, at least today, call us less cynical. Which wouldn’t be inaccurate.