Photo via Flickr: Gidsicki
I thought this would be an apt follow-up for yesterday’s post about carbon capture and storage. Why should we waste billions of dollars on developing and deploying a technology that is, at best, a stop-gap measure with the potential for unknown and catastrophic consequences when we can utilize the natural resources we already have? To wit: A report issued today by WWF-Sweden that says preserving natural forests is five times more cost-effective than CCS:
Stockholm, Sweden – WWF Sweden is urging its government — holding the current EU Presidency — to get behind an effective international agreement on halting forest loss as a key and highly cost effective measure on climate change.
“Sweden should follow the examples set by its northern neighbors in developing systems to halt deforestation,” said WWF CEO General Lasse Gustavsson. “One Swedish krona to stem deforestation results in the same emissions reductions as five kronor for the controversial carbon capture and storage technique.”
Gold in Green Forests, a report issued today by WWF-Sweden, says that next to energy efficiency halting forest loss and degradation is the most cost-effective method for mitigating climate change.
Alright, so the report is in Swedish, but you can read the summary here.
–Jennifer Grayson
Do this now: Deforestation is responsible for 2o percent of annual CO2 emissions. One of the most important things you can do is to only buy paper products made from recycled materials (or use a cloth alternative, when possible). The National Resources Defense Council estimates that if every US household swapped out just one four-pack of traditional bath tissue (made from virgin fiber) for the recycled version, it would save nearly 1 million trees a year.
Related posts:
Green wedding: Give up the gift wrap
Sustainable reading
Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed
Leave a Reply