Fredome symposium on global reafforestation

I went up to London yesterday. London was OK in its way, still an awful lot of people there with little means of support, still chaos in moving around the Underground, but with a bit of KEEP LEFT signage at Paddington, so some progress.

It was for a symposium on reforestation hosted by the Parliamentary All-Party Group on Climate Change, convened by Greg Peachey of Fredome. There were about 60 there, with a convened independent panel of professors in the relevant disciplines, chaired by Katy Clark MP (Lab, North Ayrshire and Arran) who was very pleasant but let some speakers overrun.

Nick Griffin was there, which was a bit weird, but invites had been sent to all MPs and MEPs. He didn't say anything out loud.

The meeting was opened and closed by school students, who spoke about their hopes that something should be done to restore the planet and reduce the global problems that they did not create, but are set to inherit.

In his introduction Greg took a positive line, preferring to look at solutions rather than frightening people with problems. He points out that trees not only take CO2 out of the atmosphere, (the carbon cycle, which is the elephant in the climate change discussion salon) but also alter the microclimate, and offer food resources through agroforestry. He reviewed the effect mankind has had in deforesting and creating deserts, and detailed the manifold advantages of reforestation.

Forests create their own microclimate, generate their own clouds. One thing I had not been aware of was that Ascension Island was reforested in the 1880s, and the small area originally planted has extended itself naturally.

We need to work with Nature, helping to complete the carbon cycle in order to transform CO2 from a harmful atmospheric gas to beneficial vegetation.

The unique aspect of Greg's plan is OASIS, the idea of using British sewage to supply water and nutrients to pump-prime the new forests. (My idea is to use solar desalination to achieve this end) The idea is that oil supertankers should fill up with sewage rather than seawater as ballast on their way back to the oilfields. The sewage would be anaerobically digested on its way, and would be transferred to a scrap tanker on site, to deliver the water.

This aspect proved rather contentious in the discussion, as we shall see.

Greg offered evidence of plausibility for the idea by showing letters from Governments and experts supporting the idea. Sewage irrigation of desert areas has been tried in been successfully implemented in Egypt and a number of other countries. More here.


Experts spoke. Tim Evans, retired from Thames Water, claimed that most UK sewage (did he say 80%?) is already recycled to land as fertiliser. If true, it is welcome, because I was involved in the Campaign Against Sea Dumping in the 1980's, and we were pressing for exactly this, but I very much doubt that there is no sewage to spare in the UK.

Pano Krako from the Environmental Parliament said that when 5% of Irish farmland was given over to trees, as a kind of extended hedge, productivity went up by 50%. Sounds too good to be true. He said that Green Bonds could finance the project. He spoke in favour of REDD.

Implicit in the discussion was the assumption that reforestation should be ecologically sensitive, with the consent of and to the advantage of local communities. There was no discussion of the corporate distortion and corruption that is taking place within REDD and carbon trading schemes.

William Matthews from the International Tree Foundation spoke of the life and work of Richard St Barbe Baker, who founded the Men of the Trees. I didn't realise he did most of his work in Africa.

Professor Achterburg warned about the danger of transferring pathogens and heavy metal contamination in sewage. Professor Stephen Nortcliff said that metal contamination of sewage is much less nowadays, but estimates still rely on old data. He pointed out that anaerobic digestion needs heat. Nobody mentioned that anaerobic digestion kills off pathogens, but it does.

Professor Frank Chambers questioned the soundess of long distance transport of resources, would prefer it to be processed locally. Greg said that we are importing nutrients from countries, and need to complete that cycle. Prof Stephen Northcliff, a soil scientist, felt that our own soil could scarcely spare any sewage, it was all needed here to replace organic matter in our own soils.

Frank noted that biogas could be converted to hydrogen, retaining the carbon part.

Prof John Wainright calculated that one supertanker could support 5 hectares of juvenile forest for a year, calculated from a practical instance http://www.idosi.org/wasj/wasj7%2810%29/5.pdf 1 VLCC tanker load will supply 76 hectares with nutrients and water to support forestry in the first year.

Andrew Fletcher, the originator of the OASIS (tanked sewage) solution, spoke up for his idea. He is a natural inventor, an observer and thinker who makes connections where professors and experts see only difficulties and distinctions. He observed in Torbay how the hot tarmac road would hold sea mist back, but that a small patch of trees and vegetation would allow the mist inland, creating its own moist micro-climate.

In the general floor discussion, someone spoke of the huge value of hemp and flax. I tried to divert  discussion from doubts about the OASIS concept to the greater vision of reclothing our planet with its green cloak of forest. It is such an obvious, win-win concept and it was great that the all party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change was taking it up, but sad that we are at such an early stage in the concept. The OASIS concept should be evaluated, and trialled, but even if it were found to be impractical, reforestation is still a valid project.

Afterwards I spoke with some of the young ones. I think they will see in their lifetime a huge explosion of inventive schemes like this. There will be major reforestation, in diverse, ecologically sensitive and community supported projects. Their generation will try things out, not just talk about them. It is just very sad that it takes such a stupidly long time to do anything positive, compared, say, with starting a war, which can be done at the drop of a dodgy dossier.

A student, Toby Charles, made an immensely powerful speech at the end, summed up as "Just Do It!" He stressed that is is not a case of wondering whether to keep our sewage resources to ourselves or give it to "other people" - we are all the same people, we here in the UK are the same species as those over in Africa. Then he went and sat down. Right next to Nick Griffin, who, to my eye, looked a bit pained.

Overall, a valuable step towards one important and positive component of humanity's life or death struggle against climate change and resource depletion. There is debate to be had about how it is done, and how we can stop the corporations from diverting the process for their own ends, but there is every reason to get the reafforestation show on the road.

Finding the source of the Amazongate

Thanks to EarthObservatory.
Right, now, we are going to have to take this steady.

I blogged that Amazongate, another case of the IPCC not checking its sources, is another AGW skeptick damp squib.

I get a comment from Richard North, (not Richard D North) who says that it is not that simple.
I respect Richard, because were allies in the struggle for vaccination in the 2001 FMD scandal.

Lets try to make it simple, using numbers. 

1. The Sunday Times Publishes a piece originally entitled
   “UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim” saying that the IPCC referred to an unsubstantiated piece from the WWF document entitled Global Review of Forest Fires:
   
2. WWF replies that it was substantiated
   
3. Richard North says no it wasn't
   
   So let's go back to the source.
   
4. IPCC published the following statement:
   Up to 40%of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000).
   
5. We follow the reference to Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp. where we read:
   Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left. This is referenced to D. C. Nepstad, et al: Large - scale Impoverishment of Amazonian Forests by Logging and Fire, Nature, 1999, Vo l 398, 8 April, pp505, on line here.
6. But we cannot find that exact quote in the Nepstad paper. We do however find this:
   we find that surface fires burn additional large areas of standing forest, the destruction of which is normally not documented. Forest impoverishment due to such fies may increase dramatically when severe droughts provoke forest leaf-shedding and greater flammability; our regional water-balance model indicates that an estimated 270,000 sq km of forest became vulnerable to fire in the 1998 dry season.
   and this:
   Because of the severe drought of 1997 and 1998, we calculate that approximately 270,000 km2 of Amazonian forest had completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil by the end of the 1998 dry season.
   
7. I hope you are still with me. Hello?
   
   
8. So, Richard North is rightish in asserting that the "specific assertion" is not substantiated, but the WWF is rightish in that references do exist to support the assertion that large areas of Amazon are vulnerable to fire. Which is the main point, when all is said and done.
   
9. Lessons learned: always check your sources, boring as that might be, especially if you work with the IPCC, because otherwise the bogeymen AGW skeptics will get you.

PS my guess is that Moore and Rowell copied their quote from an earlier draft of the paper, and the copied passage was subsequently changed.

PPS I hope that is helpful. I need to go and have a little lie down now.

PPPS The conservatives used to criticise the habit of sticking -gate on the end of anything that was controversial, now they are doing it themselves. How times change.

Copenhagen: how do we set about decarbonising a planet's economy?

In the aftermath of Copenhagen, I have prepared this brief introduction to the problem of what we actually do to bring about a decarbonisation of the world economy. It is by no means exhaustive, but offered as a beginner's guide.

CONTROLLING CARBON

It is vital that the world economy should move away from its dependence on fossil carbon fuels, and should maximise the use of renewable energy. The reason is not just because of the enhanced greenhouse effect from the 37% increase in Carbon Dioxide that industrialisation has caused, but also because of acidification of the ocean, and finally the imminence of Peak Oil, when demand for oil exceeds supply, resulting in inflation of the carbon price.

Many studies have shown that this transition to a zero-carbon world economy is possible. It demands an historic investment in new energy technologies and infrastructure, comparable with the kind of investment that countries at war commit to producing military hardware.

The essential aim is to reduce the rate at which carbon is burnt so that it is in line with the quantity that the planet can safely absorb. The effort must also cover other human production of other greenhouse gases such as methane.

The effort to reduce greenhouse gases must be twin track: in parallel with the drive to reduce the amount of CO2 that is injected into the atmosphere, there must be a drive to reduce the amount already in the atmosphere, since there is a 50 year lag in the effect of new CO2 in the air, and also we are already at dangerously high levels – 387 ppm when some authorities see 350 ppm as the safe limit.

There are two guiding principles for this transition:
1. Earth’s atmosphere is a common resource.
2. Every human being has an equal right and responsibility to a healthy atmosphere.

It follows from this that there must be a transfer of resources from the developed world, who have caused this problem, to the developing world, who have not caused the problem, but who will suffer most from the problem. The transfer will be to enable them to develop renewable energy.

We can control carbon before it is extracted, or after it is burnt.

Controls on Extraction

Companies are issued quotas for extraction.
Intergovernmental agreement sets limits on the amounts that coal, oil and gas that companies are allowed to extract from Earth.
This approach is simpler, since there are fewer extractors than there are polluters.

The problem is that this approach needs people, through their governments, to control powerful multinational corporations, who have arrogated to themselves more power than the governments.

Cap and Share
Here, permissions are given to each individual on the planet, as an entitlement or dividend. The individuals are able to sell their entitlements through the post office or banking system, who sell them on to extracting companies. Individuals who have a small carbon footprint will receive more in their dividend than they spend, so will profit, while those with a large carbon footprint will be worse off.

The credits are issued at individual level, not through Governments.



Controls on Emissions

Cap and Trade
This bears on companies as they emit CO2. It is a tried and tested way of controlling pollution, already in use in the US, EU, and New Zealand.

A cap is set on the total amount of emissions permits, and companies with are issued with credits as emission permits.

Companies that exceed their credits may buy credits from cleaner companies.

In some cases, they can also buy offsets
e.g. REDD (see below) – where companies can pay forest rich countries to forgo the profits that they would otherwise make from logging.

In favour of Cap and Trade is its tried and tested form.

Against cap and trade is:
Risk of corruption
Risk that credits may be set too cheap, as has happened in the European Trading Scheme.


There is a voluntary case of cap and share, where renewable energy certificates can be gained through creating renewable energy technology, and these certificates can be sold in the carbon market.

Carbon Taxes
These are simpler than cap schemes, and they do provide a general downward pressure on carbon use, but the effect is unpredictable, and it is not easily able to meet necessary targets. It might be used as an interim measure, while more precise controls are set up.
Money raised from carbon taxes must be hypothecated to renewable energy schemes.

Financial Transaction Tax

A variant of the Tobin Tax, a levy on financial transactions could supply the money needed for developing countries to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

Action in developing world
1 Solar technology development

By and large, poor countries are also hot countries. The transition to a solar energy economy will naturally rectify the gap between rich and poor countries, as previously poor countries export their surplus solar energy either as electricity along High Volt Direct Current (HVDC) long distance grids, or as hydrogen produced from electrolysis.

As well as wind, wave and geothermal energy, hot countries will benefit from Photovoltaic (PV), Solar thermal, and Concentrated Solar power (CSP). Algal oil production will flourish in hot countries.

2 Preservation of forests

REDD - Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, is the proposal on the table.

There are already institutions set up to administer this scheme, among them the UN-REDD.

The logic of REDD is sound:

1. The forests must be preserved

2. Poor countries with large forests are at risk of selling the forests for logging.

3. If they are not to profit from logging, they must receive compensation.

4. Companies supplying this compensation are effectively reducing the amount of CO2 that would have been added to the atmosphere.

Verification of REDD can be ensured both by high technology (satellite surveillance) and traditional methods (granting sovereignty to forest dwellers for the care of their lands). The Global Greens should table this latter approach.

Note that protection of forests does not preclude the use and marketing of forest products, including timber. Extraction of a tree from a forest, and use of its timber in or high value wood artefacts is a form of carbon storage, and stimulates carbon uptake because new trees will spring up in the area previously shaded by the harvested tree. Individual tree harvesting can be sustainable; clear felling is not.

The REDD scheme has many detractors, but critics need to provide a feasible alternative. These criticisms from Wikipedia:

* The availability of a large supply of potentially cheap carbon
credits could provide an avenue for companies in the developed
world to simply purchase REDD credits without providing meaningful
emission reductions at home.


A: Since we are looking at a global problem, then CO2 emissions foregone are effective, even if carried out in a different part of the globe. The offsetting company will still be incentivised to reduce its emissions in order to reduce its payments.

* Large number of carbon credits could swamp developing carbon
markets...but could also facilitate ambitious emissions targets in
a post-Kyoto agreement.


A: This is a problem to be managed by restricting the issue of carbon credits. The ETS has clearly been over-issuing and therefore undervaluing the credits, and this can be addressed my issuing less.

* Putting a commercial value on forests neglects the spiritual value they hold for Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

A: Illogical. The forests are being conserved by putting a protective monetary value on them.

* There is no consensus on a definition for forest degradation.

A: Ecologists can create an effective index of measurement.

* Fair distribution of REDD benefits will not be achieved without a
prior reform in forest governance and more secure tenure systems
in many countries.

A: Why does it have to be prior? This is to set the cart before the horse. The reforms will flow from the proper valuation of the forests.

I am aware that these views are contentious in our circles, but the key thing for the critics of REDD is to set out a feasible alternative, and of this, so far, I have seen nothing.

PS: At the same time, we should be pressing for reafforestation.

Reafforestation of earth’s desert areas could absorb 50 years’ worth of USA emissions. Increasing the density of wooded areas in the rest of the world could absorb a similar amount. There are climatic implications for full reafforestation of the deserts, but the project can start at the coasts, while the implications are worked out.

Afforestation must begin in coastal areas and extend inland from there, to utilise the moist air coming off the sea.

This reforestation effort must be ecologically diverse, and carried out by and for the benefit of local communities.

Ornstein Sahara Afforestation: This Green says YES

Leonard Ornstein is all over the news today, with his plan to reforest the Sahara using desalination.

There are predictable knee-jerk rejections of the plan, but it is certainly worth piloting, as an experiment. I have been advocating this for a couple of years now.

Ornstein's proposal to use Eucalyptus is dubious, as it is invasive, and some species are toxic to flora in their vicinity. They also have very deep roots, and an extensive euclalypt forest could conceivably have the effect of lowering the water table. I was a trustee of Tree Aid years ago, and we had a successful stand of eucalypt. When they were harvested, the local stream, which had mysteriously dried up, began to flow again.

It is mandatory to use native species, and the planting should be to the advantage of, and using the labour of, local communities, rather than some kind of post-colonial industrialisation.

Community forests would probably bring the costs down too. The planting should begin at the coast, and work inland from there. East Africa would be the place to start, in view of the drought there. The work would also help to bring peace to Somalia.

The basic reaction to any of this carbon sequestration stuff is "We shouldn't be putting CO2 in the air in the first place. Sequestration is a Moral Hazard!"

The answer to this objection is that it is possible to walk along and to chew gum at the same time. We need BOTH decarbisation AND sequestration. The 40 year time lag means that even if we could magically stop CO2 emissions today, we would still need sequestration to avert disaster.

So, no brainer. Forget Ornstein's $trillions, forget eucalypt, forget industrial forestry, remember the people, and let's start planting forests aap.

East African drought: there is a solution

Image from the Environment Society of Australia with thanks

East Africa is in trouble. Somalia, Djibouti, southern Ethiopia, northern and eastern Kenya, and northeastern Uganda all affected. The World Food Program says that 23 million people are in need of emergency food relief. Food prices are rising. There has been a steady decline in rainfall over the last 20 years, rainfall patterns are less predictable.

It looks as if the climate in the horn of Africa is changing, consistent with man made global warming models.

Scarce water, scarce resources, means trouble. Population displacement, refugees, tribal conflicts. It is adding to the misery in Somalia, weakened by 18 years of internal war.

Heavy rain is expected next month, due to El Nino, but this may bring its own problems.

What to do?

First and foremost, we must hope that the politicians gathering in Copenhagen this December come up with a serious plan to de-carbonise the world economy. We can all help through Avaaz.

Even a serious, rational plan to decarbonise will not help with the East Africa situation in the short term though.

The region needs a big change in the water cycle, in a short time scale.

This is not impossible. It could be done by a massive reforestation effort, beginning at the coast, and working inland.

The key fact to know is that according to Nobel Peace Prize winner and Kenyan Green Belt Movement founder Wangari Maathai, a patch of growing rain forest 15 square kilometers in area will create its own raincloud.

It is well known that forests act as a sponge, holding water, and lifting it into the air through evaporo-transpiration. Usually, this fact is deployed to make the case against deforestation.
It is equally effective as an argument for reafforestation.

The afforestation must begin at the coast because the onshore winds are moisture laden, and can help the new forest to flourish. Solar desalination stills set up by the coast can generate the fresh water that tree nurseries need.

These projects will need major international backing, with serious money (but not prohibitive, by military standards). The planting must be carried out by and with the willing and informed consent the local communities, providing work, shelter, and benefits to those communities. And before anyone starts screaming about non-native monocultures, the species planted will be indigenous to the area, and planted with ecological sensitivity. Permaculture principles should be used.

The creative, cooperative activity required in local communities will displace energies from war making and conflict in Somalia, if rightly implemented, with good leadership from people committed to peace and democracy in Somalia.

More detail on coastal reafforestation here.

Yes, it is a big project. Yes, it is a new idea. But the journey of 10,000 miles starts with a single step.

For East Africa, this is that step.

See also:
Water Project in Israel/Palestine
Leonard Ornstein has similar concept.

What is so bad about reducing deforestation through REDD?

About 20% of global greenhouse gases arise from deforestation.

There is a move to address this through REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation).

I like to approach things in simple steps, working from the axioms to the policy. So:

1. It is vitally necessary to stop deforestation as part of addressing climate change.
2. Poor countries with forests will be tempted to call in the loggers in order to improve their current account in the short (but not the long) term.
3. REDD seeks to address this problem by paying forested countries not to destroy their forest.
4. If we reject REDD, we need a comprehensive worked out alternative.

But a lot of good people, including many greens, are critical of REDD. Why?

For a quick take on this I dive into Wikipedia*.

1. The availability of a large supply of potentially cheap carbon credits could provide an avenue for companies in the developed world to simply purchase REDD credits without providing meaningful emission reductions at home.

RL: Companies will have REDD payments on their balance sheets, proportional to their carbon usage. Their carbon costs have gone up. The pressure is still there for the company to cut its costs by cutting carbon, for instance, by installing its own CHP, or by buying low-carbon electricity.
So argument 1 lacks force.

2. Large number of carbon credits could swamp developing carbon markets.

RL: That depends on the value set on carbon credits. The European system has failed because the carbon price was set too low.

3. Putting a commercial value on forests neglects the spiritual value they hold for Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

This sentence could equally well be written " Putting a commercial value on forests complements the spiritual value they hold for Indigenous Peoples and local communities."

This argument has no force at all. There is no necessary logical exclusion between spiritual value and commercial value. Recall that the "commercial value" of REDD is in fact more a conservation value than a commercial value, since the whole point is that the trees shall not be killed and traded.

4. There is no consensus on a definition for forest degradation.

How about "reduction in the total area covered by the forest" for a start? This can then be determined very simply and accurately by satellite surveillance (think Google Earth).
On top of quantitative area counts, there is also the matter of quality, which could be assessed by ecological surveys. Perfectly possible, though it comes at a cost, but the upside is that it provides work for our friends the ecologists.

5. * Fair distribution of REDD benefits will not be achieved without a prior reform in forest governance and more secure tenure systems in many countries.
Ok, so let's set about doing just that.

Now, I am just a peripheral observer, and amateur in the sense that I just love trees. There are deeply held views against REDD, and there are many other detailed objections. I may be wrong. REDD may indeed turn out to be the worst thing since sliced white bread. In that case, prove me wrong with robust logical arguments, and also show us what the alternative strategy should be.
*Yes, I know. But if you think that the Wikipedia article is deficient, then bloody well dive in and improve it if you're such a smart ass. Or point me to a better summary of the criticisms against REDD.

[update: Link to detailed piece on REDD, and how it could help forest peoples]. 

Wangari Maathai on Today Programme

Wangari Maathai, the nobel Peace prize winning Green, interviewed on Today (go to 0847). She says that what Africa needs is not just Western aid, but good governance.

I will write to draw her attention to the Global Index of Human Rights, which aims to do exactly this thing. In particular, it includes information on the Ibrahim Index for African Governance , a model that applies to sub-Saharan Africa.

Wangari wants us to plant a billion trees by the end of 2009. This is a reasonable and achievable target. In Sao Paolo last year, I met Haidar el Ali, a Green from Senegal who planted 10,000 mangroves with the aid of his own two small children.

In healing the biosphere by planting trees in a way that is ecologically sensible, and in a way that empowers and benefits local people, we will be healing ourselves, because it will divert human energies from conflict and killing.

Real progress is possible. We just need to understand that human health is dependent on the health of the global environment.

Naked forms etched against the sky...

The sun goes down early here, in the valley, and the trees on the other side of the valley have a bright sky to show themselves against, inky black lines, each line a history of the tree's life flowing to find the best bit of sun, their specific shapes recognisable, each species with its own contours, revealed in their essence now that the leaves are gone.

Trees put all the toxins they do not need into their leaves before they drop.
So when we kick our way joyfully through the piles of odoriferous leaf fall, we are wading through tree crap.

They must think we are disgusting.

George Monbiot Hates Trees Shock

Went last night to hear George Monbiot and speakers from Oxfam and World Development Movement talk about climate change. Packed audience, George his usual brilliant self; message being that its the same the whole world over, its the poor what gets the blame, its the rich what gets the pleasure, ain't it all a bleeding shame.

Glacier melts in India are causing floods. When glaciers gone, they get droughts. Poor countries suffer for our CO2 emissions.

Yes. Action needed. Government is sucking its thumb while blowing its own trumpet, not making a good job of either. They need to take up Contraction and Convergence.

Where I dsagree with George is his opposition against planting trees. He does the tired old either cut down CO2 or plant trees argument (I have been doing both, it is possible to do both you know, bit like walking along and holding a conversation), and the "bad monoculture of eucalyptus displacing communities" (well, help communities to plant useful native trees that they want), and the Indulgences argument (buy your way out of guilt) which really gets up my nose. Paying money to priests so you can sin is one thing, planting trees to mop up our emissions is quite another.

Here's a nice link about trees.

Nail down your carbon debt with a tree

Trees modify climate, both the micro climate in their immediate vicinity, by providing shade and windbreaks, and also world climate by absorbing carbon dioxide.

Trees turn atmospheric carbon dioxide into solid wood, and wood can be preserved for a very long time, if it is made beautiful by the skills of woodworkers.

Wood is a structural material which is not only durable and workable, but also beautiful. The more beautifully the wood is worked, the longer people will value and protect it and the longer that parcel of CO2 will be locked up. So the artistry carpenters joiners and wood carvers helps to save the planet.

Trees protect against soil erosion and the spread of deserts.

Forests carry moisture by their transpiration cycle to nourish continental interiors that would otherwise be arid land.

Trees provide a renewable source of energy - firewood - for villagers in most developing countries.

Trees give food to people, food to domestic animals and food and habitat to our wild fellow creatures.

Trees give medicines to mankind, some of which are known, many more that are not yet understood.

Last but not least, forests provide spiritual shelter for ourselves. Is there anyone, no matter how urbanised, who has not experienced the healing sense of peace and awe that time spent in a forest can bring?

Therefore, if each of us plants the right number of trees each year, and in the right way, on a community scale, not an industrial scale, we can maintain the atmospheric carbon balance, and at the same time, increase the amount of forest cover on the planet.

Let them inherit trees

Finland has a Futures Committee that looks at the interests of future generations. What an amazing idea! "Originally established on a temporary basis in 1993 after a severe recession, the Committee for the Future has been so successful in responding and evaluating Governmental
decisions that Parliament has granted it permanent status." Writes John Turnbull of the World Democracy Network.


Sadly, our relation with future generations mostly involves taking from them - not just finite resources, but also, incredibly, living resources also, like fish stocks, forests, soil and biodiversity.

There are two things we can hand on to them: intellectual resources (cultural and scientific) and - forests.

If we plant trees now, the people who will benefit will be our children.

So let us plant trees: indigenous, diverse, community based, trees. Plenty of trees.
Trees in our own countries, and with the indigenous peoples' permission, in other countries as well. The old rainforests can be regenerated if we plant first on the coasts and move inwards.

But let it always be by, with, and for the local community.

In planting trees, we will to some extent we will be taking CO2 out of circulation that we thoughtlessly put into it.

More on this later.