$40 billion needed to ensure transition to green economy: UN

Jun 05, 2011
Joseph Mercadillio cycles with his son Jose Isaiah Mercadillio in a forest reserve in Manila on Environment Day
Joseph Mercadillio, 44, cycles with his son Jose Isaiah Mercadillio, 11, in a forest reserve in Manila as the world celebrates World Environment Day. Investing $40 billion annually in the forest sector is needed for the world to transition into a low carbon, resource-efficient green economy, according to a UN report released here Sunday.

Investing $40 billion annually in the forest sector is needed for the world to transition into a low carbon, resource-efficient green economy, according to a UN report released here Sunday.

The additional investment "could halve deforestation rates by 2030, increase rates of tree planting by around 140 per cent by 2050," said the report published by the Nairobi-based United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

"Carefully planned investments would also contribute to increased employment from 25 million today to 30 million by 2050," it also added.

The cost of ensuring a green transition would equal $40 billion a year or around 0.034 per cent of global GDP, the report said.

Such an investment, equivalent to about two-thirds more than what is currently spent on the sector, would also remove an extra 28 per cent of carbon from the atmosphere, the Nairobi-based UNEP said.

Earlier this week the UNEP warned that fires, felling and agriculture are whittling Europe's forests down into isolated patches, threatening to speed up desertification and deplete wildlife.

The UN Environment Programme is working with scientists to draw up maps of areas that need to be replanted to help reconnect fragmented forests. The maps will submitted at a June 14-16 ministerial meeting in Oslo.

Explore further: UN climate talks shuffle to a close in Bonn

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Nobel laureate has 1 billion tree plan

Nov 08, 2006

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Wangari Maathai introduced a plan in Kenya to plant 1 billion trees in 2007 to fight the effects of climate change.

Tropical forest sustainability: A climate change boon

Jun 13, 2008

Improved management of the world's tropical forests has major implications for humanity's ability to reduce its contribution to climate change, according to a paper published today in the international journal, Science.

Recommended for you

UN climate talks shuffle to a close in Bonn

14 hours ago

Concern was high at a perceived lack of urgency as UN climate negotiations shuffled towards a close in Bonn on Saturday with just 14 months left to finalise a new, global pact.

Study shows no lead pollution in oilsands region

Oct 24, 2014

New research from a world-renowned soil and water expert at the University of Alberta reveals that there's no atmospheric lead pollution in Alberta's oilsands region—a finding that contradicts current scientific ...

User comments : 27

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

M_N
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2011
Let me guess - the UN would be happy to collect and distribute all these additional funds?
KillerKopy
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2011
No, the UN will re-distribute half and give the other half to special interest groups. People, if you really want to help, get involved, don't let the government take more of your hard earned money. And yes I do care about the planet and forest but I also care about the money I earn and I'm about taxed to the max.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2011
"the UN would be happy to collect and distribute all these additional funds?" - M_N

I smell fear of global governance in your words. Tard Boy.
Vendicar_Decarian
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2011
"People, if you really want to help, get involved, don't let the government take more of your hard earned money." - Killer

Sorry Tard Boy. But no one with a brain is going to emulate the American form of economic suicide that you and your Borrow and Spend Conservative Brethren are promoting.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2011
"Surely it's time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.

Read more: http://www.smh.co...OSVjSaXk
"
Would that be '666'?
_nigmatic10
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2011
Climate change deniers? The terminology screams idiot. No one denies the climate changes. What is debated is the level of human activity impacting the change and how.
xstos
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2011
Ben Bernanke can totally print 40B. He's already done a few trillion, what's 40B more?
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2011
Climate Change Deniers are well beyond the normal level of idiocy and have transgressed into the area of criminal insanity.

Time for a cull.

"Climate change deniers? The terminology screams idiot." - NightTard
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2011
Sorry my little Conservative Nutcase.... But the FED has no more power to create money than any other bank. The federal government however does that through the issuance of treasury bonds which the federal reserve is obligated to purchase.

It is the issuance of the reserve notes that creates the money. Bernanke is simply the head of the bank that purchases those notes.

It is so funny that you Conservative morons spend your days whining about your own nations financial system when you are so spectacularly ignorant about how it operates.

Conservative financial ignorance mirrors Conservative ignorance in everything else.

"Ben Bernanke can totally print 40B." - American Idiot
tigger
4 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2011
Oh wow, c'mon... xstos's was taking the piss re: Bernanke.

Funny though, scrapping about in the capitalist framework trying to find a way to solve the problem. Global markets, stand up and take a stand and you're at a disadvantage, so it doesn't really work... that is until the cheap energy and resources run dry to combat the increasing problems... then, at that point, it really does pay in the capitalist framework to be proactive.

Be proactive too soon and you fall behind to those that don't take action. Be proactive to late and you're stuffed anyway... and those that never wanted to be proactive are stuffed either way.

This is the stuff wars are made of. Hmmm, interesting times ahead. Especially since the small number of people who actually understand the science seem to avoid the guts of how we might change things in the current political and economic framework we exist in. Sorry, but science is ALL... politics and economics are a luxury second to science.
tigger
4 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2011
(cont)... in desperation so many scrapping about trying to find some way to present the argument for action in financial terms... playing the game inside the same framework that caused the problem in the first place.

By now, 90% scream 'well, socialism doesn't work!' etc. etc. as if deriding capitalism immediately means support for any other system. Sigh, wow, really. Common sense and rational thinking is sparse. Then, finally getting that concept past the mind of the reader the writer is suddenly confronted with the suggestion that capitalism is the best thing we've got... and the tired old story ends once again, never once has the fundamental political and financial framework been challenged. The problem apparently too big to even be recognised.

We think we're so intelligent, but as a collective we can't get that simplest of simple concepts on the table.... the elephant stands in the room... no one capable of looking beyond the past, the way things have worked previously.
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2011
"By now, 90% scream 'well, socialism doesn't work!' etc." - tigger

Not even 90 percent of all Americans say that.

And of course virtually all Americans Socialists, as is the vast majority of the rest of the world.

Cave_Man
5 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2011
Climate change deniers? The terminology screams idiot. No one denies the climate changes. What is debated is the level........


Heres how I see man-made global climate change, the earth has an energy storage potential in all of its millions and trillions of moving parts and chemical and physical reactions, so its kind of like a battery. Now every year this battery goes through highs and lows called the seasons, but with all the by products of modern man we have increased the energy that is already wildly fluctuating. This may have an effect to the extent that every year the highs and lows will get just a little stronger. In fact there may be a limit on how much stronger those maximums get no matter how much CO2 how put in at one time.

So if we just disappeared the process of increasing maximums might continue for say 1000 years (a relatively short time when you think about it)

So please don't assume you know everything the our huge complex world.
Skultch
3 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2011
This is 100 percent, a no brainer. 40 billion? It's disgusting why this hasn't happened already. Yet, energy companies that have already invested in fossil fuel exploration, will still need to muddy the waters. Their elected propagandists will still cry for more research and how incentivizing (sp?) the move will hurt jobs. To do so, they will still exploit the inability for the common person to intuitively understand and compare numbers over 1 million.
xstos
5 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2011
hey Vendicar. first i'm canadian. second i'm not conservative. third i was joking. four, I don't care what the official rules say, the banking system was bailed out to the tune of a few trillion, so inflating the already astronomical money supply and passively taxing people for 40B is peanuts.

take a chill pill dude.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (4) Jun 12, 2011
"the banking system was bailed out to the tune of a few trillion," - xtos

All of which were loans, and most of which will be paid back with interest.

What aren't loans is the money that is being handed out in Unemployment benefits and other forms of income security.

Without those benefits Americans would be starting in the streets.

I have watched as thousands of Genius Tea Baggers have demanded that the U.S. government immediately zero it's deficit spending.

I have confronted some of the Conservative fools and through simple division showed how their demand would result in 40% unemployment.

Their response.... "You are a lying Commie."

From this I conclude that T-baggers can't perform basic arithmetic.

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2011
"It should further be noted that the laurates note that more generous unemployment benefits will increase "frictional unemployment" as the unemployed will put less effort into finding a new job. That means that more generous unemployment benefits will increase unemployment even if wages are completely rigid. And it also means that even in a recession, as long as there are any job openings, increased unemployment benefits will increase unemployment."
http://www.csmoni...-for-now

"These results tend to support earlier
findings that beyond core functions of government
responsibilityincluding the protection of liberty
itselfthe expansion of the state to provide for various
entitlements, including so-called economic, social, and
cultural rights, may not make people richer in the long
run and may even make them poorer."
http://www-wds.wo...erver/WD
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (4) Jun 12, 2011
"To do so, they will still exploit the inability for the common person to intuitively understand and compare numbers over 1 million." - Skultch

Yes, absolutely. That is a very big problem for most Americans.

Since the Reagan Era, I have been warning American Republicans that their deficit spending would bankrupt their own nation. They refused to listen and generally could not fathom the difference between billion and trillion.

For 10 years, I asked various Conservative Americans how big their national debt was. The answers I got were almost always - "big", "It doesn't matter", "Drop dead commie", "billions", with maybe 1 in 100 people actually giving roughly the correct value.

6 months before Bush Jr. was elected I estimated that Bush would leave the U.S. with a debt of 12.4 trillion dollars. This was based on a simple extrapolation of the existing trend in the U.S. deficit.

The response "We will never believe you - George Bush is a good Christian."

Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (4) Jun 12, 2011
"That means that more generous unemployment benefits will increase unemployment even if wages are completely rigid." - RyggTard

Since over 80 percent of all labor is unproductive or even counterproductive, what value is there in putting these people to work? They are bound to remain unproductive.

"so-called economic, social, and
cultural rights, may not make people richer in the long
run and may even make them poorer." - RyggTard

Libertarian tards like to find half baked arguments that negate common sense.

In this instance the Libertarian argument is that abolishing unemployment insurance may cause the poor to be better off then if they had UI because they might find a well paying job.

This argument seems to avoid the fact that in the U.S. Unemployment Insurance is time limited and therfore fulfills their criterion for aboltiion (after a time), hence the results - if there were to be any, would already be had.

When you see a Libertarian's lips move. You know they are lying.

Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (4) Jun 12, 2011
Be part of the solution....

http://www.youtub...PchuXIXQ
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2011
VD demonstrates how Popper was motivated to develop his falsification theories.
Socialists eschew science when it proves their faith false.
Moebius
5 / 5 (4) Jun 12, 2011
40 billion a year? Wouldn't be a problem for us if it involved killing people.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2011
40 billion a year? Wouldn't be a problem for us if it involved killing people.

Killing people is cheap and easy. Killing only the people that threaten is difficult and expensive.
Au-Pu
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2011
No matter how much they spend they will not be able to create more arable soil.
We are one of the most stupid species on the planet.
We settle where it is good to fish or farm.
Then as our population blindly grows we build our towns and cities on the arable land.
The more the population grows the more arable land we build on.
Thus we reduce our capacity to grow enough food to feed ourselves whilst our population grows exponentially.
We will eventually outbreed our ability to produce enough food.
The best way to control our population is to allow countries to feed only their own people.
That way the more irresponsible each nation was with its birth rate the greater would be its mortality rate through starvation.
It would become a self inflicted problem.
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2011
"Killing people is cheap and easy. Killing only the people that threaten is difficult and expensive." - RyggTard

Spoken like a true Libertarian/Randite. I congratulate you on exposing the core truth in those ideologies.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 13, 2011
"Socialists eschew science when it proves their faith false." - RyggTard

It must be hard for RyggTard to live his tin foil cap life surrounded by Socialists everywhere he turns.

People want Government run Healthcare, government run police forces, a Government run system of law, government run military forces, government built roads, government run social services, government imposed standards and practices and a host of other socialist government services.

Poor RyggTard. His Libertairan/Randite Ideology has done most of the work in Destroying his country, but other than that destruction, he/they - the Libertarian traitors - will never get what they want.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 13, 2011
Since over 80 percent of all labor is unproductive or even counterproductive, what value is there in putting these people to work? They are bound to remain unproductive.

"so-called economic, social, and
cultural rights, may not make people richer in the long
run and may even make them poorer." - RyggTard

Libertarian tards like to find half baked arguments that negate common sense.

In this instance the Libertarian argument is that abolishing unemployment insurance may cause the poor to be better off then if they had UI because they might find a well paying job.

This argument seems to avoid the fact that in the U.S. Unemployment Insurance is time limited and therfore fulfills their criterion for aboltiion (after a time), hence the results - if there were to be any, would already be had.

When you see a Libertarian's lips move. You know they are lying.