Action needed now to save forest area the size of India

December 20, 2017, Institute of Physics
Credit: Institute of Physics

An area of forest the size of India will be lost by 2050 unless carbon pricing and anti-deforestation policies are put in place.

That is the primary finding of a new study carried out by researchers from the Center for Global Development, Washington, DC, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, published today in Environmental Research Letters.

They analysed detailed satellite-based maps of annual forest loss between 2001-2012, along with information on topography, accessibility, protected status, and potential agricultural revenue to project future emissions from in a business-as-usual scenario. They then estimated the emissions that would be avoided if governments that oversee tropical forests enacted domestic carbon pricing policies or strong anti-deforestation measures.

Lead author Dr. Jonah Busch, from CGD, said: "Our results showed that Earth stands to lose 289 million hectares of tropical forest between 2016 and 2050 if no action is taken. The loss of this amount of forest would release 169 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, which is one-sixth of the remaining planetary carbon budget."

The study found a carbon price of $20/tCO2 would avoid 923 MtCO2 of emissions from tropical deforestation in 2020.

Co-author Jens Engelmann, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said: "While this is toward the low end of the range projected by earlier studies, it is still 4.5 times the MtCO2 available at the same price in the European Union, and 55 times the 17 MtCO2 available at the same price in California —two regions with carbon pricing policies already in place.

"However, carbon pricing is not the only way to achieve a reduction in deforestation. Governments of forested countries could reduce emissions from deforestation by implementing restrictive policies, as Brazil did very successfully in the Amazon. In fact, from 2004 to 2012, in the Amazon reduced by between 60 and 80 per cent."

The study shows that if all tropical countries brought in restrictive anti-deforestation policies with equivalent effectiveness to those in the Brazilian Amazon, one-third of emissions from from 2016-2050 would be avoided—a greater amount than the one-quarter of emissions that would be avoided from a carbon price of $20/tCO2.

Dr. Busch said: "Unlike carbon pricing, restrictive policies could be brought in without having to set up new institutions for assigning and monitoring land users' rights, which could be complicated or expensive across much of the tropics because of unclear property rights over forest lands. Additionally, restrictive policies could have lower budgetary costs than carbon .

"However, because restrictive policies would push opportunity costs onto current and would-be land users, they lack the ability of payments to create winners from the as well as losers. Combining restrictive policies with allows for even greater emission reductions while achieving a desired distribution of winners and losers from policy."

Mr Engelmann added: "Whichever route is taken, it should be taken soon. Our projection of future deforestation in the absence of effective policies is eye-opening, and emphasizes the need for effective action so that land can play a significant role in reining in growing increases in atmospheric CO2."

Explore further: Protecting 'high carbon' rainforest also protects threatened wildlife

More information: Jonah Busch et al. Cost-effectiveness of reducing emissions from tropical deforestation, 2016–2050, Environmental Research Letters (2017). DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa907c

Related Stories

Tropical forest reserves slow down global warming

October 27, 2017

National parks and nature reserves in South America, Africa and Asia, created to protect wildlife, heritage sites and the territory of indigenous people, are reducing carbon emissions from tropical deforestation by a third, ...

Win-win strategies for climate and food security

October 2, 2017

Climate policies that target agriculture and forests could lead to increased food prices. But reducing deforestation and increasing soil carbon sequestration in agriculture could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions ...

Counting the carbon cost of forest destruction

November 16, 2017

The world is losing its trees, but at what cost? Better estimates of deforestation and degradation could shed light on the amount of CO2 emitted, refine climate models and help developing countries better manage their forests.

Recommended for you

Can China keep it's climate promises?

March 26, 2019

China can easily meet its Paris climate pledge to peak its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, but sourcing 20 percent of its energy needs from renewables and nuclear power by that date may be considerably harder, researchers ...

What happened before the Big Bang?

March 26, 2019

A team of scientists has proposed a powerful new test for inflation, the theory that the universe dramatically expanded in size in a fleeting fraction of a second right after the Big Bang. Their goal is to give insight into ...

Cellular microRNA detection with miRacles

March 26, 2019

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are short noncoding regulatory RNAs that can repress gene expression post-transcriptionally and are therefore increasingly used as biomarkers of disease. Detecting miRNAs can be arduous and expensive as ...

In the Tree of Life, youth has its advantages

March 26, 2019

It's a question that has captivated naturalists for centuries: Why have some groups of organisms enjoyed incredibly diversity—like fish, birds, insects—while others have contained only a few species—like humans.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2017
Given how intense Obama was about the environment and he did absolutely nothing during his 8 years as President tells you the direction we're going.
3.8 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2017
omegatalon - how about you enlighten us all as to exactly what President Trump and the Scott Pruitt run EPA are doing to turn that around?
5 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2017
Given how intense Trump was about the environment and he did absolutely devastation during his 1 years as President tells you the direction we're going.
5 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2017
Scott Pruitt of EPA is a total turd in the garden. I recommend all EPA scientist to resist, or make any reports to be utilized by the trolls of the Trumps to be obviously wrong so that they can waste years on internal fights while truth is told in science literature. Slime like EPA's Pruitt need to worry that science will not be silenced, it will get out and be published, and we will make sure of that.

Are you listening EPA Pruitt spy snoops? Can you read between my old boney fingers?
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2017
Whew, glad I got those two maples & one oak cut down & split into firewood this past Fall before I read this article.

Oh, wait a minute, all this deforestation is occurring outside the US? Another big "Whew", now I don't feel so guilty about keeping my woodstove & fireplace burning up all that half dead wood.
1 / 5 (1) Dec 24, 2017
Burn away, benni, not all of us are suited for clean and modern living.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.