The mother of all threats

Barack Obama is safely installed back at the helm of the world’s largest global economy just days after Hurricane Sandy brutally forced the issue of climate change back into the limelight. There have since been rumblings of hope that now may be the time for the USA to tackle this “mother of all threats” and Al Gore, a renowned climate champion, has called for Obama to introduce a carbon tax.

This raises the question, that if something should be done, who should be doing it? Following a recent comment I wanted to elaborate a little further about where the burden of responsibility lies, and to what extent the REDD+ approach is really equitable.

Flooded streets under Manhattan Bridge in Brooklyn illustrate New York’s growing vulnerability to destructive storm surges. B. MATTHEWS/AP

http://www.nature.com/news/hurricane-sweeps-us-into-climate-adaptation-debate-1.11753

For starters REDD+ schemes by their very nature involve developed countries instructing developing countries on how to best manage their natural resources. This is slightly ironic really given that we have guzzled, burnt and flattened our own landscapes throughout the course of history. This aside, is it really ethical for the people with the cash to carry on, business as usual, and expect those living in some of the world’s poorest regions to change their livelihoods and restrict development in order to solve a problem that wasn’t even caused by them in the first place?

In a word, no. But the reality is that the forests with the greatest potential for carbon sequestration are in the tropics (see my previous post) and so if we want to save these forests and their troves of carbon then it is essential to engage with the people living in these regions. However, it is vital that developed countries also make meaningful changes and cut domestic CO₂ emissions. Worryingly, there is a danger that REDD+ schemes may reduce incentives for such action.

To avoid this Maslin and Scott advocate “robust ceilings on the use of REDD+ credits in domestic carbon markets”. In other words there should be a limit on how many carbon credits can be used to meet emissions targets.  They also emphasise the importance of “shared responsibility”. We are all in this together, as the image above illustrates all too well.