CLIMATE CHANGE: what does it mean?

The Power of Trees and Humans

Trees are one of the important factors in the greenhouse-gas concentration equation. Nevertheless, they are largely ignored in the global-warming and climate-change debate. Deforestation is one of the biggest factors contributing to the high greenhouse-gas levels in the atmosphere, but it's below the media's horizon.

"Why is that?" you ask.

"Because it's an inconvenient truth that's better unspoken for the powerful interests that also control the media," I say.

Am I paranoid? Perhaps, but please hear me out.

Forests are big consumers of carbon dioxide, yet we have been cutting trees willy-nilly. Deforestation is one of the biggest challenges for the planet, but it hardly comes up in discussions of global warming and climate change. The debate has only focused on the emissions, to the exclusion of nature's way of capturing them. The potential of forests for capturing carbon dioxide is immense. One hectare of rainforest can capture 450 thousand kilograms of CO2, which is equivalent to the annual emissions of one hundred cars!

However, less than one third of the earth's surface remains forested, and each year the number decreases. That reduction is causing atmospheric CO2 levels to increase at a faster rate than they would otherwise. 

Reforestation is one of the most economic ways of lowering atmospheric greenhouse-gas levels. In view of that, it should be one of our top priorities for the fight against global warming! Yet deforestation continues unabated. According to recent reports, the Amazon basin is losing five thousand square kilometres of rainforest each year. That's an area equivalent to the size of Trinidad and Tobago. And that's just in the Amazon!

Are we nuts?

Don't worry say the big lumber companies, "We will buy carbon credits on the international market to make up for the loss of CO2 capture. We're responsible companies. You know!"

Cutting trees is bad for the environment and is also bad for other species that are near extinction because their habitats are disappearing with logging operations. "No. Mr. Lumber. You're not responsible! Trees are the lungs of the planet and we need them, now more than ever!"

Their reply is pretty simple, "We're harvesting trees responsibly, and if you don't like it stop buying wood and lumber products! We cut trees down because you are demanding them. If there was no demand, we wouldn't be cutting them!"

Touché! The ball is back in our court. If we want the lumber companies to stop cutting trees, or reduce the rate of deforestation, we have to reduce consumption.

That's an interesting moral situation. Who's the bad guy now? Is it the lumber company that does the actual harvesting, or the consumer that pays them to do the dirty deed?

Is the hit man/woman guiltier of murder than the person that hired him/her for the hit?

Interesting indeed!

Every time we go on a shopping spree we are guilty of crimes against humanity.

"That's ludicrous!" you say.

Yet, every time we consume we pollute; and pollution causes illnesses that lead to suffering and premature death. The list of illnesses, ailments, and mental disorders is almost endless.

Who's responsible for all the suffering and dying?

Are the companies that do the polluting more responsible than those who demand their products? They are the ones pulling the trigger, but we're the ones paying them to do it!

We all bitch about pollution, air quality, global warming, climate change, etcetera, without realizing that if we stopped consuming there would be no pollution. Therefore, if we can moderate our avarice for consumer goods, we can help solve the problem. We are the cause of the problem and we have to be part of the solution!

Today is as good a day as any to start doing our part. Little by little we can learn to live sustainably!

**************************************

Clearly, 80% of the world's population does not have an overconsumption problem. It's the other 20% that I'm really talking about.