\nbill, different polluters are clamoring for cash to compensate them for not
\nfouling the atmosphere quite so much. One of their targets: the legislation’s set-aside
\nfunds for reducing tropical
\ndeforestation<\/a>, which is responsible for at least 15 percent of total carbon
\ndioxide emissions (more than all the cars, trucks, ships, and planes in the
\nworld).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Outside of all the myriad benefits of protecting tropical rainforests <\/p>\n Here’s why: one of the primary purposes of this fund is to <\/p>\n No set-aside, no <\/p>\n With the help of my able associate Olivier Jarda, I’ve put <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Joking aside, this is a real threat to the bill.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The EPA analysis of the House-passed American Clean Energy <\/p>\n Take a look at this actual graph from an excellent new study <\/p>\n <\/p>\n To summarize, setting aside five percent of the revenue from <\/p>\n The Climate Forest Fund helps U.S. business and consumers in <\/p>\n Finally, by delivering very cheap (currently $5 per ton<\/a>) <\/p>\n Indeed, the only group likely to be happy about raiding the Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n U.S. lowers expectations for climate treaty this year<\/a><\/p>\n This Earth Day we need more than a celebration, we need a clean energy revolution<\/a><\/p>\n WATCH: China building ambitious “Solar Valley City” to advance solar industry<\/a><\/p>\n
\nfor the planet, raiding this “Climate
\nForest Fund<\/a>” seriously threatens the affordability, effectiveness, and
\npolitical viability of energy and climate legislation.<\/p>\n
\nhelp rainforest nations supply the international offsets needed to keep the
\nbill affordable and end deforestation.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\noffsets, no affordability:<\/strong> Climate
\nlegislation rightly includes strict requirements to ensure that offsets
\nactually reduce emissions. Most international offsets are expected to come from
\ntropical rainforest conservation. But right now, most rainforest nations can’t
\nmeet the legislation’s requirements to generate offsets—they don’t have
\nenough trained people or good monitoring satellites to accurately track how
\nmany forests they have, how much they’re losing, how many emissions result, and
\nhow effective conservation projects are. Until these countries get the capacity
\nthey need through the Climate Forest Fund, all those offsets and the cost
\nsavings that come from them are pure fantasy.<\/p>\n
\ntogether a graph showing what I mean:<\/p>\n
\nand Security legislation found that excluding international offsets makes
\nemissions permits 89 percent more expensive.<\/p>\n
\nby Nigel Purvis and Andrews Stevenson at Resources for the Future quantifying<\/a>,
\nin unicorn-free terms, how much a small investment in the Climate Forest Fund
\nactually saves Americans by bringing offsets to market.<\/p>\n
\nclimate legislation for tropical rainforests saves U.S. consumers $9.6 billion
\nper year, or a total of $421 billion over the life of the legislation,
\naccording to additional data provided by the study authors.<\/p>\n
\nother ways: part of it will be dedicated to enforcing laws against importing
\nillegally logged wood<\/a> into the United States, where it undercuts<\/a> more
\nresponsibly and sustainably produced American forest products.<\/p>\n
\npollution reductions beyond those mandated by the cap, it brings U.S. pollution
\ncommitments close to those of other industrialized countries—putting pressure
\non countries like China and India to reduce their own pollution.<\/p>\n
\nClimate Forest Fund are Chinese coal executives who will be thrilled that their
\nown government will be freed from any pressure to take on tighter pollution
\nreduction targets—leaving the Chinese free to out-pollute and out-compete the
\nUnited States.<\/p>\n