News

President Obama made his only contribution to the global climate talks on Wednesday by urging countries to preserve their forests and follow the example of Nobel peace prize winner and Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai who died earlier this year.

"Wangari's work stands as a testament to the power of a single person's idea that the simple act of planting a tree can be a profound statement of dignity and hope first in one village, then in one nation, and now across Africa," he told ministers and conservationists at the UN talks in Durban, via a video message.

Obama urged countries to follow Maathai's lead. "Here in Durban, we can carry on her work, to ... grow our economies in a way that's sustainable and that addresses climate change. In this you have the partnership of the United States. Delegates must remember her call in which she said: 'We must not tire. We must not give up.'"

He was joined in separate video messages by the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, the former President Bill Clinton and the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, who all urged countries to reach agreement on forest protection in the talks.

"Clearing and burning of tropical rainforests is responsible for approximately 15% of global carbon emissions, but conserving forests is one of the most affordable ways to reduce pollution," said Bill Clinton.

But attempts to prevent forest destruction received a major setback late last night when Brazilian senators passed a law – the forest code – which politicians and conservationists today said could lead to far more deforestation, undermine Brazil's efforts to cut emissions, and undermine efforts in the talks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation.

If enacted, said Senator Marina Silva, the former environment minister and runner-up in the Brazilian presidential elections last year, ranchers will be able to cut down trees closer to rivers and in areas that were previously protected.

"This will make it much harder for Brazil to meet its emission reduction targets which are based on reducing deforestation. It reduces forest protection. It will harm all the efforts taken [in these talks]," she said.

"The massive increase in deforestation that could result from these changes would have devastating consequences for the climate, for people, and for nature. It will be a tragedy for Brazil – and indeed for the world – if Brazil now turns its back on more than a decade of achievement to return to the dark days of catastrophic deforestation," said WWF's international director general, Jim Leap.

Last night, more than 100 groups from 38 countries condemned a section of the UN talks known as Redd (reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation) which would allow countries to offset their emissions in return for forest protection.

"It does not address the causes of deforestation, or the conflicts that already exist in forested areas. It will intensify and worsen them," said Diego Rodriguez from Colombian group Censal.

"This could result in the biggest land grab of all time. It will inevitably promote privatisation of forests and soils through carbon markets. This could commodify almost the entire surface of the Earth," said Hortense Hidalgo of the Global Alliance of Indigenous Peoples.

"Governments say that small farmers will benefit from Redd because they will be able to be paid to sequester carbon. But it turn out that they will only benefit if they sign up to a technical package, use GM seeds and grow biofuel crops," said Alberto Gomez of Via Campesina, one of the largest peasant farm groups in developing countries.

"This has been a bad week for the world's rainforests," said Greenpeace UK's chief policy adviser, Ruth David. "The new Brazilian law threatens to overturn years of work to defend the world's lungs from the loggers, while here in Durban what we thought could be a good deal has been gutted by technocrats with an agenda of forest destruction.

"Time at the talks is running out. Only if progressive countries stand up and fight for ancient forest protection will we avoid a disastrous deal."

See this article in its original context here.