Mitigation and Adaptation for Ecosystem Protection

• Date: 01 January 2009

39 ELR 10072 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORT ER 1-2009

The Barack Obama Administration w ill take off‌ice at a

moment when the world, and this country in particular,

has lagged way behind in tackling the greatest environ-

mental problem of all time: climate change. Global emissions

now exceed the worst-case scenario of the Intergovernmental

Panel of Climate Change, and annual emissions of developing

nations have begun to exceed those of the industrialized ones.

The time is long overdue for U.S. leadership. Meaningful steps

need to take place at home w ith cap and trade or some other

form of legislation that elevates the price of carbon while cush-

ioning the impacts for the less advantaged sectors of society.

Such legislation needs to be coupled with serious investment

in energy research and incentives for clean energy, including

energy conservation and eff‌iciency.

Climate change needs to be accorded an urgency and prior-

ity hitherto lacking. Ecosystem considerations support James

Hansen’s conclusion that greenhouse gas (GHG) concentra-

tionsabove 350 parts per million (ppm) a re not safe.1 Cur-

rent concentrations are 389 ppm. It is important to peak at as

low a concentration as possible and then return rapidly to 350

ppm. In the United Nations Framework Convention on Cli-

mate Change (UNFCCC)2 this is referred to as mitigation, or

reducing the amount of future climate change. The convention

also references adaptation,which means enhancing the resil-

ience of natural and human systems in the face of the climate

change that is taking place and will take place.

A little-appreciated part of the mitigation agenda seeks to

address the loss of carbon from ecosystems. Current estimates

are that 20% of global CO2 emissions emanate from tropical

deforestation. As a consequence, Indonesia is the third larg-

est emitter (after China and the United States) and Brazil is

fourth. While reforestation and afforestation are eligible for

carbon trading under the convention, avoided deforestation

(now known technically as Reduced Emissions From Degra-

dation and Deforestation (REDD)) is not yet included. Were

avoided deforestation to be added and addressed with the pri-

1. See JAMES HANSEN ET AL., TARGET ATMOSPHERIC CO2: WHERE SHOULD HUMANITY

AIM? 11 (2008).

2. UNFCCC, opened for signature June 4, 1992, S. TREATY DOC. NO. 102-38 (1992),

reprinted in 31 I.L.M. 849 (1992) (entered into force Mar. 21, 1994).

ority it deserves, it would make a meaningfulreduction tothe

rate of increase of GHG concentrations. It would also contrib-

ute to conservation of forests and biodiversity plus poverty

reduction by providing f‌inancial reward for those who make a

living in the forest without destroying it.

It is time to explore beyond tropical forests to what eco-

systems as a whole could contribute to removing carbon from

the atmosphere. Approximately 200 to 250 billion tons of car-

bon have been lost from ecosystems in the last 300 years and

each billion tons restored to ecosystems is roughly equivalent

to reducing atmospheric concentration by 1 ppm. Obviously,

there cannot be complete and universal return to the higher

carbon natural ecosystems, but we can manage our ecosystems

and landscapes for higher carbon and concomitant increase

in biodiversity. Restoring degraded g razing lands could add

signif‌icant carbon but still serve grazing—and better. Agri-

culture can be managed in ways that retain and increase soil

carbon. Restoring riparian vegetation, good for streams and

rivers in its own right, will increase carbon as well. The eco-

system carbon potential needs to be addressed systematically

and on a planetary scale.

Obviously, competing interests need to be taken into

account nationally and internationally. One segment includes

economic activity that essentially needs to be phased out, or at

least have its carbon offset. There is substantial interest among

corporate leaders in the economic opportunity involved, but

a need for government to set the appropriate incentives both

positive and negative. When, for example, there are substan-

tial sunk costs in coal-f‌ired power plants, how can they be

addressed in ways that either provide CO2 geological seques-

tration, or address impediments like high initial cost of con-

version to new technology?

Other competing interests include production of biofuel for

clean energyand foodfor a world with increasing population.

With the rush to corn ethanol, we have already seen the need

to approach these matters holistically. Substantial areas in the

U.S. Conservation Reserve were converted to corn with both

natural vegetation (and biodiversity) being reduced and carbon

released in the form of CO2. Nationally and internationally, we

need to eschew piece-by-piece solutions that unintentionally

Mitigation and Adaptation for

Ecosystem Protection

All tools and energies should be put into climate change mitigation and adaptation

by Thomas Lovejoy

Thomas Lovejoy is President of The Heinz Center.