REFORESTATION

             It is often argued that reforestation may only be a temporary source of carbon dioxide reduction in the atmosphere.  Consequently many companies who provide a carbon offsetting service weight their portfolios toward renewable energy projects, whilst reforestation projects are marginalised.  This is understandable if your objective is solely to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  Developing countries under the Kyoto Protocol are evidently not going to remain as low carbon countries as they develop and require more energy, unless the source of their energy comes from renewables.  It makes sense to incentivise renewable energy in these countries, and the system whereby renewable energy can be packaged as accredited "carbon credits" and sold to "Annex 1" countries (i.e. developed countries) provides this incentive.  Developed countries are obliged under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, where they fail to meet this target, they are required to offset and purchase carbon credits from any available source.  Within this framework, renewable energy projects in developing countries that generate carbon credits, allow developed countries to continue polluting, whilst providing an incentive for developed countries to reduce their carbon emissions due to the cost involved with the purchase of carbon credits.  Developing countries receive what amounts to a subsidy on renewable energy projects until developed countries can reduce their co2 emissions and no longer require to purchase carbon credits.  All clever stuff.

           Similarly within the European framework of emissions trading, companies are allocated a licence to pollute by a certain amount in tonnes of co2 per year, above which they must purchase carbon credits on the open market or pay a fine (currently £27 per tonne of co2), and below which they are able to sell carbon credits on the open market, again providing an incentive to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.  Many people argue that the Kyoto Protocol doesn't go far enough and that the reduction in co2 and other greenhouse gas emissions required to reverse the greenhouse effect needs to be far greater in scope.  I have to agree.  It therefore contributes greatly to the reduction in greenhouse gases when individuals and companies who are too small to be included in the emissions trading scheme are environmentally conscious enough to want to take action about their own emissions.  Indeed it has been proposed that an individual carbon credits scheme if implemented would really have a massive effect on our emissions. 

          Whether the bizarre nature of the weather, the shifting climatic patterns or the melting ice caps and snowy peaks of the worlds mountains are responsible for the surge of interest and environmental awareness that seem to be sweeping the land i am not sure.  What i do know is that it is a very good thing.  If the zeitgeist of our times is sustainable development, we may be able to claw back from the abyss of our own destruction.  However, paying lip service to the problems we are experiencing is not going to be enough.  Whether we like it or not, the industrial revolution and our subsequent development has been chiefly borne out of our burning of fossil fuels.  Our way of life is so inextricably linked to this one basic activity, that it is going to be nigh on impossible to un condition ourselves and emerge into a truly sustainable society.  This, however, is the task with which we are faced.  It has taken until the signs of our future demise are everyday apparent for us to start to act, despite warnings from environmentalists of our breaching of the carrying capacity of our planet long ago, only now are the masses starting to act.  To seize on this opportunity is a must.