REVEL, RAN’s 25th birthday party was a smashing success on Thursday night, as almost 500 people came together to celebrate a quarter century of activism and victories challenging the power of corporations over our democracy and our environment. California jam band the Mother Hips got people on the floor dancing and Grateful Dead alum and RAN supporter Bob Weir even joined them for a set at the end of the evening. Honorary board member Bonnie Raitt was in attendance looking as beautiful and confident as she did when she got arrested with us to help stop old growth logging.

Check out our photos from the evening, tag yourself and share them around with your friends.

The event also honored five leaders of the environmental movement: Robert F Kennedy, Jr, Amy Goodman, Teri Blanton, Rivani Noor and Uki Setara.

Amy Goodman reminded us that the power of free speech can never be taken for granted and warned against the corporate takeover of our democracy that is happening in our country.

And, of course, Teri Blanton brought down the house with her charm, wit and courage. Her stories of her decades fighting mountaintop removal coal mining were powerful reminders that we can indeed change the world if only we have enough grit to take a stand.

As RFK Jr reminded us with a powerful Frederick Douglass quote:

“If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation…want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters…. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”

RAN has struggled for freedom for 25 years and plans to keep up the fight – to stop deforestation of the world’s last remaining rainforests, to halt climate change and to push companies towards respect for the human rights of all citizens.

If you couldn’t join us last night – you can still donate or take action to support our fight. We’re proud to stand at the front of a movement for change and we can’t do it without you.

Starting off the week, on Monday RAN released a report linking kids books to the destruction of rainforests. You can read more about it, or sign a petition asking the nation’s leading kid’s book publishers to stop using rainforest paper.

The UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD) is back in the news too. This week, a process spearheaded by Norway and France met in Oslo, resulting in a new commitment of funding for the program intended to change the economic calculus on continued deforestation. Norway pledged US$1 billion to help Indonesia halt deforestation, in return, Indonesia has committed to a two year moratorium on the conversion of forests to plantations.

A copy of the agreement, plus some good analysis of how the pledge might be implemented can be found on REDD-Monitor, here.

Indonesia claims that the money will help them meet their ambitious climate pledge: cutting the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent by 2020.

Next week, the first real meeting of the UNFCCC after Copenhagen will kick off in Bonn, and REDD is sure to be a topic of discussion there as well. Fred Pearce gives a good state of play on the program with some prospects on Yale 360.

Right now, REDD looks to be the only positive outcome likely to emerge from this December’s Cancun climate conference, the successor to last year’s failure in Copenhagen. If it happens, a new global business of carbon conservation in forests could soon be worth tens of billions of dollars a year.

Looks like at least one country is planning to come to the table at Bonn with increased commitments to reduce it’s forest emissions. India announced this week plans to reforest and restore 20 million hectares of cleared land.

It’s estimated the resulting new forest and restored ecosystem area would sequester 43 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year by 2020, equal to 6 per cent of India’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

Rosewood from Madagascar has been the subject of much concern lately, and this week a new study in Science recommends it for endangered species status under the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

Says the New York Times:

Such protection might keep the trees from becoming burgundy-colored armoires and dressing tables. But it is not only the Chinese who covet the rich look of rosewood. Much of the furniture gets exported to the United States and Europe. Some of it appears in the polished contours of beautiful guitars.

Rosewood is already the subject of the first complaint under the amended US Lacey Act, a law that punishes corporations that import illegally logged wood.

Finally, palm oil is back in the news too. An Alternet article explains the ways palm oil in our food connects to rainforest destruction, just as the Malaysian government proclaims that environmental destruction will not stop their production of the “golden oil” and threatens to complain to the WTO if the EU bans use of biofuels made from palm oil. 

After Chris Coppola passed away in November, his family sought a charity which embraced an active mission that is consistent with the values and attributes that Chris demonstrated throughout his life.

Chris

His family started by looking into charities that the band, Metallica, has supported. Chris was a long time, passionate and enthusiastic fan of Metallica. For the first and only time Chris had experienced a live performance of Metallica on October 30 2009 at Madison Square Garden in New York at the 25th Annual Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Benefit Concert just two weeks prior to his passing. His parents, Joyce and Dominick, went with him to the concert. All had a wonderful evening as Chris was absolutely thrilled by the entire event and Metallica, in particular.

His family ultimately selected Rainforest Action Network, which has notably also been supported by Metallica, because of its mission and the manner in which RAN carries out its humanistic activities. By all accounts, with an infectious smile and great sense of humor, Chris as a child and as a young man was always compassionate, thoughtful, kind and good-hearted. Chris was fascinated by and enjoyed kind interaction with nature. He was loyal to his friends, family and his principles of fairness. Once they confirmed that the ideals and values of Chris are reflected in the works of RAN, the Coppola family selected Rainforest Action Network as a fitting memorial and legacy to Chris.

Many of Chris’ family and friends conveyed wonderful stories about how he would go out of his way in his always helpful and supportive way.

Along with his donation, one long-time friend wrote:

I watched him grow into a fine young man with pride. He possessed a heart of gold and was wise beyond his years. Chris was someone anyone could love. He was funny, kind-hearted, reflective and considerate. As a camp counselor, he often befriended children who were shy or lonely and made them feel accepted. Kids knew they could be themselves around Chris and it was OK. I still think of his smile and the laughter he brought to all of us.

Another close friend recently wrote:

Chris always was, always will be everyone’s best friend. Love u n miss u.

Joyce and Dominick expressed their sentiments when they wrote:

Our tribute is in memory and honor of our son, Chris, and for all the happiness, laughter, and kindness he brought to his entire family, friends and everyone whoever had the opportunity to meet him as a boy and as a young man. We will always love him. Chris is and will always be very special. He truly made the world a better place.

Chris

Chris with his niece and godchild, Olivia

Chris (far right) with Tara (sister) and Chuck (brother-in-law)

Left to Right: Dominick (dad), Chris, Tara (sister), Joyce (mom), Danielle (sister), Chuck (Chris' brother-in-law)

Printable version of this page [PDF]

If you have a second, give Mongabay a vote at

The forests will appreciate it.

COPENHAGEN—Many of us who are here reading the text drafts, talking to ministers and following the negotiations were a bit surprised to read in the New York Times yesterday that we’re about to close a deal on REDD.

It’s true, negotiations have progressed, and balanced-but-far-from-completely-resolved text moved early this morning from delegates to a ministerial level, meaning that we’re moving away from technical bickering to a political fight over big issues that bureaucrats could not resolve on their own.

And what big issues!

Four key aspects of the deal have been left to ministers to negotiate, decisions that could make the difference between a REDD that protects the world’s rainforests and forest peoples rights and a REDD that fails for forests. These issues are the stickiest ones in the negotiations: how REDD will be financed, what it’s official reduction targets are, how important social and environmental safeguards will be implemented, and whether countries will make national level commitments for action.

Even if these issues are resolved properly, it’s hard to imagine how a REDD deal can happen in the absence of a larger legal agreement of a wider climate deal in which it must be embedded. Many key issues in the REDD text, including what the exact financing mechanism will be, is linked to other parts of the agreement. Moreover, the mandate for REDD is set to expire on Friday at 6pm with the rest of the agreement, so the COP must forward on the Copenhagen agreement for REDD to have any effect.

The discussion around finance and targets are linked, and mirror the divide between developed and developing countries in the larger agreement and goes straight to the heart of what REDD is intended to do. Currently, the world economic system puts a greater value on cutting forests down than keeping them standing. What REDD intends to do is to halt deforestation (and thus the 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions that stem from the destruction of the world’s rainforests) by shifting money from developed countries to developing countries. So there’s a trust problem: developed countries want to see money on the table before they commit to a target to reduce deforestation, but developed countries, notably the EU want developing countries to make pledges before they put up the cash. And more fundamentally, developing countries want to see the deep developed country fossil fuel emission targets that are needed to protect the climate in a legally binding framework.

That means that nothing’s decided until everything’s decided.

Everyone here knows that saving forests is important – both in developed and developing countries. But saving forests can’t just become a cover up for the continued use of fossil fuels in developed countries. And developing countries like Indonesia and Brazil understandably don’t want to take steps to reduce their major sources of emissions when the US isn’t doing anything to reduce it’s own emissions.

REDD can’t exist in a vacuum. As I wrote earlier, forests won’t actually survive warming greater than 2 degrees Celcius, but worse, REDD won’t survive a collapsed deal. And right now in Copenhagen, a deal doesn’t seem likely.

Forests are an integral part of the climate change fight. The destruction of forests around the world accounts for 20 percent of global greenhouse gases.

Saving the rainforest requires the same system changes that stopping fossil fuels does – a new greener world based on sustainability, not consumption.

We do care about the rainforests. And we hope that you do too.

This blog was posted first on Grist.

In the midst of decreasing expectations over a global climate deal, saving forests has been held out as the one thing that might be achieved over the next two weeks in Copenhagen. Says Newsweek:

“One of the few tangible achievements expected from the climate talks in Copenhagen this month is agreement on a program called REDD, or Reducing Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradation, a complex set of regulations that would help developing countries keep their rainforests standing by turning their carbon-storing capacity into a source of income.”

Others from the AP to the Nation have joined in the chorus of excitement. It sounds too good to be true: can we actually save the climate by saving the rainforest? And can Copenhagen produce such a deal?

Of course, it’s very hard to tell at this point what the outcome of Copenhagen is likely to be – some form of political agreement, probably, that may or may not include forests as a part of it. However, what’s very clear is that to meet the expectations that forests could be protected by a climate change treaty, two major things need to happen here at Copenhagen.

1.    The REDD treaty text has to get a whole lot better, and
2.    We need a deal that actually keeps climate change below 2 degrees Celsius of warming, i.e. a deal that deeply reduces emissions from fossil fuels.

Current treaty text for REDD is not in good straights. Major issues are still unresolved, including the insertion of essential social and environmental safeguards to ensure that REDD monies do what they are intended to do. It’s an unfortunate coincidence that countries with the largest stands of remaining natural forests are also some of highest levels of corruption on Earth. As pointed out in a recent Human Rights Watch report on Indonesia’s illegal logging problem:

“In particular, there is a critical need for adequate safeguards to be in place to accurately monitor the actual logging rates and their legal compliance, and stop the flow of cash if forests are not protected. It will be important to protect against conflicts of interest by ensuring an institutional separation between those who will benefit from carbon payments and those overseeing performance. In the absence of safeguards, the carbon finance market will simply inject more money into an already corrupt system, shortcutting needed reforms and exacerbating the situation.”

REDD has not yet established a way to recognize the rights of the indigenous communities who live in most of the forest areas that would be targeted by REDD and whose lives and livelihoods will be altered if the agreement goes forward. This is a major flaw, and the reason that many Indigenous groups here are deeply suspicious of REDD.

Also, as currently formatted, REDD does not provide any guarantees that forests could not still be cut down. Under the current text, endangered or high conservation value forests could still be logged and countries could be paid to do it. This is because of poor forest definitions, but also because there is still no explicit language against it. Unless this is fixed, REDD monies could actually be used to subsidize logging in primary tropical forests, a totally perverse outcome.

No matter how good REDD is, however, tropical forests will not the continued unregulated emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels into the atmosphere. According to Climate Analytics, who is tracking the aggregate commitments of countries in the Copenhagen process so far, “the emission commitments and pledges put forward by industrialized and developing countries for the Copenhagen climate negotiations shows that the world is headed for a global warming of well over 3 degrees C by 2100. Carbon dioxide concentrations are projected to be over 650 ppm, with total GHG concentrations close to 800 ppm CO2 equivalent.”

Like many other ecosystems, tropical forest will just not survive this kind of warming. Already, rainforests like the Amazon have experienced droughts that disrupt the ecosystem and inhibit their ability to absorb the world’s carbon. In a statement on their website, the Society for Conservation Biology states that:

“… we now have evidence that whole rainforests can—and in 2005 for one year, the Amazon did—die faster than they grow, in response to climate driven drought and heat, in this case resulting in higher net emissions of carbon dioxide than the CO2 emitted by all of Europe and Japan. Because life as we know it relies upon the Amazon rain forest, and all forests, we do not have any significant room left for additional greenhouse gases and we must reduce them now. The climate policy principles offer ways forward and cite studies offering further details as well.”

We have to save forests if we are going to save the climate, that’s true. But just saving rainforests isn’t actually sufficient to stop climate change. We have to both reduce fossil fuel emissions AND take strong action to protect forests. Will it happen this week? I’ll keep you posted.

At the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen this December, governments need to Make Forests Count. Our friends up at CPAWS in Canada have made a great video explaining the issue.

CPAWS is also running a petition asking Canada and the United States to:

• Protect intact forests and wetlands;
• Account fully for the carbon lost by cutting forests and destroying wetlands — accounting must be based on actual changes in emissions from the past.
• Help developing countries to reduce deforestation and forest degradation while protecting Indigenous Peoples’ rights.

Think this is important? Go to makeforestscount.org and sign up today!

Check it out here….

Bukit Tigapuluh Forest is truly one of those special places. It’s got three endangered species, two minority groups of indigenous people and a superlative: it’s the last remaining stand of tropical lowland forest left on the island of Sumatra.

Funnily enough, it’s also about to be cut down.

Notorious rainforest destroyer Asia Pulp and Paper has cut a road through the forest and is working on getting a concession to convert the forest (containing over 1,000 species of trees) into a tree plantation (containing maybe 2 species).

They’re calling this development.

Nonprofits and businesses around the world are calling it deforestation. Unfortunately, the new forest part of the of the climate change treaty (called REDD) under negotiation this week here in Bangkok may end up calling it carbon savings and subsidizing its destruction.

Only two days into Bangkok, REDD talks have been picking up from the snail’s pace that they were running at in the Bonn sessions earlier this year. Developing countries like India and Brazil have come out with stronger positions that are challenging developed countries to truly make forests a priority in the negotiations, and formerly timid Australia is stepping up to the plate.

But forest definitions remain a problem. As the situation currently stands, the proposed treaty text does not distinguish between intact natural forests (those that humans didn’t plant) and tree plantations. Not only is this a problem from a cultural and biodiversity point of view – since tree plantations don’t provide any of the habitat or cultural benefits of natural forests – it’s a problem from a climate point of view.

Intact natural ecosystems like forests store and absorb massive amounts of carbon, tree plantations, being younger and less diverse, store and absorb significantly less carbon. This equation means that converting forests to plantations is a net loss for the climate, increasing the 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions caused by deforestation, rather than decreasing it, which is ostensibly, the point of REDD.

Right now, Bangkok is all about setting rules for how the game of REDD will be played. Just like in any sport, we need to know where the goal is and which plays will draw a red card. If the rules aren’t set out clearly, we may end up permanently offsides.

Forest definitions sound geeky, but they really do matter. If a treaty intended to protect forests and the climate can’t save a place like Bukit Tigapuluh, then what are we doing here?

The advertising campaign, called “The Green Answer” claimed that:

Palm oil is the only product able to sustainably and efficiently meet a large portion of the world’s increasing demand for oil crop-based consumer goods, foodstuffs and biofuel … Malaysia’s forest cover is certain to be maintained.

As we know, palm oil is neither sustainable or good for forests. Good call Britain! Hint, hint FTC….

And that’s the beauty of the carbon tax and dividend, which would impose a steadily increasing fee on carbon at the source, whether it be a well, mine, or port of entry. Most of the revenue from the tax would be returned to consumers through payroll or income-tax reductions – a carbon rebate, if you will.

In addition to being more efficient, the carbon tax and dividend are also more effective. An analysis by the Carbon Tax Center predicts that by 2020, the tax would reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 28 percent below 2005 levels. Even if it delivers as promised, the cap-and-trade bill would effect a reduction of only 17 percent by 2020.

One might be tempted to shrug off this difference, given that the cap-and-trade bill requires an 83 percent reduction by 2050. But the problem is that climate change is happening twice as quickly as previously believed, according to an exhaustive study released last spring by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Making matters worse are the “amplifying feedbacks” that climate scientist James Hansen has warned of. For example, as rising temperatures melt the tundra in the arctic regions, methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, is released into the air, trapping even more heat.

Instead of having a debate in Congress over what climate policy is most politically possible, perhaps it’s worth shifting the debate to what will really work.

Also, environmental groups caution that, designed poorly, programs to pay for forest preservation could merely serve as a cash cow for the very people who are destroying them. For example, one proposed version of the new United Nations plan would allow plantations of trees, like palms grown for palm oil, to count as forest, even though tree plantations do not have nearly the carbon absorption potential of genuine forest and are far less diverse in plant and animal life.

“There is the capacity to get a very perverse outcome,” said Sean Cadman, a spokesman for the Wilderness Society of Australia.

Bringing this point home, two other articles this weekend point out the very real perverse outcomes that are already happening on the ground. The Economist’s Natasha Loder reports on her blog, Overmatter, that PNG has just suspended the head of its Office of Climate Change under charges of corrpution – yup, that’s the same guy responsible for structuring a carbon trading/forest preservation scheme.The OCC is starting an investigation of the situation, which it hopes to complete by the Copenhagen negotiations in December, but

At the same time, the OCC needs to get on with developing its Interim Low Carbon Development Strategy, which emphasises the REDD policy agenda. Part of this involves looking at securing land for REDD and for benefit sharing. Another part of this strategy involves looking at the drivers of deforestation and degradation in the country. Again, much needed work. You can’t just buy up a few blocks of forest in a country, slap a REDD sticker on them and hope that deforestation will go away.

Arthur Max over at AP is sounding another alarm – reporting on the breakup of one of the first carbon trading scams, resulting in 9 arrests in Amsterdam this weekend.

The arrest confirmed fears among law enforcement officers that swindlers — operating from the trading floors of Europe to the tropical forests of the Pacific — are being attracted to a market that has grown to more than $100 billion.

Where there is money, there is lots and lots of room for corruption and perverse outcomes, particularly in countries without strong and transparent governance. For those of us who want to protect our world’s rainforests, respect indigenous rights and avoid catastrophic climate change, the path to any forest carbon trading scheme is one that must be tread with extreme caution.

In her resignation letter to the president of the Workers’ party, Silva said her decision was an attempt to break with the idea of “development based on material growth at any cost, with huge gains for a few and perverse results for the majority” including “the destruction of natural resources”.

This resignation leaves Silva’s path clear to run for president in 2010 at the head of the Green party. Maybe a great thing for the Amazon…

To this point, many countries have made a lot of noise about the REDD component of the treaty, acknowledging the fact that protecting intact natural forests and stopping degradation of the soil beneath them is a key component of a global climate change solution. But the public rhetoric of governments is not flowing through to the latest negotiating text. Reports back from Bonn actually indicate that substantive forest protection is actually totally missing ….

The rest of the negotiations don’t seem to be faring much better. Check out the coverage of the final day here, here and here.

A little effort can go a long way towards reversing global warming.

After hearing from activists around the world – Lula seems to have postponed his decision from its original date. According to the BBC today, he is expected to announce a decision tomorrow.

Greenpeace says it was expecting the decision last week, but the fact that it did not come is a sign of division within government, and an indication of the huge pressure on President Lula, who it says is receiving thousands of phonecalls and e-mails on the issue.

“We know that within his government there is a lot of tension between the ministries of agriculture and environment, land reform and strategic studies,” Marcelo Furtado, executive director of Greenpeace in Brazil, told the BBC News website.

“If he did not decide on any of the vetoes last week, our reading is that it is a bad indication that eventually the big landowners are actually having an impact on his approach.”

“We are extremely concerned.”

Mr Furtado says the bill, as it was originally presented, was already deeply flawed “in terms of the areas that would be privatised, in terms of who would have access to the land, in terms of lack of verification from any government authority on the status of the land”.

There’s still time to act – if you haven’t yet – send an email to the President’s office telling him that you want him to keep to his promises in the Brazilian National Plan for reducing deforestation.

Addresses to send messages:
gabinete@planalto.gov.br (president´s cabinet)
casacivil@planalto.gov.br (Civil House Minister´s cabinet)

In short, if Peterson wins this battle, our nation’s first significant climate legislation will likely end up at worst rewarding, and at best not penalizing, chemical-intensive, greenhouse-gas-spewing agriculture. We will have bungled a major opportunity for positive change.

Unfortunately, it looks like Peterson is winning – a New York Times/Climate Wire report this morning revealed that Waxman has agreed to allow the USDA to oversee agricultural offset programs, a move that significantly weakens an already weak idea.

Waxman originally wanted to give oversight of the program to EPA, a setup that won the backing of many environmental groups. Environmental groups have said EPA — with its strong regulatory and scientific focus — is best suited for the task of carbon oversight. Those advocates argue that USDA is not a regulatory agency and is unlikely to crack down on questionable offset projects. They say EPA is more likely to stand up against fraud.

It’s not a surprise that Peterson, a politician whose top political contributions came from the American Farm Bureau in 2008, is representing Big Ag. It’s worth noting, also that it’s probably not a coincidence that the man leading the charge against climate legislation is from the same state as Cargill.

US agricultural interests – especially Cargill, ADM and Bunge, have already shown that they can’t be trusted to self regulate – or to do the responsible thing when it comes to our climate. At RAN, we’re already convinced that Waxman-Markey doesn’t do the job, but these exemptions for Big Ag make the potential for real action on climate change seem even more distant.