The idea that a growing service sector can lead to environmental gains in addition to economic gains should be tested further.
But it’s a promising idea, since shifting jobs from agriculture or industry to services is an aspiration for so many people in so many places.
🌳Knowing economic growth and environmental improvement CAN co-occur should make policymakers more pro-environment
🌎Knowing WHERE they co-occurred gives those places something to be proud of
💡Knowing WHY they co-occurred helps other regions seeking green growth
@emraguso@JesseArreguin@benbartlettberk@RebeccaForBART Jonah Busch, North Berkeley resident + scientist, advocates for taller housing at both stations: "We want this North Berkeley life that we enjoy to be accessible and affordable to as many people as possible." He says taller buildings are critical to climate efforts. #berkmtg
We have an unprecedented opportunity to reform the global architecture for pandemics. But this moment will pass soon. My colleagues and I just published a policy roadmap in @Nature on how we can implement pandemic prevention in the next 2 years. 🧵nature.com/articles/d4158…L
This is such important, long-needed, and hopeful work!
As climate change worsens, people perceive that and take stronger actions against it.
Taking this feedback into account in climate modeling reduces expected global warming down to 2.3 °C. twitter.com/ClimateFran/st…
Consumer countries are increasingly attempting to combat tropical deforestation by restricting imports of #palmoil.
However, banning imports of commodities grown with high levels of deforestation would barely reduce forest loss, writes @jonahbuschbit.ly/3Bt9xa7
Terribly saddened to hear about the passing of #TomLovejoy. A giant in #conservation, champion for #amazon, & a kind, generous scientist. Tom was a mentor, friend to many and on @ConservationOrg leadership council. We will miss him greatly!
Our paper is out! Looking at why demand-side restrictions aren't enough, and may have unintended consequences politically. Loved @jonahbusch's vinaigrette metaphor for the research in this thread. twitter.com/jonahbusch/sta…
Check out our new assessment of the impact of trade restrictions on deforestation, led by @jonahbusch. Key takeaway: the demand-side measures under consideration in many importing countries only play a small role in reducing forest loss in palm oil producing regions. twitter.com/jonahbusch/sta…
So what should wealthy consumer countries do to help reduce tropical deforestation?
My answer: generous support for more direct forest and climate protection policies, such as carbon payments, instead of or alongside trade restrictions.
But, non-price pathways of import restrictions might just as easily increase deforestation.
For example, perceived protectionism triggering a backlash in producer countries resulting in domestic price supports for deforesting industries.
Might import restrictions succeed in reducing deforestation through “non-price pathways” outside the scope of economic models?
-changing social norms
-synergy with other conservation actions
-companies applying EU standards to all exports and not just exports to Europe
As modest as the effects we estimate are, the true impacts of import restrictions would likely be even smaller.
Real-world restrictions cover only a fraction of palm oil imports, and only a fraction of oil-palm-associated deforestation.
We obtained these results by merging a global trade model (@GTAP_Purdue) with an economic model of land-use change in Indonesia.
We distinguished palm oil grown with high and low levels of deforestation using satellite maps of forest and oil palm plantations over time.
Even if the entire world outside of Indonesia and Malaysia stopped importing high-deforestation palm oil, Indonesia’s deforestation from 2000-2015 would still only have been 3.8% lower, and its emissions from deforestation 4.5% lower.
In addition, we estimate a hypothetical carbon price on emissions from deforestation in Indonesia could have exceeded the effects of trade restrictions at just $0.81/tCO2.
That's an order of magnitude or two cheaper than current prices in most carbon markets.
Our paper finds that if Europe had banned imports of high-deforestation palm oil from 2000-2015, deforestation in Indonesia over that time period would have only been 1.6% less than it actually was.
Meanwhile CO2 emissions from deforestation would have been just 1.9% less.
Recently, some consumer countries have been trying to reduce tropical deforestation by cutting their imports of high-deforestation palm oil, soy, beef, and other “forest-risk” commodities.
Can that work?
Restricting imports of high-deforestation commodities does little to counteract faraway deforestation.
Consumer countries seeking to reduce tropical deforestation should offer more direct support for forest and climate protection, such as carbon payments.
Today I introduced H.R 5830, the #AMAZON21 Act, which will help developing countries end deforestation, a key piece of combating the climate crisis. This is an issue I have cared deeply about for many years & demands immediate action. bit.ly/3mGS34z
My take: that the 2030 goal is “collective” means vast regrowing forests or plantations in e.g. Russia could cover for vast continued deforestation in e.g. Brazil and the goal still met. That would be better than what’s happening now, but not guaranteed to be climate positive.
Ok, according to DW that funding for protecting and restoring forests is over five years (2021-2025), not ten, which would be a *quadrupling* of international finance.
Looking forward to seeing the declaration tomorrow!
To put this in perspective, this would be roughly double the recent rate of international finance for tropical forest protection. (It’s been ~$1B/yr; without seeing details yet this sounds like ~$19B/9 yrs)
“Governments committed $12 billion and private companies pledged $7 billion to protect and restore forests in a variety of ways, including $1.7 billion for Indigenous peoples”