Is the Amazon rainforest doomed? Not if we can help it

Posted by jamie - 12 March 2009 at 3:53pm - Comments

There are some alarming stories in the press today about how much of the Amazon rainforest will be lost due to climate change. According to a new report from the Met Office's Hadley Centre, up to 85 per cent of it will disappear if we see a 4C rise in global temperatures.

It's a nightmare scenario and on the face of it, it makes you wonder if we shouldn't just throw in the towel - I have to admit to the occasional dark thought along those lines myself. But on the contrary, information like this illustrates yet again how crucial it is that we address climate change and deforestation together, and do it now before we get locked in to huge temperature rises.

We've known for some time that climate change will have a damaging impact on forests around the world, and this research adds some figures to that knowledge. Even if we keep global warming at 2C above pre-industrial levels, we still risk losing 20-40 per cent of the Amazon through more droughts, increased forest fires and trees dying at a younger age (even if they are getting bigger).

Of course, the more forest areas we lose, the worse climate change becomes. Which leads to more forest loss, and greater climate change and so on. There's nothing positive about this positive feedback loop. As Paulo Adario from our Amazon office put it, "the Amazon is both a climate change victim and villain."

We need to break that loop, or at least reduce its effects as much as possible. To achieve that, there are three things we can do:

  • Stop cutting down trees: blindingly obvious, but it has to be said. Only by getting to a stage where we've got zero deforestation will we get a grip on climate change and reduce the risk of further forest loss from illegal logging, agricultural expansion and the rest.
  • Rich countries pay to protect forests: our governments should be providing money to poorer countries to protect their rainforests. It's a global problem that needs a global solution.
  • Cut our greenhouse gas emissions: because forest funding schemes can't be used as an excuse to offset our emissions and do nothing at home- we need to do both. That means getting really smart with our energy efficiency, stop building coal power stations, and no more airport expansion.

The window of opportunity in which we can avoid the worst effects of climate change is narrowing rapidly, so it's always good to get a reminder of just how urgent the problem is. But after the momentary cloud of fatalism has passed, it's time to get on with the job. Back to work, everyone.

Article tagged as: amazon, brazil, climate change, deforestation, forests, hadley centre, rainforests
  • share
Comments Commenting is now closed

Wow, co2isgood - do you talk bollocks for a living or are you just an inspired amateur?

By slowdazzle - 16 March 2009 at 11:43am

Hello angry person!
No, greenpeace use emails to send around their info to their members, not letters. To the hybrid cars, a new hydrogen powered car is in the process of being comercially sold. this produces no emissions whatsoever (except for water) and performs to the same standards, if not better, than an ordinary modern day car. If logging stopped, the economy would not collapse. We can recycle the paper we have already and for the logging that we may have to do, greenpeace urrge us to use sustainable forestry. Obviously it gives some people kicks to have a go at people doing good, but it is important to take in both sides of the argument. Yes, planes should perhaps be banned. it is better to travel around slowly, and adapt out lifestyles accordingly than to destroy the world in which many need to live in after us. ships are incredibly eco friendly, as opposed to aeroplanes and i'm not aware of Greenpeace being excessive in the helicopter department. that would be the police who try to disrupt their movements. :)
If you do not believe in climate change, look at the science. If you cannot understand the science, look at the evidence, BRITAIN IS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE A CALIFORNIAN CLIMATE (which it doesn't and won't). Climate change will actually affect britain for the worse, weather wise. Plus, if the ocean's temperatures rise by another 2%, we're screwed. Millions will die. if you can bear to have milions of peopel dying because of climate change (last year's figure was close to 150,000,000) then use your aeroplanes, and don't use recycled or sustainably sourced paper. However, if you have a heart, and a conscience, adapt to fit the changing world, and save it for the rest of us!
Chill out buddy!
;)

By thegingerfurby - 18 March 2009 at 3:27pm

Thanks for this post – I agree that it’s very important to respond to these reports but not to be discouraged by them, especially as preventing deforestation is so crucial to limiting climate change. It’s tempting to think in absolute terms about these issues: forests are either ‘doomed’ or ‘saved’, just as we often talk about ‘stopping’ climate change. Perhaps we should try to recognise that these issues are complex and ongoing. More here

By citypollen - 20 March 2009 at 9:49pm

Not to be rude as every one is entitled to their own opinion however if everyone shared yours the world would be a very sad place indeed. Economy, Economy economy- everyone's favourite word at the moment it seems - i'm sorry but where exactly do you think your 'economy' will fit in once the full effects of Climate change are realised? The planet was here long before human kind invented the concept of 'economy'. You speak of people loosing their jobs- what about all the species that risk losing their homes (and lives) - the polar bear for example.
As for 'Limits' everything ultimately has a limit i'm afraid (except for human greed perhaps which seems to be endless) No one is asking you to give up your flashy cars or planes or any of those luxuries they are simply asking you to (in monetary terms) budget - go easy- have a little luxury but not in excess. Moderation instead of gluttony.
As for how to limit CO2 have you been deaf to the suggestions that have been raised since the 70's. 'The thing that realy aggrevates me' is how individuals such as yourself can sit back and ignore the changes that are going on around and stubbornly believe that you have nothing to do with it and that someone will magically come along and fix the problem- they wont i can assure you- it is a TEAM effort. Humanity often prizes itself as having intellect superior to any other species- perhaps because we have a concept of time and mortality- we have the ability to see the consequences of our actions- it would not be a very good use of our 'superior intellect' if we were to ignore them.
Money will make you rich, money can make you powerful but what it cannot do is give you food when all the farm land is flooded, it cannot give you oxygen when the forests are cut down, it cannot buy you a new, clean planet in which to live when you have soiled this one to death. Perhaps the planet 'is doomed'- that is not something to smile about- or perhaps the planet still has a chance if people like you would peel the dollar signs off your eyes and look at the natural beauty of the world and act to preserve it.
Those people whose precious jobs you worry about- if the planet is killed off by human greed their will be no people to do any jobs.
I would rather live poor in a paradise than be rich and choke in a concrete man-made mausoleum.

By chinesechicken2 - 23 March 2009 at 6:29pm

But that's a GOOD thing. I own five Hummers and drive them daily. I enjoy Whale blubber. It's my favorite treat. I leave every electrical appliance on ALL the time. Wasting money to annoy you is good. Is climate change really that bad? England gets California's weather. Not that any of this is true, just a wind-up. But it does annoy me how you eco-people never consider what will happen if your plans DO come through. If deforestation stopped, what would happen to the world economy? It would COLLAPSE without logging and MNCs holding it up. It's the same for the coal and oil industries that you hate so much. What about the people with jobs in the logging sites? Do you want them to be put out of work? And what would we do for paper? I am sure you use plenty at Greenpeace. How do you propose we cut down Co2 emissions, by the way? Ban cars? Ban planes, BAN THOSE SHIPS AND HELICOPTERS THAT YOU USE TO GET AROUND? People will not stop doing something because YOU tell them to! I certainly won't! All of your vehicles use petrol and oil! As for 'hybrid' cars you tell us to use, recent studies have shown that over the long-term they will do more environmental damage than Range Rovers! (nickel batteries and other expensive and difficult to extract elements). You eco-heads hold the world back by imposing ridiculous 'limits' on new technology. The thing that really aggrevates me is how you insist that you are correct and try to FORCE your beliefs on others. All you really want is political power, if you didn't, you wouldn't try to hold seats in Parliament. I just find it funny that people actually follow you.

By Co2isgood - 13 March 2009 at 3:22pm

Hello angry person! No, greenpeace use emails to send around their info to their members, not letters. To the hybrid cars, a new hydrogen powered car is in the process of being comercially sold. this produces no emissions whatsoever (except for water) and performs to the same standards, if not better, than an ordinary modern day car. If logging stopped, the economy would not collapse. We can recycle the paper we have already and for the logging that we may have to do, greenpeace urrge us to use sustainable forestry. Obviously it gives some people kicks to have a go at people doing good, but it is important to take in both sides of the argument. Yes, planes should perhaps be banned. it is better to travel around slowly, and adapt out lifestyles accordingly than to destroy the world in which many need to live in after us. ships are incredibly eco friendly, as opposed to aeroplanes and i'm not aware of Greenpeace being excessive in the helicopter department. that would be the police who try to disrupt their movements. :) If you do not believe in climate change, look at the science. If you cannot understand the science, look at the evidence, BRITAIN IS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE A CALIFORNIAN CLIMATE (which it doesn't and won't). Climate change will actually affect britain for the worse, weather wise. Plus, if the ocean's temperatures rise by another 2%, we're screwed. Millions will die. if you can bear to have milions of peopel dying because of climate change (last year's figure was close to 150,000,000) then use your aeroplanes, and don't use recycled or sustainably sourced paper. However, if you have a heart, and a conscience, adapt to fit the changing world, and save it for the rest of us! Chill out buddy! ;)

By thegingerfurby - 18 March 2009 at 3:27pm

Thanks for this post – I agree that it’s very important to respond to these reports but not to be discouraged by them, especially as preventing deforestation is so crucial to limiting climate change. It’s tempting to think in absolute terms about these issues: forests are either ‘doomed’ or ‘saved’, just as we often talk about ‘stopping’ climate change. Perhaps we should try to recognise that these issues are complex and ongoing. More here

By citypollen - 20 March 2009 at 9:49pm

Not to be rude as every one is entitled to their own opinion however if everyone shared yours the world would be a very sad place indeed. Economy, Economy economy- everyone's favourite word at the moment it seems - i'm sorry but where exactly do you think your 'economy' will fit in once the full effects of Climate change are realised? The planet was here long before human kind invented the concept of 'economy'. You speak of people loosing their jobs- what about all the species that risk losing their homes (and lives) - the polar bear for example. As for 'Limits' everything ultimately has a limit i'm afraid (except for human greed perhaps which seems to be endless) No one is asking you to give up your flashy cars or planes or any of those luxuries they are simply asking you to (in monetary terms) budget - go easy- have a little luxury but not in excess. Moderation instead of gluttony. As for how to limit CO2 have you been deaf to the suggestions that have been raised since the 70's. 'The thing that realy aggrevates me' is how individuals such as yourself can sit back and ignore the changes that are going on around and stubbornly believe that you have nothing to do with it and that someone will magically come along and fix the problem- they wont i can assure you- it is a TEAM effort. Humanity often prizes itself as having intellect superior to any other species- perhaps because we have a concept of time and mortality- we have the ability to see the consequences of our actions- it would not be a very good use of our 'superior intellect' if we were to ignore them. Money will make you rich, money can make you powerful but what it cannot do is give you food when all the farm land is flooded, it cannot give you oxygen when the forests are cut down, it cannot buy you a new, clean planet in which to live when you have soiled this one to death. Perhaps the planet 'is doomed'- that is not something to smile about- or perhaps the planet still has a chance if people like you would peel the dollar signs off your eyes and look at the natural beauty of the world and act to preserve it. Those people whose precious jobs you worry about- if the planet is killed off by human greed their will be no people to do any jobs. I would rather live poor in a paradise than be rich and choke in a concrete man-made mausoleum.

By chinesechicken2 - 23 March 2009 at 6:29pm

But that's a GOOD thing. I own five Hummers and drive them daily. I enjoy Whale blubber. It's my favorite treat. I leave every electrical appliance on ALL the time. Wasting money to annoy you is good. Is climate change really that bad? England gets California's weather. Not that any of this is true, just a wind-up. But it does annoy me how you eco-people never consider what will happen if your plans DO come through. If deforestation stopped, what would happen to the world economy? It would COLLAPSE without logging and MNCs holding it up. It's the same for the coal and oil industries that you hate so much. What about the people with jobs in the logging sites? Do you want them to be put out of work? And what would we do for paper? I am sure you use plenty at Greenpeace. How do you propose we cut down Co2 emissions, by the way? Ban cars? Ban planes, BAN THOSE SHIPS AND HELICOPTERS THAT YOU USE TO GET AROUND? People will not stop doing something because YOU tell them to! I certainly won't! All of your vehicles use petrol and oil! As for 'hybrid' cars you tell us to use, recent studies have shown that over the long-term they will do more environmental damage than Range Rovers! (nickel batteries and other expensive and difficult to extract elements). You eco-heads hold the world back by imposing ridiculous 'limits' on new technology. The thing that really aggrevates me is how you insist that you are correct and try to FORCE your beliefs on others. All you really want is political power, if you didn't, you wouldn't try to hold seats in Parliament. I just find it funny that people actually follow you.

By Co2isgood - 13 March 2009 at 3:22pm

Comments

Follow Greenpeace UK