Gabon says rich countries should pay for forests as a service
economist.com
economist.com
As an investor I would want to know that the forest is truly safe due to my investment, but will the armed guards report to me or the state government? I think the answer is obvious, and I fear it's a deal breaker for this scheme.
Russia, Canada, United States, China, Australia
Where are the "rich" countries who are going to come forward to pay these ones for their "forests as a service".
Russia, Canada, China, United States, Australia
So it's not particularly impressive to bring up absolute forest coverage as a gotcha considering that's not the argument made in the article. Nor is wanting a country with 85% forest cover acting as a ~5x carbon sink to not develop its land or use its resources but pay a developed country which has already developed over its land and is acting as a carbon generator (such as the US at about ~5x carbon generator) simply because it is larger is a reasonable response from reading the article.
That being said I'm not sure I buy this is the best way to combat CO2 levels or the most realistic but not because of "face value" reasons rather the actual argument presented.
The largest forests capture the most CO2. Global CO2 levels fluctuate in sync with the seasons in the northern hemisphere. The 4 of the 6 countries with the largest forests are in the northern hemisphere. Europe and North America and Australia account for about 1/2 of all forested land.
Where are the "rich countries" that are going to step forward to pay Russia and Canada for holding more than 1/4 of all trees?
The notion isn't absolute CO2 captured it's net CO2.
If country A generates 1000 units and captures 200 units while country B generates 20 units and captures 100 units then clearly country B isn't indebted to country A simply because A's captured unit count is higher A is indebted to B for having taken some of the pollution out (assuming A wishes for B to continue doing so rather than clear the forests and develop).
You have to accept country B would be indebted to country A in the above scenario before you can get to questions like who is going to pay Russia and Canada as while they are large and have large absolute capture numbers they are even larger polluters.
As far as impact on the planet, total forested areas is what matters, not percentage of tree coverage. Suriname is #1 in percentage forest cover, but it's a small country. Brazil's forest coverage is much more important to climate change.