A new study, sure to attract the attention of AGW parasites, has begun to quantify the beneficial effects of land management and forest-preservation
on atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Although farming practices and de-forestation in developing countries have long been recognized as harmful to the environment, the study is measuring
derived from improving land husbandry, and re-forestation and anti-deforestation efforts.
Climate researchers launched a $12 million study on Monday to help the world's poorest farmers benefit from multi-billion dollar carbon trading
schemes to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. The Carbon Benefits Project will examine rural sites to see how much carbon is stored in trees and
soil when land is managed sustainably.
Tropical deforestation accounts for a fifth of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Farming contributes as much CO2 as all
the world's planes, cars and trucks, and that will increase as the world tries to feed an extra 3 billion people by 2050. Putting a price
on living trees and storing carbon in the soil could give developing countries an incentive to save forests and adopt more climate-friendly farming
“Carbon Benefits Project
The title alone will set off alarms among the AGW advocates who insist that only AGW-revenue-generating activities deserve consideration as part of a
growing world-wide effort to minimize the impact of human activity upon the environment.
Greenpeace recently attacked the very idea of considering conservation and preservation efforts worthy of credit in the “carbon trading” and
“cap and trade” schemes designed to generate income through fines, fees and taxes. Such practices would diminish the impact of schemes designed
to punish industry and consumers, and allow the use of passive or non-government controlled activity to earn credit for CO2 mitigation and remediation
"Forests Could Undermine Carbon Tading Market"
Of course, this study, and the idea in general is going to meet stiff resistance from the AGW advocates who see “global warming” as an avenue for
revenue. This camp, led by Al Gore, the IPCC and pseudo-environmentalists, believe that AGW can on only be mitigated or reversed by punishing
industry and consumers.
A passive activity, or any activity that does not result in the transfer of wealth, is inherently suspect and subject to criticism, dismissal, or
worse, as not keeping in their anti-development agenda.
The “shoot the messenger” attitude directed to AGW deniers, and even to climate scientists who take no position but call for more research,
doesn’t really apply to these types of efforts. Accordingly, you will see a new effort directed to minimize or criticize the validity of such
studies and projects and their effect upon carbon remediation and mitigation.
As many have knowingly suggested, “Follow the money.”