Reforesting our Worlds Forests

by William Bradley

Reforestation parallels the subject of deforestation, my research deals with the reforestation of heavily logged lands. Countries such as Brazil, Africa, Canada and even the US have the highest rates of deforestation. Every year Canadian logging clears over 1 million hectares of virgin forest. In the Tropical Forest over 16 million hectares are lost per year. The loss of this many trees has a profound impact upon the environment. It is estimated that between the years of 1980 and 1995, over 200 million hectares of forest was cut down due to logging alone, Two hundred million hectares is roughly three times the state of Texas, On www.greenpeace.com it says. Every hour, at least 4,500 acres fall to chain saws, machetes, flames, or bulldozers, and another four plant or animal species die out, most of them in the tropics. That figure just for shock value is extremely disturbing considering the environmental repercussions,

Trees recycle the atmosphere and cleanse of impurities we pump into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide along with other minerals is absorbed by trees and used to grow, and build themselves stronger. In the process trees also release Oxygen for animals to breathe. It is not very far fetched an idea to propose that less trees means less oxygen and also means more carbon dioxide. Logging industry is claiming more and more of the forests in the world every day and very little of this land is being reforested. Industry is making the world more uninhabitable in two ways. First by cutting down the trees and not replanting them. Second by yearly producing more emissions than the previous year. The trend so far has been for less trees and more emissions,

Recently there has been researches trying to find a viable alternative to this trend. There are many propositions on how to reclaim the forests and turn the clear cut land back into healthy new forest growth. The most common proposals include land protection laws and debit for nature swaps. There is even a possible ratio of carbon dioxide emitted to US dollars (USD).

The derivation is as follows. An average coal burning power station produces around 600 MW of power. in addition to power, this power station also produces carbon dioxide in massive quantities. Fossil Fuel power is extremely hazardous to the environment through its emissions. It will produce in excess of 3 MT of carbon dioxide per year. If this plant is kept burning for 25 years, it will require over 150, 000 hectares to reclaim the carbon dioxide that it produces. This reduces to 700 ha of new forest growth to absorb 1 MT of carbon dioxide.

The cost of maintaining enough trees to sequester one ton of carbon is estimated at 1.5 USD, under optimum conditions. This figure does not include the price of land, which in different locations will be different. For instance, to reforest land in Norway, where land is scarce, vs. reforestation in Brazil would be vastly different in cost. The aforementioned cost would be, primarily, for maintaining that the forest maintain a steady carbon sequestering.

The next question is, who will pay for the reforestation of the clear cut lands. There have alre8dy been many proposals on this subject as well. One such proposal, lays the responsibility for replanting the trees on the shoulders of industry. Each Industrial plant that produces x emissions must pay y dollars to scrub the atmosphere of their- wastes by replanting trees. Going back to the example of the power plant. It is pbs8lbie to estimate a possible dollar figure for a plant of that size and how much it will impact the amount of deforestation. If one power plant pays to sequester the carbon dioxide it emits. It will cost around 4,5 million USD to -maintain the forest.

An additional figure is needed to complete the costs of sequestering the necessary carbon. This figure would be the cost to purchase the land involved. Currently in practice are debt for nature swaps, A debt for nature swap is a process by which in return for making good on a country's debt. That country will put aside a certain amount of land for the environment, in the form of park land, which would be free of logging, The current rate of exchange, taken from the average of Bolivia and Brazil's current swaps, .5 US Dollars (USD) for one acre. This is the price a company would have to pay the government for an acre of land in Bolivia and Brazil, In order to purchase enough land to convert to forest land suitable to act as a Carbon Sink for 600 MW carbon fueled Generator, a company would have to buy 5189 acres. The debt for nature equivalent cost for this much land is 2594.51 USD. This price is insignificant compared to the cost of reforestation.

If the power companies paid to replant the entire amount that the lumber industries cut down in the tropical rain forests alone they could afford to produce around 22,785 MT of carbon. Since 1 600 MW carbon fueled generator is rated at 3 MT per year, by replanting everything cut down in one year you can sustain the operations of 7,600 generators. This gives a total power capacity of 4.5 million MW of power for that year.

Taken a step further everyone could be made, responsible for their own carbon dioxide emissions. Car owners as well as Fossil Fuel burning facilities would be responsible for whatever amounts of carbon dioxide produced. Each state could enforce a tax on the amount of carbon dioxide their people's car produces. The more carbon dioxide a persons car produces the more that person must pay to replant the forests, This solution has many benefits. This creates a more competitive atmosphere for automobile emissions controllers and filters, It also provides a steady source of money that can be spent replenishing the world's diminishing carbon sinks.

The replanting of the rain forest should by no means be seen as an excuse to permit companies to release more emissions, Logging and agriculture have been and still are crippling the world's ability to recuperate from the emissions industry and automobile traffic are pumping into the atmosphere, Having power companies reforest yearly what we cut down would only stop the destruction. There still remains the considerable amount of land that has been clear cut before reforestation. With this in mind, it seems reasonable to think the responsibility for replanting the trees cut down should lie on the shoulders of those that cut them down in the first place. Logging industry has not often returned to the site of their destruction. However it would be in their best interest to do so considering the amount of land they will have open to their exploitation is limited, especially with new laws protecting the land.

Responsibility for the environment lays on the shoulders of those who use it, which includes everyone. If you cut down a tree you are affecting the environment and placing the balance in jeopardy. Somehow compensation must be made, either in the planting of a new tree or by cutting down on emissions. if you are pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere you need to be responsible for that by planting enough trees to sequester that much carbon dioxide. in a perfect world this wouldn't be hard to do.

However, to reach that level of responsibility incentives must be offered as well as punishments. Punishments can come in the form of considerable fines and taxes. The punishments must outweigh the cost of performing the company’s responsibility. In other words, it can't be cheaper for the logging industry to pay the fine than to replant the trees. Industrial Plants will pay fines if their emissions are over the amount they allow themselves in trees. Taxes and 4.ines, of course, would go towards repairing the damage to the forests. The fate of the world is in the hands of those who would do it the most harm. individuals can help by contacting and simply make their voices heard, Several corporations dedicated to saving the rain forest have entire lists of items to boycott, and companies that can be written to protest their misuse of the environment. Of these some of the more responsible includes Greenpeace, Environmental News Network, and the World Coal Institute.