I'm on the ground in Sumatra at Greenpeace's Climate Defenders Camp. We're here to let world leaders know that this is ground zero for deforestation and if immediate action isn't taken to end the destruction of our rainforests, climate catastrophe is all but assured.

Southeast Asia is the region most exposed to and least prepared for the impacts of climate change, according to the Asian Development Bank. The ADB warns that the poor — and especially women — are the most vulnerable. Approximately 2.2 billion Asians are subsistence farmers; they are already experiencing falling crop yields caused by floods, droughts, erratic rainfall and other climate change impacts.

As well as supporting biodiversity and forest-dwelling communities, forests and their soils are huge carbon stores; they contain nearly 300 billion tones of carbon. That is 40 times more carbon than we currently emit to the atmosphere every year.

© Greenpeace / John Novis

Tropical forest destruction accounts for about a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions, more than all the world's trains, planes and cars put together. Therefore, we can only avert a climate crisis if world leaders commit to deep and binding cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions from both fossil fuels and deforestation at the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen.

Globally, more than one million hectares of forest, mostly tropical rainforest, is destroyed every month — that is an area of forest the size of a soccer field every two seconds. Destruction and degradation of forests drives climate change in two ways. First, the clearing and burning of forests releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere; and second, the area of forest that absorbs carbon dioxide is reduced. Their role in regulating the climate is so crucial that if we destroy the last tropical forests, we will likely lose the battle against climate change.

INDONESIA'S RAINFORESTS AND PEATLANDS


On the ground, it's easy to see the massive destruction that has taken place here. A drive through the Kampar Peninsula reveals acre after acre of forest conversion from healthy rainforest to palm oil plantations. There is no sign of animal life or biodiversity — just row after row of palm. The roads are congested with trucks carrying out palm kernels and the sky is filled with the smoke from hundreds of fires set to clear the land for planting.


Riau Andalah Pulp and Paper Company owned by the April Group. © Greenpeace / Daniel Beltrá

Indonesia is a stark example of the need for a robust plan and the provision of international funds to protect tropical forests. According to the latest available figures, it has one of the fastest rates of deforestation. This emits so much CO2 that Indonesia is the third largest climate polluter, after China and the US.

The reason these emissions are so high is twofold. It is caused by the rapid rate of deforestation, and the drainage and burning of the carbon rich peat soil the forests grow on. Deforestation of tropical forests is driven by global demand for products like paper, palm oil (which is used in toothpaste), chocolate, and as a biofuel. Since 1950, over 182 million acres of Indonesia's rainforests have been destroyed completely and others have been seriously degraded.

In a recent report, the Indonesian Government identified the oil palm, pulp and paper, agriculture, and logging industries as those primarily responsible for draining peat, for destroying its forests, and for causing the country's enormous CO2 emissions. It predicts that, unless action is taken, these emissions will continue to increase.

However, the government continues to hand out the concessions that allow these companies to destroy the remaining rainforest. The Indonesian government has laws to protect some of these carbon-rich peat areas but it fails to enforce the law and even continues to grant permits to companies to destroy them. Under Indonesian law, it is prohibited to develop or clear the forest and to drain any peat if it is deeper than three meters. Over 80% of Kampar's peat is deeper than that, but companies are still granted licenses to destroy its forests and peatlands. Only 10% of the peatlands that remain intact are officially "protected". The remaining 90% is under immediate threat, encircled by encroaching pulp and paper companies. They have been allocated for conversion in spite of the law.

THE COPENHAGEN SOLUTION

International governments give companies that are destroying the rainforest here an incentive to keep up business as usual and drive climate change by allowing imports of paper and palm oil products that come from forest destruction. With the UN Copenhagen Climate Summit just around the corner, the Heads of State of developed countries must show real leadership and secure a robust climate deal in December that includes a global funding mechanism that will transfer $42 billion annually from industrialized countries to poor forested countries like Indonesia, Congo, and Brazil, with the aim of ending deforestation by 2020. Such a deal must deliver substantial emissions reductions from deforestation as well as protect wildlife and respect the rights of forest dwelling people. It must also ensure that money does not end up in the hands of those responsible for forest destruction, like those in the logging industry.

Greenpeace is also calling on Indonesia's President Yudhoyono to commit to zero deforestation by 2015 in Indonesia and to implement an immediate moratorium on the destruction of forests and peatlands to give the climate some breathing space while the forest protection plans are put into action.

President Obama can do his part by coming to Copenhagen to attend the negotiations himself and help push other world leaders to commit to funding solutions to end deforestation. Obama must show leadership now by pushing Congress to pass legislation that will cap our emissions at the levels scientists say is safe and that will help pay for a global funding mechanism for forests. The bills in Congress are too weak and the international talks are veering off course. Now is the time for action from President Obama.

Cross posted at The Huffington Post

This weekend, Green for All, Greenpeace and hundreds of others organizations are sponsoring a national mobilization to say, "I'm ready for the green economy." The goal is to bring attention to a solution for the two biggest problems we now face--a faltering economy and climate change. The solution? We should build a green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty and to save our weakening economy.

What would a green economy look like? Imagine millions of workers working on thousands of old buildings that need to be weatherized, installing shimmering solar panels, and building towering wind turbines. There are public transit systems to be set up and smart electricity grids in need of engineers and electricians to design them.

Like most big problems facing the country, this is really a question of priorities. While Congress is debating this week about golden parachutes for failed CEOs and a $700 billion dollar bailout for Wall Street, others are looking at a cleaner, greener future as a way out of this economic mess.

From a Greenpeace op-ed in the Nation:

A recent report report by the Center for American Progress estimates that investing just $100 billion in the green economy (one-seventh the amount contemplated in the administration's proposed Wall Street bailout) would create 2 million new jobs, with a significant percentage of those coming in the struggling manufacturing and construction sectors. In contrast, investing that much money in the financial services sector would generate just 1.1 million jobs, according to an analysis conducted by the study's authors, Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier of the University of Massachusetts. In other words, Wall Street's offering about half the jobs for the same money: hardly a smart bet for the taxpayer.

A green investment on the level of the Wall Street bailout could create growth on a much larger scale, almost entirely eliminating unemployment and significantly raising middle-class incomes. Instead of golden parachutes for CEOs, the government could finance America's transition from an oil- and fossil-fuel-dependent economy into one run completely on clean energy. Instead of buying up bad McMansion mortgages, we could pay people to retrofit their houses with high-efficiency appliances and green roofs.

The green stimulus could reach far beyond the energy sector to provide income and employment for rural America as well. It could finance the conservation of tens or hundreds of millions of acres of wildlands, providing income to farmers and other landowners--and make possible a whole new generation of national parks. (Many of those lands are now under threat exactly because of too-easy credit: without limits on lending, it's been all too easy for real estate developers to find the cash to pave over back-country wilderness for sprawl and ranchettes).

 

The time has come to take a hard look at where we are in this nation and where we want to go. This weekend will be a chance to reflect on the possibilities before us and the consequences of our choices. The question is this: Do we want to leave the next generation in debt and in crisis from a dangerous climate or do we want to take the initiative and start the inevitable conversion to a green economy? To me the answer is obvious. What's less clear is what Congress will do. Make your voice heard at www.projecthotseat.org.

Ths week, Al Gore called on young people to practice civil disobedience on any new coal plant that is not CCS ready. Seeing that CCS is 20 years off, at the very least, perhaps Mr. Gore meant for action on all new coal plants.  In any case, I've got a Greenpeace jumpsuit with your name on it, Mr. Vice President.  

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. published an excoriating op-ed today in the LA Times takking Exxon to task for funding phony front groups that are designed to confuse the American public about global warming. Kennedy says that after a 1998 meeting, Exxon executives decided to create information so that "recognition of uncertainties become part of the conventional wisdom" and that "those promoting the Kyoto treaty ... appear to be out of touch with reality."

Kennedy goes on:

"Since that meeting, Exxon has funneled $23 million into the climate-denial industry, according to Greenpeace, which combs the company's annual report each year. Since 2006, Exxon has cut off some of the worst offenders, but 28 climate-denial groups will still get funding this year." 

You can read more about Exxon's deceptive and dangerous business practices over at Exxon Secrets. 

At a campaign stop last week in Maumee, OH, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) talked to a young 1Sky campaigner about energy policy.  The question was about the Obama/Biden ticket's position on coal. Biden answered by defending his record of support for renewable energy, and then he said this:

"No coal plants here in America. Build them, if they’re going to build them over there make ‘em clean because they’re killing you."

The "over there" he's referring to is China. That's a remarkable statement from the potential veep and one that begs for further explanation. Biden has been mum since he said this, but allow me take a stab at what he likely meant.

On their Web site, Obama/Biden say this about coal:

"Obama’s Department of Energy will enter into public private partnerships to develop five “first-of-a-kind” commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology."

That policy position is at odds with Biden's statement. Presumably, Biden is saying no new coal plants here, period, CCS-ready or not. China, he seems to be saying, can't be stopped from building new coal fired power plants so what we ought to do is develop the technology to make them run cleaner.

This logic is inline with what Thomas Friedman has been saying: The next revolution will be energy technology, so we need to own the innovation and then export it. That's the way to help the American economy and lead by example.

Friedman and Biden certainly are right about the need for innovation. The question is why the focus on coal, which we know will never be clean? Those who say that it can be tout Carbon, Capture and Storage (CCS), a plan to capture carbon emissions from power stations and bury them underground. The technology won’t be ready for at least another twenty years, too late to save the climate. Yet the vague promises of CCS are being used to justify building new coal-fired plants. These plants will spew out enormous amounts of CO2 pollution for at least the next twenty years and probably during their whole 40-year lifetime. In short, any new coal fired power plant will contribute massively to the climate crisis.

Hopefully, this topic will come up in the veep debate, scheduled for Oct. 2. But don't count on it. According to Media Matters, the progressive media watchdog group, only four percent of the questions asked during the primary debates were on energy and the environment. Only three questions touched on renewable resources and conservation, including one asking if candidates used compact fluorescent bulbs. Seriously.

Given America's energy problems and the threats from global climate change, the inclusion of conversation about coal's future and what Biden exactly meant should be part of the upcoming debate. You can email your Congressional representative here and tell them what you think of coal.