Judge sends in the actual paper that everyone\’s talking about in the papers this morning.
That one telling us that all of the tropical forests are going to disappear because of climate change a land use changes.
And Judge also notes something quite interesting. Look at the table on pg 7, Table 2.
It tells us how much is going to disappear because of climate change and how much because of land use. And it\’s mostly, in that table, claimate change that makes it all disappear.
Then on page 9 we\’ve got table S1. Which \”parallels\” Table 2 as they tell us. The difference is that here it\’s by country and in the first it was by major region.
But the effects are reversed. In S1 the effects are almost all from land use, not climate change.
So, err, which is it going to be folks? Poor people cutting down trees to grow runty corn? Or rich bastards burning coal?
And yes, it does matter. For their models all run one particular scenario:
World Climate Research Programme’s CMIP3 data driven
by the moderate-high SRES A2 greenhouse gas emission
Oh….that\’s the capitalist but non-globalised one isn\’t it? The one where we get 16 billion not very rich people all living in localised and regionalised economies?
What else do we know about forests? Ah, yes, poor people cut them down and rich people plant them. So if we had an A1 world, one which gives us 7 billion much richer people (4 times richer each in fact) in a globalised economy we\’d, umm, have fewer poor people trying to cut down forests, wouldn\’t we?
Which makes it really rather important to understand what you\’re saying about whether it\’s climate change or land use changes which destroy the forests. If it\’s land use then the IPCC can already tell us the answer: save the forests through globalisation.
Sounds good to me.
BTW, if anyone can unscramble that bit about land use and climate change effects both Judge and I would be very grateful.