Tuesday, June 8, 2010 | 4:31 pm
Global warming has made headlines worldwide because it causes environmental damage. This disaster raises global appeal about the importance of reduction of gas emissions, the cause of warming. However, says the pressure is so strong in developing countries, with the lure of aid, so that would reduce emissions?
Just for information, at the environmental summit meeting in December last year, in Copenhagen, Danish, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has declared a willingness to reduce emissions 26 percent over the next decade. Furthermore, Indonesia offers a decrease in emissions by 41 percent if there is adequate assistance from the international community to decrease these emissions.
This is certainly an example of Indonesia because it will be considered as an example in reducing emissions. This is certainly a laudable action.
Canada, Australia, and Japan is a country considered a promising example of emission reduction, which is much larger than the promise of U.S. President Barack Obama, who is only willing to reduce emissions 17 percent.
Indonesia willing to reduce emissions, one based incentive scheme called REDD stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, or Reducing Emissions with the Prevention of deforestation and forest degradation. REDD offer assistance to developing countries, the debt will then be shaped, with a willingness to reforestation, or prevention of deforestation.
In 2007, the World Bank said Indonesia as the world's biggest cause of pollution. Why? Only the World Bank was the one who knows.
The smallest portion
In the New York Times last March 22 issue, Fred stok of the World Resources Institute, said by implication that the emission reduction efforts in Indonesia is only possible from the reduction of ambition to be the owner of the world's largest oil palm plantation and the cessation of deforestation.
Amazon jungle, Latin America, and the forests in Africa also became sararan REDD. Is the world's largest emissions occur in developing countries and forest owners. List of world's largest providers of pollution showed the opposite (see graph).
Population 2009 report, citing the environmental journalist Fred Pearce, says that 500 million citizens of the world's richest, or 10 percent of the total world population, contributes 50 percent of world carbon dioxide emissions.
About three and a half billion people worldwide, or about 50 percent of the total global population, generally live in developing countries, accounted for only 7 percent of global emissions.
So why replace the Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, who replaced former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, as co-chair a UN panel group, launched a fundraising drive directly REDD?
Stoltenberg Why not encourage the reduction of global emissions simultaneously, including by U.S. forces, raising the exhaust gas emission reductions, more than 7 percent?
Beware of REDD. With this scheme, the developed countries of the world's biggest cause of pollution, can not escape from responsibility on the grounds has donated funds for emissions reductions through REDD in developing countries. That is, through REDD happened endorsement of pollution, through the justification for increased assistance through REDD.
Do not forget, the declaration of the relative economic growth along with increased pollution. Pollution reduction is relatively in line with the reduction of development. Farida Akhter, December 11, 2009, in OnlineOpinion Australia, asked. "Why every time the Western countries failed to reach emission reduction targets, their eyes were immediately drawn to developing countries?" (MON)
Global warming has made headlines worldwide because it causes environmental damage. This disaster raises global appeal about the importance of reduction of gas emissions, the cause of warming. However, says the pressure is so strong in developing countries, with the lure of aid, so that would reduce emissions?
Just for information, at the environmental summit meeting in December last year, in Copenhagen, Danish, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has declared a willingness to reduce emissions 26 percent over the next decade. Furthermore, Indonesia offers a decrease in emissions by 41 percent if there is adequate assistance from the international community to decrease these emissions.
This is certainly an example of Indonesia because it will be considered as an example in reducing emissions. This is certainly a laudable action.
Canada, Australia, and Japan is a country considered a promising example of emission reduction, which is much larger than the promise of U.S. President Barack Obama, who is only willing to reduce emissions 17 percent.
Indonesia willing to reduce emissions, one based incentive scheme called REDD stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, or Reducing Emissions with the Prevention of deforestation and forest degradation. REDD offer assistance to developing countries, the debt will then be shaped, with a willingness to reforestation, or prevention of deforestation.
In 2007, the World Bank said Indonesia as the world's biggest cause of pollution. Why? Only the World Bank was the one who knows.
The smallest portion
In the New York Times last March 22 issue, Fred stok of the World Resources Institute, said by implication that the emission reduction efforts in Indonesia is only possible from the reduction of ambition to be the owner of the world's largest oil palm plantation and the cessation of deforestation.
Amazon jungle, Latin America, and the forests in Africa also became sararan REDD. Is the world's largest emissions occur in developing countries and forest owners. List of world's largest providers of pollution showed the opposite (see graph).
Population 2009 report, citing the environmental journalist Fred Pearce, says that 500 million citizens of the world's richest, or 10 percent of the total world population, contributes 50 percent of world carbon dioxide emissions.
About three and a half billion people worldwide, or about 50 percent of the total global population, generally live in developing countries, accounted for only 7 percent of global emissions.
So why replace the Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, who replaced former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, as co-chair a UN panel group, launched a fundraising drive directly REDD?
Stoltenberg Why not encourage the reduction of global emissions simultaneously, including by U.S. forces, raising the exhaust gas emission reductions, more than 7 percent?
Beware of REDD. With this scheme, the developed countries of the world's biggest cause of pollution, can not escape from responsibility on the grounds has donated funds for emissions reductions through REDD in developing countries. That is, through REDD happened endorsement of pollution, through the justification for increased assistance through REDD.
Do not forget, the declaration of the relative economic growth along with increased pollution. Pollution reduction is relatively in line with the reduction of development. Farida Akhter, December 11, 2009, in OnlineOpinion Australia, asked. "Why every time the Western countries failed to reach emission reduction targets, their eyes were immediately drawn to developing countries?" (MON)
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar