RSS

The Little REDD book

13 Nov

When most people hear the Little Red Book they think of communist book Quotations from Chairman Mao, required reading in China during the cultural revolution. It looked like this:

Considering this book has many negative events associated with it (police reportedly beat any citizen found not carrying it) it is surprising that an environmental group would choose to embrace this theme for a publication dedicated to preventing deforestation. In December 2008, the Global Canopy Programme released a book called The Little REDD Book, intended as a guide to UN negotiations on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD). Here is their webpage with an online version. Here is the pdf for easier reading. This is what the title page looks like:

The red and yellow color scheme along with the title set the tone for the document itself. Here is their definition for REDD:

The basic idea behind Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) is simple: Countries that are willing and able to reduce emissions from deforestation should be financially compensated for doing so.

Why should a country who voluntarily stops deforestation in their own country be compensated by other countries? They are a sovereign country who can do whatever they want with their trees, if they choose to cut them all down, so be it. If they choose to preserve them all, so be it. Why should they be financially compensated (obviously from developed countries) to do so? Their argument is simple: because if we don’t, deforestation will lead to more global warming and then we will all die.

I am glad that the creators of this little red book aren’t hiding behind some ‘market based mechanism’ like so called carbon trading. They seem to openly admit, with their title no less, that this is wealth redistribution on a grand scale. Chairman Mao would be proud.

[wp_campaign_2]

Advertisements
 
3 Comments

Posted by on November 13, 2010 in Uncategorized

 

3 responses to “The Little REDD book

  1. Donna Laframboise

    November 13, 2010 at 2:54 pm

    I note an IPCC estimate is cited near the beginning (page 7 of the PDF, but numbered as page 8) as justification for everything that follows in this 71-page publication.

    And people wonder why I’ve got my knickers in a knot regarding the dubious quality of the IPCC’s research, procedures, and expertise.

     
  2. Donna Laframboise

    November 13, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    Seems the WordPress system mistook an 8 and a closing parenthesis for a smiley. Fun.

     
  3. Sam

    November 13, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    Exactly Donna. That is why the new IPBES and all of these pseudo-science organizations are so dangerous. They make some claim like this:

    “Over the next 100 years, X will cause Y to substantially harm Z. In order to prevent this, A must pay B to implement C, which will prevent X. ”

    This is a genuine threat to liberty across the world.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: