# data[].attributes.body
What is recycle ?
How recycle can reduce the global warming ?
What are the materials that can be recycled ?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You've probably heard our planet is in trouble: glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, and wildfires, hurricanes, and heat waves are becoming more severe. And you've probably had friends, influencers, and media outlets tell you how to help: "Don't use plastic straws" "Go vegan" "Only use reusable bags."

But while these tips may be helpful, are they actually impactful?

As it turns out, a lot of the trendy global warming solutions do not make the biggest impact. While it's beneficial to cut your plastic straw usage, they only account for .0025% of the plastic in our oceans, according to The Atlantic. Not to mention, our plastic problem barely makes a dent in rising temperatures.

So what does?

Global warming, explained

Let's start from the beginning. Global warming is caused by too many 'greenhouse gases' in our atmosphere - aka, gases that trap heat and warm our planet.

The #1 sector responsible for greenhouse gas emissions in the US is transportation, and cars account for 82% of this, according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Electricity production comes at a close second.

Why do transportation and electricity harm our planet so much? To generate power for these sectors, you need to burn fossil fuels like oil, gas, or coal. Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, which makes up 82% of the gases in our atmosphere that trap heat, according to the EPA.

In other words, too much transportation and electricity means too many gases in our atmosphere that warm our planet.

But there are other causes of global warming, too. While carbon dioxide takes up most of the headlines, there's another greenhouse gas that's seriously warming our planet: methane. It's responsible for about 20% of global warming, according to National Geographic, and a big portion of methane comes from cows (more on that later).

So who is emitting the most greenhouse gasses? Consider this:

The US is responsible for the highest number of emissions, and Americans have the highest carbon footprint per capita

100 companies (most of them oil and coal producers) are responsible for 71% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

The best global warming solutions

To figure out the most impactful global warming solutions, we looked into the behaviors that have the highest impact on the biggest causes. For example, we asked: What is the most impactful way for individuals to cut down electricity usage? And while things like composting, smart thermostats, and recycling help our planet, they do not address the biggest sources of global warming as much as other solutions do.

We also asked: Which of these high-impact solutions are realistic for individuals to implement, right now? While there are some super impactful solutions that aren't on this list, such as wind turbines, solar farms, and regenerative agriculture, we purposely omitted them because they're impossible to implement at an individual level.

While you'd ideally implement all of the following solutions, the truth is, it's difficult to live a life optimized for sustainability. Maybe driving a car is the only way you can get to work, or it's too difficult for you to lower your heating bill in the winter.

That's okay. Not everyone can do everything- the most important thing is that we all do the most we can to help save our earth. So here's a toolbox of the most impactful solutions for global warming (in no particular order) that you can do, today - and can pick and choose as you see fit:
1. Plant trees

Plant trees in tropical rainforests in Brazil, Indonesia, India, Colombia, and Madagascar. (If you plant trees through , you can choose the type of tree you plant based on how much carbon it removes from the atmosphere.)

Protect what remains of our existing tropical forests through nonprofits such as Cool Earth

Why it's impactful:

Reforestation is the most cost-effective way to prevent global warming, according to research presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference. Why?

Trees absorb carbon dioxide (reminder: which makes up 82% of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere), so planting more trees can help reduce the amount of carbon in our atmosphere. In fact, we could remove roughly two-thirds of human-made carbon just by letting all forests regrow, according to a study published in the journal of Science. Yep, two-thirds.

Plus, as Jaron Pazi from Treedom told us,

"Trees do more than absorb carbon. When planted in sustainable agroforestry systems, they result in enhanced biodiversity, water retention, soil health, food security and economic development for local communities."

But not all forests are created equal - some remove carbon from our atmosphere more effectively than others. According to a paper published in Science Advances, tropical forests in countries like Brazil, Indonesia, and India will most efficiently pull carbon out of the atmosphere, since they're home to a huge amount of biodiversity and play a major role in the planet's air and water cycle.
2. Create more sustainable transportation habits
You knew this one was coming...

Do at least one of these things:

Instead of ordering a private ride, do a rideshare

Avoid rapid acceleration and braking, and turn on cruise control on longer trips

Walk and bike to your destination whenever possible

When buying a new car, choose a climate-friendly option (here's a to find a climate-friendly car)

Why it's impactful:

As aforementioned, cars are one of the biggest contributors to climate change: 82% of emissions from transportation come from cars. And while cutting automotive transportation out of your life would make the most impact, this isn't possible for most people. So instead, tweak a few habits that will have a bigger collective impact.

For example, if you refrain from harsh braking and rapid acceleration, you can cut your fuel consumption by as much as 40%, according to the US Department of Energy. If you also keep your tires inflated and car maintained, you'll cut your fuel consumption by nearly half when driving.
3. Lower your heating bill
In the winter, take steps to lower your heating bill:

Set your thermostat at 68 degrees F, and lower your home's temperature 7-10 degrees for 8 hours a day. (But don't turn down the heat more than 10 degrees if it's only for a few hours- it'll take too much energy to heat back up.)

Shore up your windows, seal up the doors, and plug up dafty holes (here's a comprehensive guide that shows you how).

Why it's impactful:

Electricity is one of the biggest causes of greenhouse gas emissions, and heating systems are the single biggest energy expense in the home. So lowering your heating bills is the most impactful way to reduce your electricity consumption (and isn't so bad for your wallet, either).

In addition to monitoring your thermostat, improving insulation and airtightness through your walls, roof, and windows is a great way to avoid heat from escaping your home, since the biggest sources of heat loss are your walls (35%), roof (20%), and windows (15%).
4. Divest from coal, and encourage others to do the same

Divest your 401k from fossil fuels (you can analyze your stocks on fossilfreefunds.org, which shows what % of your funds are invested in fossil fuel companies)

Make sure your bank, insurance company, and university (some of the world's biggest investors in coal) have agreed to divest. If they haven't, call on them to do so.

Why it's impactful:

Coal-burning power plants are by far the biggest emitters of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. Aka, coal is a big deal.

20% of industrial coal emissions are funded by public investors. So when people or companies stop investing, it's more difficult for coal producers to finance more coal production.

For example, "the more insurance companies that join the divestment effort, the more difficult it will become for companies to derive significant revenue from burning coal," Bloomberg Journalist Bryony Collins wrote. That's why Lemonade became the first US insurance company to not invest in coal.

Case in point: When the world's biggest coal company (Peabody) announced bankruptcy, it said the divestment movement had made it difficult to raise capital.
5. Eat less beef
Create a rule for yourself that limits your beef consumption, such as:

Don't cook beef at home - only eat it out

Only eat beef on the weekends

If there's an option to choose between beef or another protein when ordering a dish, go with the alternative protein

Why it's impactful:

Emissions from animal agriculture account for around 15% of all human emissions, and beef is responsible for 41% of that, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.

If cattle were their own nation, they would be the world's third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Let that sink in.

Why?

Beef production requires 28x more land, 6x more fertilizer, and 11x more water than these other proteins than the calorie-equivalent of pork or chicken, according to a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

And if you factor in deforestation to make way for livestock, along with methane emissions from cows and fertilizer use, beef production creates as much greenhouse gas emissions as all the world's cars, trucks, and airplanes combined, according to The Guardian.
6. Educate girls What to do:
Give to a charity that makes school more affordable and accessible for girls in low- and lower-middle-income countries, such as the Malala Fund.
Why it's impactful:
In the most comprehensive report on effective climate solutions, Project Drawdown named educating girls as the #6 most impactful solution (for reference, composting is #60, and rooftop solar is #10).

That's because women with more years of education have fewer children, and therefore a lower carbon footprint. Not only that, but "women have a disproportionate share of decision making around water, cooking, food waste, fuel choices, and how homes are heated, built, and used," said scientist Jonathan Foley. "It's one of the most powerful climate solutions of all."

"Educating girls is one of the most cost-effective, high-impact ways for every nation to fight rising temperatures," Shabana Basij-Rasikh shared on TED. "It's not a topic most Westerners think about, since girls' education is a given. "
7. Advocate for a healthy planet
Support climate legislation by doing one or more of these things:

Send a letter to party leaders and candidates telling them your vote depends on their stance on global warming

Volunteer for a candidate that supports efforts to stop global warming

Talk to friends and family about the importance of voting for climate action

Write a letter to your elected leaders to support and implement a set of climate solutions

Why it's impactful:

Reminder: 100 companies produce 71% of emissions worldwide. What will compel big companies to act sustainably consistently, on a large scale? Lawmakers.

They can:

Place limits on the amount of carbon companies are allowed to emit

Provide resources to prevent emissions leaks from equipment

Subsidize efficient industrial technology to make it more affordable

They can also help individuals act more sustainably. Copenhagen's government is working to make it the world's first carbon-neutral city by 2025, by installing bike lanes across the city, restricting polluting cars, and building new wind turbines.

And how can we enact political change? It all starts with you.
8. Convince your friends to behave sustainably
Choose an impactful, sustainable behavior from this list, and try to convince your friends to do it too. Using the example of ridesharing, you can say things like:

1. "I talked to Jordan, Leah, Hannah, and Danny, and they're all ridesharing. Are you?"

2. "When's the next time you're going to rideshare, and what app are you going to use?"

3. "You're a ride sharer, aren't you?"

4. "I'll text you next week to see how the ride sharing has been going!"

Why it's impactful:

While you're on your way to becoming a climate warrior, your friends and family members might not. Because of a little thing called the drop-in-the-bucket effect (read: "my actions won't actually make a difference"), 80% of Americans don't consistently make an effort to live a sustainable life, according to Pew.

And since Americans have the largest footprint worldwide, convincing your friends and family to reduce their emissions can transcend our own impact, and inspire others to help save our planet as well.

Giving your friends these nudges is scientifically proven to help sway them to act sustainably. For example, one of the biggest findings in behavioral science is that humans are motivated to do what other people around them are doing. If you tell your friend that your other friends are using sustainable light bulbs, they'll be more compelled to do so, too.

Become a climate warrior

Adopting a sustainable life isn't easy, especially since it's difficult to feel that your actions are truly making a difference. And each time you take a step to prevent global warming, you're usually giving up something, whether it's time, money, or convenience. That's why you should make sure the sacrifice you're making actually has a significant impact.

BTW, Lemonade has just launched car insurance, and it's designed with the planet in mind. Learn about what makes Lemonade Car different.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8 Ways You Can Actually Fight Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are so many solutions to climate change, but which are the most impactful that you can do, right now?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ways to Prevent Global Warming - Clean Energy Ideas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Take a look at the different ways to prevent global warming. By following these steps, we can help to reduce the future effects of climate change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Ways to Prevent Global Warming

# data[].attributes.body
Why do we need to plant trees ?

# data[].attributes.body
why open burning is dangerous?
where does open burning usually occur?
how can the government enforce stricter laws on open burning?

# data[].attributes.body
what are the examples of public transport?
how to encourage people to use public transport?
why public transport are beneficial?

# data[].attributes.body
how to make logging control more effective?
what can the government do to make control logging more effective?

# data[].attributes.body
- trees and other green plants take in carbon dioxide that humans and other organisms produce.
- through photosynthesis, trees produce oxygen that humans and many other organisms depend on to live.

# data[].attributes.body
- recycling is the process of recovering scrap or waste and reprocessing materials that would be thrown away as trash and turning them into new products.

- recycling helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing energy consumption.

- plastics , bottles , glasses , papers

# data[].attributes.headline
how do planting trees help with global warming?

# data[].attributes.subject
how do planting trees help with global warming?

# data[].attributes.body
As trees grow, they help stop climate change by removing carbon dioxide from the air, storing carbon in the trees and soil, and releasing oxygen into the atmosphere.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plant trees to reduce your global footprint, and for all the benefits they provide.

# data[].attributes.body
Many cities have successfully managed to reduce CO² emissions by as much as 50 percent by reducing or limiting the flow of private cars.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Climate change and environmental problems are some of the biggest challenges that we are currently facing. Just imagine a planet, where every country and its citizens are environmentally conscious about how their decisions and daily choices may affect the environment. Even so much so that they actively seek choices and options that minimise or reduce impact. In such a case, we could ensure a sustainable, inhabitable living environment on Earth for future generations to come.

One way to contribute to nature conservation and help tackle climate change is to use more public transport services. Why not travel shorter distances inside the city on foot or by public transport instead of a car and by doing that save time and the environment, and even stay healthy? Peep Mardiste, a member of the Estonian Green Movement board, talks in more depth about the beneficial impacts public transport has on nature and the environment.

Public transport helps to save the environment
Most of the emissions from the transport sector are produced by private vehicles such as cars. Although emissions from car production and vehicle use are not growing as fast as, for example, in aviation or shopping, it's still a problem that needs to be addressed.

Greater utilization of public transport services over personal vehicle use is one of the best ways on how to reduce emissions and helps to save the environment. Many cities have successfully managed to reduce CO 2 emissions by as much as by reducing or limiting the flow of private cars.

Cleaner air to breathe, and better health
The excessive number of cars coming into a city does have harmful effects on nature and human health. Exhaust gases are damaging air quality and emitting harmful particles, which increase the risk of respiratory diseases and can also negatively affect people's mental health . Air pollution is particularly dangerous for children, as the developing brain is extremely sensitive and vulnerable to environment's negative effects.
Cities are running out of space for cars
The number of cars in cities cannot grow indefinitely, because, at some point, space runs out and people and their vehicles will not fit. Let's face it, cars take up a lot of space - imagine just how much space 20 individual people traveling by car take, when compared to the same 20 people traveling on a single bus. You get the picture - the difference is significant - and the less space there is for the traffic, the slower the traffic becomes. Due to this increasing lack of space, congestion occurs more and more, and counter-measures, such as diverting traffic or finding ways of making driving more convenient, aren't solutions to the problem, these only encourage private car use, creating an endless loop - as car numbers continue increasing the city must keep finding more space.
Cityscape and other commuters
In addition to congestion and the increasing lack of space in cities, cars also ruin the cityscape. As more cars flow into city centres, the less room there is for cyclists and pedestrians, and with cars parked in areas, which are linked to sidewalks, the road space, which is meant for cyclists, becomes too narrow and dangerous to ride safely.

On the other hand, greater adoption of public transport would help to reduce air pollution and free up space in the urban areas, making city traffic significantly more pleasant for cyclists and pedestrians, in addition to making cityscapes across the world more beautiful and peaceful.
Save time and money, reduce stress
Due to vehicle congestion many cities have dedicated bus lanes, so using public transport within the city can be not only cheaper, but also faster. Especially when you don't need worry about finding a parking space, or how much will it cost, when traveling on public transport.

If public transport can meet the commuter's needs, it will undoubtedly, over time, attract even more private vehicle owners to use public transport. Thankfully, the use of public transport is becoming increasingly popular - you can sit, relax, read a book or even get some work done on the bus or train, which is a much more practical way spending your time while commuting.
What to do?
It is always challenging to induce change within cities, and we need to figure out ways to encourage and motivate people. First, we need to offer high quality public transport service and make these benefits available to everyone, so that people would consider choosing a bus or a train over their car. Making car travel less desirable, more expensive, slower, and inconvenient could also work, but punishing people, in general as history has shown, tends not to go well.

In order to reduce the use of cars and their negative impacts, the principles of urban planning must also be changed. When planning for suburban streets and city spaces, driving comfort should no longer be a priority.

In a democratic society, people's choices cannot and must not be unduly interfered with. However, people can be directed. The aim must be to prioritize the needs and comfort of people, who use or rely on public transport and those that commute walk on foot, because if more people choose public transport, the better chance we have at saving the environment and the lives of future generations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Five reasons why using public transport is better for the environment - Ridango

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Climate change and environmental problems are some of the biggest challenges that we are currently facing. Just imagine a planet, where every country and its citizens are environmentally conscious about how their decisions and daily choices may affect the environment. Even so much so that they actively seek choices and options that minimise or reduce

# data[].attributes.headline
the affects of open burning to the atmosphere

# data[].attributes.subject
the affects of open burning to the atmosphere

# data[].attributes.body
An estimated 40 to 50 percent of the garbage is made up of carbon by mass, which means that carbon dioxide is the major gas emitted by trash burning. This will increase the effects of greenhouse gasses.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When atmospheric scientist Christine Wiedinmyer first went to Ghana in 2011 to investigate air pollution produced by burning different materials - from crop stubble to coal used in stoves - she noticed an unexpected potential source: burning piles of trash.

Like most residents of developed nations who hadn't traveled broadly in the developing world, the sight of smoldering rubbish piles, which contain anything from food waste to plastics to electronics, came as a surprise to Wiedinmyer, who works at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

"It's just not something that I've been exposed to," she told Climate Central. In the U.S., "we have waste management. We have people who pick up trash and take it away."

Ghana, Nepal, Mexico and other developing countries often lack the tax bases and infrastructure needed to put such systems into place. So residents and governments often burn piles of their trash in the open; removing the garbage from the land but transferring it to the skies. Some 40 percent of the world's waste may be dealt with in this way.

Wiedinmyer wondered if this burning waste could be an underappreciated source of air pollutants, from greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide to tiny particles and toxic chemicals that can harm human lungs.

"I was curious to see how big that source was," she said.

Wiedinmyer set out to produce the first global estimates of burn-related pollution. The result, detailed in July in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, suggests that burning trash isn't just bad for human health -- it could pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than had been realized.

'First Best Guess'
Wiedinmyer pored through existing data and inventories and consulted one of the few people already investigating the phenomenon, Bob Yokelson, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Montana in Missoula, who had traveled widely to developing areas and was familiar with the trash burning around homes and villages.

"If you do research or travel in developing worlds, you do see garbage burning in a lot of places," he told Climate Central. Working in Indonesia in the 1990s, he said, there was an old man who would come around and gather everyone's trash, then burn it at the end of the street.

Yokelson, who is another author of the recent paper, had made some measurements in Mexico of what sort of pollutants were being emitted by trash burning. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has catalogued emissions from trash burning in the rural areas of the U.S. But Wiedinmyer found that, on a global scale, "there wasn't kind of a consistent story."

To find that story took a lot of digging around and some educated guesswork. Along with data from the few studies like Yokelson's, Wiedinmyer used guidelines for calculating trash burning emissions produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to determine how much waste was being generated and burned, what exactly was in that waste, and what types of chemicals were likely generated. What she came up with was, as the study describes it, "the first comprehensive and consistent estimates of the global emissions of greenhouse gases, particulate matter, reactive trace gases, and toxic compounds from open waste burning."

Or, as Wiedinmyer puts it, "it was my first best guess."

What's in the Emissions
What she found was that some 1.1 billion tons of waste, more than 40 percent of the world's garbage, is burned in open piles, contributing more emissions than is shown in regional and global inventories.

An estimated 40 to 50 percent of the garbage is made up of carbon by mass, which means that carbon dioxide is the major gas emitted by trash burning. Those emissions are dwarfed by others sources on the global scale, such as cars and power plants, amounting to just 5 percent of total global carbon dioxide emissions. But the carbon dioxide that comes from trash burning can be a significant source in some countries and regions, and it is one not reflected in the official greenhouse gas inventories for those places.

The more interesting and concerning story to Wiedinmyer are the other pollutants, which accounted for far bigger percentages of global emissions. For example, as much as 29 percent of global anthropogenic emissions of small particulate matter (tiny solid particles and liquid droplets from dust to metals that can penetrate deep into the lungs) come from trash fires, she estimates. About 10 percent of mercury emissions come from open burning, as well as 40 percent of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Such pollution can cause lung and neurological diseases, and have been linked to heart attacks and some cancers.

"I was really surprised at the magnitude" of some of these pollutants coming from trash burning, Wiedinmyer said.

Just a Starting Point
Of course, the work is just a starting point, Wiedinmyer and Yokelson said. It shows that the problem of pollution from trash burning is big enough that it warrants further study to try and narrow down the large uncertainties inherent in the study's estimates.

"Can we do better? Can we do more to constrain it?" Wiedinmyer said.

More measurements of the kind Yokelson has made are among the biggest holes needed to be filled to get more fine-tuned numbers.

So, too, is a better understanding of what's in the trash in different regions, since emissions from organic matter like food are very different than those from plastics. "That's one of the big unknowns," Wiedinmyer said. "What's in the trash?"Wiedinmyer also wants to put her estimates into models of climate and air movement and see if they match up with current air observations. She wants to figure out which populations the pollution might be affecting, and where it is interacting with other pollution sources.

Overall, it's an issue "that I think should get more attention," Wiedinmyer said.

Eri Saikawa, who studies air pollution and its health impacts at Emory University, and wasn't involved in the new study, plans to use Wiedinmyer's data in a model to see how it matches observations in China and Southeast Asia, and to see how trash burning might be contributing to the substantial amounts of air pollution there.

"What they're interested in is where they can reduce emissions," Saikawa said of policymakers she has met with in China. Currently the focus has been on power plants and cars - trash burning hasn't been part of the conversation.

Reducing emissions from trash burning isn't an easy prospect in many areas, though. In Nepal, where Yokelson plans to do further work this year and next, the government is well aware of the problem, but it can't afford the kind of highly efficient incinerators that would get rid of much of the emissions from trash.

"It's expensive to get rid of garbage cleanly," Yokelson said.

And it's not clear how much of an effect reducing this source of pollution would have in different areas.

But, "you need to make a small step to make a big step," Saikawa said. "This kind of study is very important to figure out what needs" to be done.

You May Also Like:
Climate Change Ups Odds of a Southwest Megadrought
See How This Summer's Temperatures Stack Up
Coal Plants Lock in 300 Billion Tons of CO2 Emissions
Crowdsourced Photos Provide Drought Snapshots
A Tale of Two Cities: Miami, New York and Life on the Edge
This article is reproduced with permission from Climate Central. The article was first published on September 2, 2014.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Burning Trash Bad for Humans and Global Warming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When atmospheric scientist Christine Wiedinmyer first went to Ghana in 2011 to investigate air pollution produced by burning different materials - from crop stubble to coal used in stoves - she noticed an unexpected potential source: burning piles of trash.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/better-logging-could-slow-global-warming/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SUNGAI NGIHIS, Indonesia-At dawn, Peter Ellis leads a group of environmentalists heading into the tropical forests near this remote village on the island of Borneo. They drive for hours. They climb mountains and cross rivers. And finally, their eyes lock on what they are looking for-loggers.

But this encounter does not turn into an environmentalists-versus-loggers fight, which happens more often than not. Instead, the environmentalists shake hands with the loggers, greet each other by first name, and walk into the forest together to learn how to cut down trees.

Ellis and his colleagues are doing something unusual-fighting against climate change by helping to improve logging operations. This idea remains controversial in the conservation community, but the Arlington, Va.-based Nature Conservancy, the environmental organization for which Ellis works, believes that it is a realistic strategy for reducing forest carbon emissions in a world where market demand for wood is unlikely to go away.

In theory, trees can lock climate-harmful carbon dioxide into centuries-long storage. But the reality has often been that the prevailing economics simply level forests to make way for mining, farming and other developments. The net result is a level of forest destruction that is causing higher emission levels than all the planes, cars, trucks, ships and trains on Earth combined.

Devastating the once-rich forests in Indonesia has turned it into the world's third-largest greenhouse gas emitter after China and the United States. Data from a 2013 study by the University of Maryland show that at least 700,000 hectares (about 1.8 million acres) of forests is disappearing each year in Indonesia, equivalent to nearly two soccer fields per minute.

Avoiding high-damage operations
Logging is a contributor to such forest losses. But scientists say about half of the damage from logging operations can be avoided. According to a recent study published in the journal Global Change Biology, a quarter of the trees that are cut down by loggers end up abandoned in the forest because they are hollow and therefore have low commercial value.

Some trees are dragged down because loggers don't bother to pre-cut vines that connect treetops. Others are gone due to a lack of thoughtful road planning for trucks operating in the forest.

To ensure that only commercially viable trees are cut down, in 2006, the Nature Conservancy and its partners persuaded the Indonesian government to launch a reduced-impact logging project in East Kalimantan's Berau district, where 40 percent of the remaining forests are planned as commercial logging concessions.

Scientists have spent four years tracking the cause of forest carbon emissions, and the fruit of all that effort now is beginning to reshape the logging operations.

The other day, in a meeting room of a local logging company called Karya Lestari, scientists and company executives discussed how wide the roads should be in timber harvesting areas. Loggers traditionally construct wide roads so that the sun can dry the road easily, preventing trucks from getting stuck in mud during the rainy season. However, the scientific study shows that narrowing the roads from their current width of 32 meters to less than 25 meters can lower the carbon emissions of the entire operation by 10 percent.

"If the road is from east to west, maybe we can use a narrow road. But if it is from south to north, then we will have to make the road wider," one executive said.

"Do you think a drainage system can compensate that effect?" one scientist suggested.

"Then we will need gravel," the executive replied. "The operation will become more expensive, and the working hours will become longer. It is also quite dangerous to have a narrow road, because traffic is frequent."

"We can reduce the width of roads and combine this with traffic controls," another Nature Conservancy specialist said, jumping into the conversation. "We can build passing locations along the roads and let truck drivers communicate with radio or walkie-talkie."

Will many small changes have a cumulative impact?
Similar discussions will happen again and again in the next few months, as the scientists and the company executives seek suitable techniques for a 100-hectare (247-acre) pilot project. The idea is to prove those techniques are climate-friendly while not affecting the volume of timber production. When it's perfected, the company plans to scale it up in other timber harvest areas.

A greener logging practice is badly needed. As Soeylino Soedirman, an adviser to the logging company, explained, "it is driven by market demand. The market wants more responsible forest products, so buyers require sellers to do so."

"Indonesia also has committed to reduce emissions for a certain level. Forestry is the most important sector that helps us achieve the emission reduction target," Soedirman said.

Indonesia has pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent using its own funds or as much as 41 percent with the help of international aid. That compares with projected emissions of 2.95 gigatons by 2020 if the nation takes no action.

While the exact amounts of carbon dioxide the reduced-impact logging project will help mitigate remains to be seen, depending on which techniques the company chooses to use, it could lower carbon emissions from the logging operation by at least 30 percent, according to the Nature Conservancy's analysis.

The organization believes the large emissions-reduction potential will lure more logging companies in Indonesia to follow suit. It also hopes to spread the use of reduced-impact logging to other nations. Already, Mexico and Peru are taking steps to replicate the approach in their forestlands.

With nearly one-fifth of the world's tropical forests designated as commercial logging concessions, more than double the area under full protection, the Nature Conservancy says that sustainable logging is a viable complement to strict forest protection, as it retains the majority of biodiversity and carbon stocks.

A 'smokescreen' for business as usual?
Not every forest protector agrees. London-based Global Witness, for one, has been lobbying donors since 2009 to prohibit funding for "green activities" related to industrial-scale logging, which threatened to end support for reduced-impact logging and the like. Other environmental groups such as Greenpeace and the Rights and Resources Initiative hold similar positions.

In one report, Greenpeace calls sustainable logging "often a smokescreen for business-as-usual destructive forestry." The organization also questions whether the logging sector, which is profit-driven and riddled with illegalities, can be trusted to deliver real emissions reductions.

Ellis and others who are involved in the reduced-impact logging project in Berau acknowledge that their work cannot eliminate all the forest damage caused by logging. They also agree that a monitoring system will need to be in place to ensure that logging operations will not devastate local communities and ecosystems.

Still, he believes that the benefits of cooperating with loggers overweigh its downsides.

"Forests have a certain degree of resilience," Ellis said. "Obviously, forests that are cleared and turned into palm oil plantations will not grow back. But with time, logged forests have the potential to regrow and maintain their conservation value, if you do logging correctly.

"It is funny that the Nature Conservancy as a conservation organization found itself partnering directly with loggers, but I enjoy that challenge, and I think it is one worth articulating as beneficial in the long run," he added.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Better Logging Could Slow Global Warming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SUNGAI NGIHIS, Indonesia-At dawn, Peter Ellis leads a group of environmentalists heading into the tropical forests near this remote village on the island of Borneo. They drive for hours. They climb mountains and cross rivers. And finally, their eyes lock on what they are looking for-loggers.