Reasons for introducing a Co2 difference levy on rainforestwooed
03.12.2019 um 18:19Reasons for introducing a Co2 difference levy
I came up with the idea to fight for the introduction of a co-differential levy on tropical forest wood, with the introduction of such a levy, states around the world that could harbor rainforests could possibly take millions or even billions.
This idea and the Redd program should be introduced to best protect the rainforest in the longer term! At the same time, programs should be in place to protect standing rainforests and, at the same time, levies on Co2 emissions from already felled trees should be demanded, which would drive up wood prices and lower the demand for tropical forest wood in the longer term! In addition, I also find the measurement methods of the Redd program to determine how much Co2 saves a hectare of rainforest, too expensive! If you have to measure every hectare, the time is running out and the rainforests are cut down until they can be bought and protected! An average Co2 emissions from rainforest rainfall should be calculated and then introduced for a Co2 difference levy and for the Redd program! I would most like to anchor the idea in the official climate protocol under the section: Forest Protection. Unfortunately, I do not know how to do this as a civilian without basic legal knowledge. Which experts of which department of the climate negotiations have to be convinced? And if this idea is not in contrast to the Redd program? Also, I have made a spot in English on this topic, which should be drained once on the big TV before the assembled from WEF or ClimaConference!
Avatar-spot
Reasons for a Co2 difference tax on rainforest wood
1. A Co2 subtraction on tropical forest wood aims at that, when a rainforest is cut down, that there is always followed by vegetation that stores much less Co2 than a standing rainforest and also represents a difference to a normal Co2 release on tropical timber is based on a mistake, namely, that for many trees as Co2-neutral, but that is not quite true, if one is based on statements by Greenpeace, so it represents a half-truth. So it should therefore be logical. And often it is also the case that a vegetation that follows the rainforest, so plantations or grassland is fertile only about 6-7 years and then nothing can grow, so the desert follows, so then no Co2-converted more and can be stored.
2. Rain forest wood is often thrown on the market at ridiculous prices, it should be much more expensive. With a Co2 tax that would have to pay rainforest companies, the price of wood would rise and the survey of tropical forest wood would decline.
3. It could be too late in 50-70 years if we continue to cut as much as today and only 10% of the original tropical forest is left.
4. Introduce the Redd program and a Co2 differential levy on tropical forest wood, which would best protect the rainforest, and at the same time buy up some forest land to protect the forest and where it has already been cleared , Co2 Difference Levies will be required so that wood prices rise and demand for tropical wood decline! The levies should be demanded by the wood-cutting companies and paid to countries where the land was cleared!
5. The rainforests begin to dry out if they are not present in sufficiently large pieces. The vaporizing water they collect also causes clouds to irrigate the rainforests. These can no longer arise when rainforests exist only in part chopped pieces. This whole process is called transpiration. The absence of this process also leads to a huge species extinction which accounts for about 70% of the total biodiversity of a rainforest, it affects the species that rely on moisture. This could possibly be prevented by a Co2 difference levy on tropical forest wood, as this dramatically reduces the demand for tropical forest wood and decreases the deforestation rate.
I came up with the idea to fight for the introduction of a co-differential levy on tropical forest wood, with the introduction of such a levy, states around the world that could harbor rainforests could possibly take millions or even billions.
This idea and the Redd program should be introduced to best protect the rainforest in the longer term! At the same time, programs should be in place to protect standing rainforests and, at the same time, levies on Co2 emissions from already felled trees should be demanded, which would drive up wood prices and lower the demand for tropical forest wood in the longer term! In addition, I also find the measurement methods of the Redd program to determine how much Co2 saves a hectare of rainforest, too expensive! If you have to measure every hectare, the time is running out and the rainforests are cut down until they can be bought and protected! An average Co2 emissions from rainforest rainfall should be calculated and then introduced for a Co2 difference levy and for the Redd program! I would most like to anchor the idea in the official climate protocol under the section: Forest Protection. Unfortunately, I do not know how to do this as a civilian without basic legal knowledge. Which experts of which department of the climate negotiations have to be convinced? And if this idea is not in contrast to the Redd program? Also, I have made a spot in English on this topic, which should be drained once on the big TV before the assembled from WEF or ClimaConference!
Avatar-spot
Avatar Film
Externer Inhalt
Durch das Abspielen werden Daten an Youtube übermittelt und ggf. Cookies gesetzt.
Durch das Abspielen werden Daten an Youtube übermittelt und ggf. Cookies gesetzt.
Reasons for a Co2 difference tax on rainforest wood
1. A Co2 subtraction on tropical forest wood aims at that, when a rainforest is cut down, that there is always followed by vegetation that stores much less Co2 than a standing rainforest and also represents a difference to a normal Co2 release on tropical timber is based on a mistake, namely, that for many trees as Co2-neutral, but that is not quite true, if one is based on statements by Greenpeace, so it represents a half-truth. So it should therefore be logical. And often it is also the case that a vegetation that follows the rainforest, so plantations or grassland is fertile only about 6-7 years and then nothing can grow, so the desert follows, so then no Co2-converted more and can be stored.
2. Rain forest wood is often thrown on the market at ridiculous prices, it should be much more expensive. With a Co2 tax that would have to pay rainforest companies, the price of wood would rise and the survey of tropical forest wood would decline.
3. It could be too late in 50-70 years if we continue to cut as much as today and only 10% of the original tropical forest is left.
4. Introduce the Redd program and a Co2 differential levy on tropical forest wood, which would best protect the rainforest, and at the same time buy up some forest land to protect the forest and where it has already been cleared , Co2 Difference Levies will be required so that wood prices rise and demand for tropical wood decline! The levies should be demanded by the wood-cutting companies and paid to countries where the land was cleared!
5. The rainforests begin to dry out if they are not present in sufficiently large pieces. The vaporizing water they collect also causes clouds to irrigate the rainforests. These can no longer arise when rainforests exist only in part chopped pieces. This whole process is called transpiration. The absence of this process also leads to a huge species extinction which accounts for about 70% of the total biodiversity of a rainforest, it affects the species that rely on moisture. This could possibly be prevented by a Co2 difference levy on tropical forest wood, as this dramatically reduces the demand for tropical forest wood and decreases the deforestation rate.