tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892827037183316611.post5178674663488131846..comments2023-10-09T08:27:03.515-04:00Comments on Runesmith's Canadian Content: Making forest preservation worth more than forest destructionJennifer Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14610902519752808810noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1892827037183316611.post-8801572394930464582009-12-17T01:19:11.000-05:002009-12-17T01:19:11.000-05:00A research paper "Bitumen and Biocarbon"...A research paper "Bitumen and Biocarbon" prepared by Global Forest Watch Canada, was referenced on the Greenpeace website 2 October, 2009 as follows:<br /><br /> "when emissions from the destruction of the Boreal Forests are factored in, greenhouse gas emissions from Tar Sands operations are significantly higher than reported. The research shows that under full development the annual average release of carbon from the removal of natural ecosystems would be 8.7 megatonnes of carbon dioxide with wide fluctuations over time. Current reported greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands operations which do not account for these additional emissions, are about 36 mt a year. Planned expansion is expected to increase emission levels from operations alone to 120 to 140 mt a year."<br /><br />IMO, even if boreal forests do not presently qualify for carbon credits under REDD, the oil industry and Canadian government should at the very least be required to report these additional emissions as a result of Tar Sands operations. Either way, the economic and environmental cost of boreal forest destruction seems unacceptable to me. <br /><br />I think Ignatieff really got it wrong - the Boreal Forests, not the Tar Sands, are the national treasure - a valuable carbon sink, much needed wildlife habitat, and a nursery for 300 different species of songbirds.LMAnoreply@blogger.com