⌛ Environmentalists mark Save Mt. Kanlaon Day

Dear fellow Negrenses,

Members of the Bacolod-based Save Mt. Kanlaon Coalition mark today, August 11, as Save Mt. Kanlaon Day with various activities.

Please follow link to Phil. Star Article:

http://www.dumagueteinfo.com/board/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=8

Mt. Kanlaon is our common heritage. May this present concern open doors of interaction between individuals and groups from both provinces.

You may wish visit our social network at GreenWatch Philippines and meet those who are involved in facing the challenge.

Don

 

Geothermal power will bring progress to Kanlaon residents and solve Neg Occ. power crisis. Its does not absolutely destroy the envoronment. Envornmental measures are strictly observe/implemented by PNOC.

 

***********************************************
FOREST CONSERVATION NEWS TODAY
Untouched Natural Forests Store Three Times More Carbon
***********************************************
Forests.org and Climate Ark projects of Ecological Internet, Inc.

Climate Ark: Climate Change and Global Warming Portal -- Climate Ark, Climate Change Portal
Forest Protection Portal - Vast Forest Protection News, Information Retrieval Tools and Original Analysis -- Forests.org

August 4, 2008
OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY by Dr. Glen Barry, Ecological Internet

An important new Australian study finds that "untouched natural forests store three times more carbon dioxide than previously estimated and 60 percent more than plantation forests" and that first-time "logging resulted in more than a 40 percent reduction in long-term carbon compared with unlogged forests." They conclude that "in Australia and
probably globally the carbon carrying capacity of natural forests is underestimated and therefore misrepresented in economic valuations and in policy options."

This resoundingly confirms Ecological Internet's forest campaign's key principle: sustaining intact ancient primary forests, by virtue of their holding of carbon and species, is a requirement for global ecological sustainability. This Earth Action Network's shared commitment to ending ancient primary and old-growth forest logging has been validated by the
emerging ecological science. And we hope this motivates you to continue taking action at http://www.ecoearth.info/alerts/ and to participate regularly in future email protest campaigns.

What does this mean for the forest and climate protection movement? It means if you -- like Greenpeace and WWF -- support first-time Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) industrial logging of ancient, primary forests and establishment of mono-culture plantations that replace regenerating natural forests; you are aiding and abetting the destruction of the Earth's climate and biodiversity. It means that if you are working for avoided deforestation and forests' inclusion in carbon markets, and not specifying payments will be made only for strict forest protections and not for first-time industrial management, you are failing both the climate and ancient forests. Or if you work to set-up a carbon market while you allow your own ancient forests to be logged -- as Australia
does -- you will not succeed in reducing emissions. Each of these activities has been the target of recent Ecological Internet campaigns.

Or perhaps most troublingly, if like Rainforest Action Network and ForestEthics, you continually negotiate away large primary forests to industrial forestry for vague promises of protection elsewhere -- as was done in Canada's Great Bear Rainforest and most recently with the sell-out of 50% of Ontario's Boreal forests -- you are greenwashing the
destruction of the Earth and all her life. Years after the Great Bear sell-out, senior RAN management thought they had achieved FSC certification, when in fact it was just vague promises of "ecosystem based management". Such ecological ignorance cannot be tolerated by these self-appointed representatives of ancient forests and the Earth.

The era of first-time industrial logging of ancient primary forests is over. This is the motivation of our most recent Clayoquot Sound alert at:
http://forests.org/shared/alerts/send.aspx?id=canada_clayoquot_logging
There 93% of Vancouver Island's ancient primary temperate rainforests have been destroyed, yet FSC apologists such as EcoTrust and ForestEthics work for "certified logging" of the rest, which we now know releases huge amounts of carbon.

Most of the mainstream and even "radical" environmental movement simply have their ecological science wrong. They have falsely accepted the comforting yet unproven notion that achieving environmentally advantageous industrial forest management in primary forests is possible, and is a better climate and forest conservation campaign strategy than working for full, complete protection of all remaining primary forests from industrial forestry. Ecological Internet has concluded
quite the opposite -- that it is better to work for what is needed and sufficient, even if we risk failure, than to accept what is insufficient and actually enables the ecological damage, even if achieved.

As the science continues to crystallize that all industrial logging of primary forests releases huge amounts of carbon and thus the purported environmental benefits are a myth, Ecological Internet will continue our campaign targeting FSC logging apologists including those previously named. Their putrid efforts to legitimize continued ancient forest logging
is shameful -- particularly in the face of impassioned yet reasoned, ecological science based opposition -- and they must stop, and work to end ancient forest logging while restoring natural forests with old-growth characteristics. Or they are the forest and climate crises.

We expect those in the environmental movement that support FSC
certified logging to immediately respond to the ecological science, and justify their continued apologist behavior for loss of primary forests, and its impact upon climate. Failure to do so will mean continued campaigns including disruption of the forest liars' self-congratulatory campaigns and events. g.b.

TO COMMENT:
Forest Protection Blog: Untouched Natural Forests Store Three Times More Carbon

*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:

Title: Untouched forests store 3 times more carbon- study
Source: Copyright 2008, Reuters
Date: August 4, 2008
Byline: Michael Perry

Untouched natural forests store three times more carbon dioxide than previously estimated and 60 percent more than plantation forests, said a new Australian study of "green carbon" and its role in climate change.

Green carbon occurs in natural forests, brown carbon is found in industrialised forests or plantations, grey carbon in fossil fuels and blue carbon in oceans.

Australian National University (ANU) scientists said that the role of untouched forests, and their biomass of green carbon, had been underestimated in the fight against global warming.

The scientists said the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Kyoto Protocol did not distinguish between the carbon capacity of plantation forests and untouched forests.

Yet untouched forests can carry three times the carbon presently estimated, if their biomass of carbon stock was included, said the ANU report released on Tuesday.

Currently, forest carbon storage capacity is based on plantation forest estimates.

The report "Green Carbon, the role of natural forests in carbon storage" said a difference in the definition of a forest was also underestimating the carbon stock in old-growth forests.

The IPCC defines a forest as trees taller than 2 metres (six feet) and a canopy cover greater than 10 percent, but in Australia a forest was defined as having trees taller than 10 metres (33 feet) and a canopy cover greater than 30 percent.

The report said southeast Australia's unlogged forests could store about 640 tonnes per hectare (1,600 tonnes per acre), yet the IPCC estimate put it at only around 217 tonnes of carbon per hectare.

The scientists estimated that around 9.3 billion tonnes of carbon can be stored in the 14.5 million hectares of eucalypt forests in southeast Australia if they are left undisturbed.

The IPCC estimates only one third of this capacity and only 27 percent of the forests' biomass carbon stock.

"MORE RESILIENT"

Not only did natural forests store more carbon but because they remained untouched, they stored the carbon for longer than plantation forests which were cut down on a rotation basis.

The report found that "natural forests are more resilient to climate change and disturbances than plantations".

Co-author of the report Brendan Mackey said protecting natural
forests served two purposes: it maintained a large carbon sink and stopped the release of the forest's stored carbon.

"Protecting the carbon in natural forests is preventing an additional emission of carbon from what we get from burning fossil fuel," Mackey told Reuters.

The carbon stored in the world's biomass and soil was approximately three times the amount in the atmosphere, said the report. About 35 percent of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is a result of past deforestation and 18 percent of annual global emissions is from continued deforestation.

The report said logging resulted in more than a 40 percent reduction in long-term carbon compared with unlogged forests.

"The majority of biomass carbon in natural forests resides in the woody biomass of large old trees. Commercial logging changes the age structure of forests so that the average age of trees is much younger," it said.

"The carbon stock of forests subject to commercial logging, and of monoculture plantations in particular, will therefore always be significantly less on average than the carbon stock of natural, undisturbed forests."

The scientists said preventing further deforestation of southeast Australia's eucalypt forests was the equivalent of preventing emissions of 460 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year for the next 100 years.

Allowing logged forests to regrow to their natural carbon storage capacity would avoid emissions of 136 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year for the next 100 years -- about 25 percent of Australia's total emissions in 2005.

"In Australia and probably globally the carbon carrying capacity of natural forests is underestimated and therefore misrepresented in economic valuations and in policy options," said the report.

 

Rafflesia Speciosa, a very rare giant flower, is found inside the Mt. Kanlaon buffer zone!

Please follow this link to Haribon Foundation's page about various Rafflesia species:
Raffesia mira: yet another reason to be proud of the Philippines! | Haribon

Follow this link to reported findings of biodiversity study undertaken by Maunsell Philippine Inc. commissioned by PNOC-EDC:
Rare plant species found in Mt. Kanlaon - 1/25/08

 

Dear Gotz,

We are fighting our battles to protect Mt. Kanlaon in two fronts. On the legal fora we question the very constitutionality of the laws that now provide legality to EDC's ecological carnage. And on the other hand, we wanted to put an actual stop to the cutting of 4,213 trees...

Our recent court hearing scored victories and offered hope to our legal battle. But the slow grind of the legal process offered bleak prospects to, if not totally sealed, the fate of the remaining 3,000 plus trees.

By September 5 all of the trees we are trying to defend would have all been gone... And with them goes rare species of flora and fauna, the very rare Rafflesia Speciosa, including micro-organisms whose existence and characteristics would remain unknown to us. Whatever medical or scientific value they may have for the welfare of mankind would forever be lost.

Flaunting that they have planted 600,000 trees and reforested 536 hactares in Northern Negros, such a laudable feat in fact, the managers and owners of EDC have numbed their conscience and now wallow in ecological self-righteousness.

But a million trees can never replace a thriving bio-diversity that evolved, untouched by human hands, for years unnumbered. Human ingeniouity can not equal the silent workings of God's hands in husbanding His own creation.

You may join our ONE Negros Ecology Group at GreenWatch Philippines

Don

 

Dear Task Force Kanlaon,

I share your sentiments but on the other hand I am puzzled with this

The scientific or environmentally-concern community thinks that geothermal energy is an environmentally friendly energy alternative. Countries are encouraged to utilize this form of energy. And it seems that your sentiment contradicts this idea.

Your frontline concern is that 4,213 trees will be cut (actually cutting has started already) and that rare species will disappear and eventually mount Kanlaon will be dead.

My understanding is that this tree-cutting is not illegal. (illegal cutting is the culprit that kills our forest for the past decades). But this one is legal, in fact it will be replaced by a number fold of tree planting.

Disturbance of bio diversity. Yes it will be disturbed. But is the percentage of area to be disturbed will result to a total destruction of Mt. Kanlaon?

In southern Negros, Palinpinon Geothermal plant has been there for more than 30 years. I don’t hear that Valencia town, Mt. Talinis and Mount Balinsasayaw are dying. There were no flash floods in Dumaguete. In fact the area is now protected and illegal loggers can not touch this place. Kaingin is controlled because people get jobs. There is education about nature conservation and tree planting are carried on by PNOC and the community too. Forest flourishes. There are live lakes, rivers, falls, forest, flora, fauna. People exist in harmony with it, lives and enjoy in harmony with nature.

I understand that keeping Mt. Kanlaon exists as it is, is a 100% conservation. But people need to exist too and we need this valuable energy and Mt. Kanlaon can give it.

Shall we let go this opportunity and gift of nature?

 

Let's explore alternative sources of energy that has less impact to our ecology...

Thank you for your reply.

Greenwatch Phils. agrees about geothermal being renewable and we are not against using geothermal energy. But we also promote the use of other renewable sources like solar, wind and the waves.

Negros features well in the wind path of the country and wind power alone can produce more energy than what is required in the island and its neighbors. There are pending studies to put up wind farms in San Carlos and Pulupandan.

Some sectors also say that with the existing geothermal plants in Leyte and in Negros Oriental, there is suffecient power supply available if distribution is only improved. There is no need to spend billions for an additional geothermal facility, less money could be spent in improving distribution.

The Northern Negros Geothermal Plant had been built at the cost of P8-billion pesos of tax-payer's money. It produced only 4 megawatts of electricity instead of the projected 49 megawatt and had to be closed for 9 months to one year for maintenance due to calcification. Reason why they have to dig nearer the vulcano for more steam supply.

In the process they will destroy a part of our remaining primary forest in the island. The very rare giant flower, Rafflesia Speciosa, is found in the buffer zone.

In the course of its exploration, EDC cannot give assurance that it will be able to locate an ideal site that would produce enough steam to beef up the requirement of the now idle geothermal facility. What happened before can just be repeated all over again. They will not even be producing electricity in the next months, yet.

Windmills can be installed in less time, its output properly established. EDC are even putting up more windmills in Ilocos, too.

Furthermore, the Bacolod-based Save Mt. Kanlaon Coalition believes that the law that created the buffer zone and made exploration within it legal is, in the first place, unconstitutional. It has strong reasons that it can prove this in court and had filed a class suit against EDC, DENR, DOE and other parties of interest in the case.

It is in the light of all these that we call for a stop to the cutting of the trees until the case in court is finally settled.

We at Greenwatch Phils. go for renewable energy, yes, but one that does not inflict irreparable and unrecoverable damage to our primary forest.

Outside of our primary forest, we can count the trees we cut and replace them with well planned and laudable reforestation projects. We actively support that. Destroying a part our remaining primary forest becomes an entirely different issue altogether.

Don Flordeliza, Jr.
Greenwatch Phils., Inc.