World's Forests Discussion

Worldwatch Live Online Discussion

Janet Abramovitz: Senior Researcher

April 19, 2002 - 12:00pm EDT

Our guest will be Worldwatch Senior Researcher Janet Abramovitz. Janet will be talking about her newly released (April 16) World Summit Policy Brief on how the world's forests have fared in the 10 years since the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. In the brief, she also lays out the most promising policies for moving towards sustainable forestry.

Janet has written several Worldwatch Papers including: "Unnatural Disasters" (Worldwatch Paper 158) in 2001, Paper Cuts: Recovering the Paper Landscape (Worldwatch Paper 149) in 1999; "Taking a Stand: Cultivating a New Relationship with the Worl'Forests" (Worldwatch Paper 140) in 1998; and "Imperiled Waters, Impoverished Future: The Decline of Freshwater Ecosystems" (Worldwatch Paper 128) in 1996.She has published extensively on biodiversity and gender issues.

Dick Bell, Worldwatch: Welcome to this week's live chat. Our guest today is Worldwatch Senior Researcher Janet Abramovitz, who has just authored a special brief for the Johannesburg Summit on forests. She has written widely about forests and forest products, and about human actions and natural disasters. Welcome Janet.

Janet Abramovitz: Hello. I'm looking forward to the chat. Welcome to all participants.

Washington, DC: I keep hearing that there are more forests, not less, in the United States. If we're cutting them down so fast, how could there be more?

Janet Abramovitz: This is a great question.
Yes, there is more forest cover now in the U.S. than there was 100 years ago, but that is because most of the forests in the eastern half of the country had been cleared for farming in the preceeding centuries. As farming moved to the plains, forests cover filled in the abandoned farms of the east. The problems we have in the U.S. now are the cutting of old growth, the expansion of monoculture tree plantations, the spread of exotic invasive species, and other forest health problems.

Columbus, OH: What really happens to newspapers that go to recycling? Are we sending back enough paper to make any difference?

Janet Abramovitz: There is some good news. Recyling has increased worldwide.
Today we collect about 46% of old paper for recycling. However paper consumption is outpacing recyling so that more and more wood is needed to fill that demand.

There's still a lot more that could be receyled that isn't. For example, the US sends more paper to landfills each year than China consumes (and China is now 2nd largest consumer!

By the way, newsprint makes up only 12% of total paper use. Packaging makes up 50%, printing and writing paper (the fastest growing grade of paper) 30%, and sanitary paper just 7%.

Tampa, FL: Are you going to the World Summit in Johannesburg? What's the best thing that could come out of this conference for forests?

Janet Abramovitz: The best thing that could happen for forests is that individual governments to commit to taking action themselves, rather than waiting for a delayed and watered down intergovernmental response. Citizens should hold their governments accountable for their actions...or inactions.

St. Paul, MN: We've saved a lot of paper in our office by setting up a Paper committee. Everyone was surprised when we did a paper audit. Have you ever done a paper audit in your office at Worldwatch? I'd like to think you guys were trying to save paper too.

Janet Abramovitz: Yes, we do regular paper audits and find ways to save even more paper. In our recent audit we also found new sources for the paper we do buy with an eye for higher recycled content, process chlorine free, and even better inks.

My paper, "Paper Cuts" (Worlwatch paper 149) outlines lots of success stories of how businesses, offices, industry and consumers save money--and the forests--by chnaging their paper consumption.

Manchester, UK: Can we plant enough trees to soak up all the carbon dioxide we're making with our cars? Planting big tree plantations seems like it would be a good idea. What do you think?

Janet Abramovitz: The short answer is "not really."
Plantations carry their own sets of problems, and often come at the expense of natural forests which are better for long term carbon storage.
A better strategy would be to adopt more fuel efficient transportion.

Victoria, BC: Logging and clear-cutting are hot issues in BC. Should the BC government, or Ottawa, be doing more to protect the remaining virgin forests in BC?

Janet Abramovitz: Absolutely yes. The old growth forests of Canada are truly national and global treasures, and are being lost at a rapid pace (and with governemnt subsidies).

In my Worldwatch Paper 140 "Taking a stand..." I outline the situation and some solutions.

Many groups are working on the issue, from Sierra Legal Defence to Global Forest Watch to Greenpeace.

San Francisco, CA: When I was shopping for a dining table, I saw that some of the pieces were "certified" as being more environmentally friendly. Is this certification thing local, or national? Is it making any difference?

Janet Abramovitz: It depends who did the certifying. The only internationally recognized label/standard is from the FSC--The Forest Stewardship Council. You can more info on the web from them and from the Certfied Forest Products Council.

(Many of the other labels are little more than marketting tools, without the environmental standards to back up their claims.)

Seattle, WA: Besides using less wood, are there any new substitutes, like hemp, that would take the pressure off forests?

Janet Abramovitz: Some of the substitute have issues of their own. The best alternative fiber is agricultural waste (such as rice straw), rather than a crop grown specifically as a wood substitute (like hemp of kenaf), but they has limited geographic and economic viability in the US.

For paper, the most underutilized source of fiber is the huge amount of paper we still send to the landfills every year (see earlier question).

In my Worldwatch papers, "Paper Cuts..." and "Taking a stand..." I discuss these potentials in more detail.

Washington, DC: Why is it so hard to tell what's happening to the world's forests? The numbers seem all over the place.

Janet Abramovitz: As someone who has spent years wading through the numbers I share your frustration!

In "Vital Signs 2002", due to be released in June, there will be a feature in which I explain the forest cover numbers.

In the meantime, the short answer is that governments have not done a good job monitoring forests and forest cover. And the UN body that reports the numbers must rely on the government data.

Given the new technology that is available--satellite monitoring, global positioning systems, geographic informations systems, faster and cheaper computers, etc--it should be possible for governemnts to do a better job. And NGOs like Global Forest Watch are proving that it can be done.

Santa Fe, NM: How much more paper do we use in the US than they do in China or India? Do you have any estimate of what would happen if the Chinese raised their paper use to our level?

Janet Abramovitz: Today, about one-fifth of all the wood cut globally ends up in paper.

The US, with less tha 5% of the world's people uses 30% of the world's paper. Each person in the US uses about 335kg of paper each year--that's 7 times the world average, even twice the average for indutrial countries.

China has more than 20% or the world's population. It uses 11% of the world's paper, about 27 kg per person.

India has 16% of the world's people, consumes just 1% of the world's paper, and uses less than 4 kg per person per year.

The high level of forest consumption in the U.S. is unsustainable--it's even less sustainable if adopted by everyone else in the world. If everyone in the world used as much paper as average American, the world would need 7x as much paper. It's pretty clear that this planet does not have enough ecological space for American consumption habits.

There are some surprisingly straight forward ways out of this dilema. They are discussed in my Worldwatch paper "paper Cuts..."

Philadelphia, PA: No one's asked much about rainforests. Shouldn't we be more worried about these forests than any others?

Janet Abramovitz: We should be concerned about all of the world's forests. From the boreal forests, to the temperate forests, to the tropical moist and dry forests--they are all important and all under pressure. They provide vital goods and services that are important to local people as well as the planet. Each of us can take action to sustain the forests in our own backyard as well as the ones halfway around the planet.

Dick Bell, Worldwatch: Janet, thank you very much for being with us today. Join us next week for a very special chat about energy policy featuring Worldwatch President Christopher Flavin and the Rocky Mountain Institute's Amory Lovins. If you want to hear from two of the world's leading experts on sustainable energy technologies, join us! Friday, April 26, 12-1PM EDT, 17:00-18:00 GMT

Janet Abramovitz: Thanks to all the particiapnts for their great questions! We received many more than we had time to answer. I hope you all enjoyed the hour as much as I did.

Thanks again for your participaption,
Janet Abramovitz