学进去

A leaked IPCC draft reports, “Widespread use across millions of square kilometers globally of tree-planting and bioenergy crops could have potentially serious consequences for food security and land degradation (退化).” In other words, more massive monocultures (单种栽培) and more bioenergy crops, fueled by more fertilizers, could damage the structure of the environmental soil and its capacity to absorb carbon.

Everyone knows that to help ease the increasing climate crisis, we need to plant new trees. It’s said that the earth could support an additional 9,000,000 square kilometers of forest, potentially hosting 500 billion trees capable of capturing more than 200 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide at maturity. It would be a serious help to the environment.

Bioenergy now holds a 50 percent share of the world’s renewables consumption—as much as hydro, wind, solar and all others combined. It’s good news, but not entirely. If we consider that increasing desertification and rising ocean levels will take away more arable (可耕种的) land, we arrive at a crucial “trilemma”(三难困境). Should we use our spare soil for agriculture, reforestation or bioenergy?

Such a question would make sense in a multilateral, harmonious world, not on a planet where the richest country cancels an environment-saving agreement, thus encouraging the most tropically-forested nation to set about cutting trees.

Last year, 36,000 square kilometers of forest was cut down. Wouldn’t it be better to start by stopping deforestation altogether? Animal farming takes up 77 percent of the world’s arable land and provides us with 18 percent of the calories. Shouldn’t we cut back on global meat consumption? Modern bioenergy is already available. Shouldn’t we get rid of first-generation biofuels, which are produced from food crops?