Project Johnny Appleseed:

The Case for Forest Carbon Sequestration

“A car with bad brakes is driving toward a cliff in the fog. The cliff is the severe or
irreversible disruption of the world's climate. The fog is the lack of scientific certainty about
where that cliff is. The car with the bad brakes is, well, us.” John Holdren, Director of the White
House Office of Science and Technology Policy, used this analogy to describe U.S. policy
toward climate change. In an effort to stop America from falling off this dangerous precipice,
today my partner and I stand resolved: That the United States Federal Government should
significantly reform its environmental policy.

Observation I. Definitions

Reform: to put or change into an improved form or condition

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reform

Environmental Policies: An organization's philosophy, intentions, and objectives regarding the

environment.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/environmental-policy.html

Carbon Sequestration

Terrestrial carbon sequestration is the process through which carbon dioxide (CO2) from the
atmosphere is absorbed by trees, plants and crops through photosynthesis, and stored as carbon
in biomass.

Essentially, carbon sequestration is planting trees to absorb carbon dioxide, thereby

reducing global warming.

http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/faq.html#9

Observation II. Inherency

Climate Change is a global issue. In order to effectively combat the issue of global warming,
there must be global support and action to reduce and offset carbon emissions. This was
noted by

Hari M. Osofsky, Associate Professor, Washington and Lee University School of Law; B.A.,
J.D., Yale University Is Climate Change “International”? Litigation’s Diagonal Regulatory
Role, http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Alumni_Affairs/OsofskyIsClimateChange.pdf,
June, 2009

“Even the most diehard climate skeptics generally acknowledge the global dimensions of the
carbon cycle Greenhouse gases and their impacts involve complex interactions among the
atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial forms that interconnect the entire planet. Given the
international dimensions of the problem of anthropogenic climate change, only a few outliers
would contest the value of creating an effective treaty regime to address emissions.”

Why hasn’t such a global treaty been created?

Well, current negotiations are stalled due to a lack of leadership on the part of the United
States.

The Los Angeles Times, For U.S., leadership role in climate talks should begin in Washington
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-copenhagen23-
2009dec23,0,2588247.story, December 22, 2009

“We haven't given up hope for a worldwide climate accord. Such a deal is important, and
someday it should be achievable. But Washington needs to get its own house in order before it
can play a leadership role in global climate talks, or expect them to bear fruit. Right now, we're less
concerned about the lack of action in Copenhagen than about the lack of action on a climate bill by the U.S. Senate. Granted, the world has to
contend only with demagogues like Chavez, who at least grasps the clear evidence that climate change is happening; we've got to deal with the
the U.S. bears an overwhelming
likes of Republican Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, who considers it a hoax. Nonetheless,
burden of responsibility for the problem, and the world will follow only if it first sets a good
example.”

Lack of U.S. leadership will shatter hopes of an international climate agreement. If no

agreement is reached, climate change will not be solved and will result in the following harms.

Observation III. Harms

Three specific harms will result from continuing to ignore climate change.

Harm A. Damaged Economy.

David W. Orr (is the Paul Sears Distinguished Professor of Environmental Studies and Politics
at Oberlin College. He is the author of five books, including Design on the Edge: The Making of
a High Performance Building. His next book,  Down to the Wire: Confronting Climate
Collapse,  will be published this summer), “Learning to Live With Climate Change Will not be
Enough”, http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2158, June 1, 2009

“There is, third, a “stitch in time saves nine” economic argument for giving priority to
mitigation. Stabilizing climate now will be expensive and fraught with difficulties, but it will be
much cheaper and easier to do it sooner rather than later under much more economically difficult
and ecologically harrowing conditions. Nicholas Stern, for one, estimates ‘that if we don’t act
[soon], the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5 percent
of global GDP each year, now and forever.’”

Harm B. Damaged credibility.

Earth Times.org, “EU Expects More U.S. Climate Action to Restore Credibility”,
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/260336,eu-expects-more-us-climate-action-to-restore-
credibility--summary.html, March 17, 2009

“European Union officials said Tuesday there had been a noticeable shift in climate policy since
President Barack Obama took office, but said they expected more drastic action before
the United States could gain international credibility on the issue.”

Harm C. Lives lost.

The Global Humanitarian Forum, “The Anatomy of a Silent Crisis” , p 10-11,

http://www.ghfgeneva.org/Portals/0/pdfs/human_impact_report.pdf, 2009

“Application of this proportion projects that more than 300,000 die due to climate change every
year—roughly equivalent to having an Indian Ocean tsunami annually.13 The number of deaths from
weather-related disasters and gradual environmental degradation due to climate change — about 315,000 deaths per year — is based on a similar
calculation, (i.e. an attribution of 40 percent from weather-related disasters that translates into 40 percent of the death burden from weather
Over 90 percent of the death toll
disasters due to climate change and 4 percent of current death burden from disease14).
relates to gradual onset of climate change which means deterioration in environmental quality,
such as reduction in arable land, desertification and sea level rise, associated with climate
change. As for the number of seriously affected, the basis for the estimations of deaths is negative health outcomes.”

How can the U.S. take leadership to prevent this global crisis?

The primary way the U.S. can show leadership on climate change is in its policy toward
forestation.

Zach Rosenberg, IPS News, Climate Change: Experts Call for U.S. Leadership on
Deforestation, http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48770, October 8, 2009

“The Commission on Climate and Tropical Forests, composed of influential Washington

insiders, released a report Wednesday outlining changes to U.S. policy that it says must be made
to prevent catastrophic climate change.  The commission lays out an extensive initial framework
for reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD), hinging on international partnerships and
preservation incentives for developing nations. The framework calls for the allocation of one billion dollars before 2012 to slow deforestation in
developing nations, and 14 billion dollars annually by 2020. At least two-thirds of this proposed funding would come from private
sources. "Slowing
deforestation is the most cost-effective choice of all the carbon emissions
curbing actions," said John Podesta, the commission's co-chair and president of the Centre for
American Progress. "We need to protect our forests. Our common future depends on it." 

For this reason, my partner and I present to you the following plan.
Observation IV. The Plan

A. Mandates

i. $30 billion dollars a year shall be appropriated by the U.S. government to implement a
500 million ton annual domestic forest-carbon sequestration program.

ii. Once a carbon sequestration forest meets maturity, the wood will be harvested and
sold. After harvesting, new forests will be planted to continue sequestering carbon.

iii. Our program may only be carried out on federal lands.

B. Our plan shall be carried out by the Department of thed Interior and the U.S. Forest Service
and overseen by Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency.

C. Funding for our plan shall come from General Federal Revenues.

The Affirmative team reserves the right to clarify and expand on this plan as needed in future
speeches.

Observation V. Solvency

In order to assure you of the workability of our plan, I would like to consult:

Dr. Robert Stavins, Director of Harvard University’s Environmental Economics Program, What
Role for U.S. Carbon Sequestration, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/analysis/stavins/?
p=225, who in July 21, 2009 article stated:

“A 500 million ton per year sequestration program would be very significant, offsetting
approximately one-third of annual U.S. carbon emissions.  At this level, the estimated costs of carbon sequestration
are comparable to typical estimates of the costs of emissions abatement through fuel switching and energy efficiency improvements.   This
result indicates that sequestration opportunities ought to be included in the economic modeling
of climate policies.  And it further suggest that if it is possible to design and implement a domestic carbon sequestration program, then
such a program ought to be included in a cost-effective portfolio of compliance strategies when the United States enacts a mandatory domestic
greenhouse gas reduction program. 
Large-scale forest-based carbon sequestration can be a cost-effective
tool that should be considered seriously by policy makers.”

Observation VI. Advantages

Our plan has four specific advantages.

Advantage A. Stabilized Economy

The International Monetary Fund, Climate Change and the Economy,

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2008/03/tamirisa.htm, March 2008

“The encouraging news is that the analysis shows that climate change can be addressed without
either hurting macroeconomic stability and growth or putting an undue burden on the countries
least able to bear the costs of policies. In other words, if policies are well designed, their
economic costs should be manageable.”

Advantage B. Restored Credibility.

Jackie Frank, reporting for Reuters, “U.S. Climate Vote Boosts Washington’s Credibility”,
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN26344280, in a June 26, 2009 article, quoted
Dr. Stavins

“’Those who are astute recognize the importance of commitment by the U.S. that has the greatest
credibility is not our signing an international agreement; it is putting in place domestic
legislation,’ Stavins said. ‘That's what's binding.’” 

Advantage C. Improved Environment

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website, Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and

Forestry, http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/faq.html#9, July 28, 2009

“Practices that aim to reduce carbon losses and increase sequestration generally enhance the
quality of soil, water, air and wildlife habitat. Tree planting that restores fuller forest cover may
not only sequester carbon but could improve habitat suitability for wildlife. Preserving threatened tropical
forests may 87avoid losses in both carbon and biodiversity, absent any leakage effects. And reducing soil erosion through tree
planting or soil conservation measures can sequester carbon and improve water quality by
reducing nutrient runoff.”

Advantage D. Lives Saved.

Dr. Richard Horton, Lower Carbon Saves Lives, Professor at the University of London School of
Hygiene, http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/news/2009/lowercarbon.html, November 26, 2009

“This latest report from The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine will show the
huge health dividends that will accrue if we take decisive action now to address climate change.
Not only will the world be healthier by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but we will be
healthier also." 

Thank you and I am now open for questions by the Negative team.