Deforestation accounts for about 20% of global emissions of carbon dioxide.

So what do you make of this from the BBC: “Brazil says the rate of deforestation in the Amazon increased by 28% … after years of decline. … The provisional statistics from August 2012 to last July suggest that the area suffering deforestation was 5,843 sq km”. (It’s easiest to think of that as a square of about 76km on each side: that’s a lot of trees!)

At least it’s better than the worst year, 2004, when the forest destruction was nearly 5 times worse (27,000 sq km). But it’s the new reversal that is the concern. “Activists have blamed the increase in destruction on a controversial reform to Brazil’s forest protection law.”

So do you believe the Brazilian Environment Minister when she says: “The government is working to reverse this “crime””? … or is that just political spin?

But maybe here is some better news, again from the BBC:

Nations meeting in Warsaw at UN talks [over this last 2 weeks] have agreed … a package of decisions that will reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation plus pro-forest activities (known as Redd+). Among other things this “will give “results-based” payments to developing nations that cut carbon by leaving trees standing.”

Sounds good. But wait on … here’s … “The biggest issue … developed countries still need to ante up the $20-$35bn a year necessary for a global Redd+ programme.”

Hmmm … I wonder how well that will go?

I think we’ve got an idea how Tony Abbot will react, so so have others around the world. This titbit from the Warsaw conference:

“Several hundred environmental campaigners walked out en-masse from climate talks here in Warsaw saying they felt no progress was possible [and angry] over the slow pace of negotiations.

There was also annoyance among negotiators from developing countries about the attitude of Australia, which, under new prime minister Tony Abbott, has signalled a more sceptical approach to climate issues.

And, of course, we remember that Abbott also has the knife into the foreign aid budget. So again we have the all too familiar situation: talk is cheap, intentions sound good, but then it come down to finding the money!

We were discussing these matters over lunch today with my daughter visiting from Melbourne. She has 3 kids aged 11 to 14. I asked did the kids understand what was going on in the environment?

“Oh sure they do. They all understand that the planet has been %@*#^d”

“Where does that attitude come from?”

“Everywhere: school; friends; reading; news. For them it’s an unarguable truth. They get it. But they can’t do anything much about it.” “The youngest was half watching something on TV the other day and said, “it makes me so angry to see that going on””.

That’s certainly something 2 ponder …