Scorecard for Developed Countries

This scorecard rates the extent to which each developed country listed is prepared to take responsibility for the greenhouse gases it releases by cutting down trees. This is important because forest destruction is estimated to have caused about 20% of the increase in human-caused greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution.

In Canada, our boreal forests alone are estimated to hold close to 200 megatonnes of carbon within their trees and soils. Incentives for developed countries to stimulate greater forest conservation are critical in the next climate change agreement. Natural forests help us fight climate change; cutting forests makes it worse.

In the UN Climate Change negotiations in Copenhagen, countries were allowed to decide whether they would account for increased greenhouse gas emissions from forest management or be able to ignore these emissions. In this report, a country is scored based on its formal position coming into these Talks. I rate the countries on their willingness to take real responsibility for actual increases in the amount of greenhouse gases they release from cutting down trees.

Country	Historical baseline	Projected baseline	Account for true emissions	Henschel Rating
CAN				Thumbs Down. Canada adopts a projected baseline. The projection includes increased harvest and emissions from current levels. However, due to a recent downturn in Canadian harvesting and emissions, their projection is not far off the long-term historical average. Canada has not exploited this loophole as much as may other countries have.
RUS				Thumbs Down. Russia chose a historic baseline of 1990. Historic is great and 1990 is good, on the face of it. But RUS’s forests have changed a lot since 1990 and choosing this year allows Russia to get credits even though it plans to increased logging by nearly 60% in the next 50 years! And it has proposed an extra twist that makes sure it will never account for any emissions until its entire forest becomes a net contributor of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, losing any role in fighting climate change. Very BAD for the fight against climate change.
CHE				Thumbs Up! Switzerland chose a practical and responsible historic baseline. It does not maximize credits nor hide all emissions. It is a base period from 2001 – 2005, which is more statistically reliable than one particular year. Switzerland has also expressed openness for a longer base period (1990-2012). Switzerland is the only developed country that hasn’t tried to undermine environmental integrity to get the best outcome for itself. Excellent example of making forest count in the fight against climate change.
NOR				Thumbs Up. Norway chose a historical baseline of 1990. Even though this will allow Norway to increase harvesting and emissions from current levels, this baseline is more or less in keeping with the long-term historical average.
NZL				Thumbs Down. New Zealand is using a projected baseline. It is based on a plan to undertake massive harvests of forests which will result in an actual 188% increase in carbon emissions. But, it will not account for any of it because it is within their estimated baseline. For NZL to account for even a 1% increase they will have to raise their actual carbon emissions by 189%.
AUS				Thumbs Down. Like Canada, Australia is using a projected baseline of business-as-usual practices that will result in no accounting for a planned increase in emissions. It has also removed emissions from natural disturbances from the accounting but not explained how this was done.
JPN	N/A	N/A		Thumbs Down. An extreme proposal from Japan. No baseline at all. As long as its forests take in more carbon then they release from cutting them down, JPN wants full credit even if they are constantly eroding this ecological service through increased logging. This makes no sense. First, they will get credits even though they are making climate change worse. Second, at the point where forest cutting puts out more carbon than forests can take in is waaaay too late to start counting.
EU				Thumbs Down. The EU surprised everyone in Copenhagen by joining a race to the bottom. Usually a leader in climate change talks, the EU came forward with a proposal for all 27 of its member states to use projected baselines – even the good guys were forced to fall into line. Worse still, the EU has still not told the World what the basis of their projected baselines are. We know increased logging is in there but we don’t know how much. This lack of transparency threatens the whole agreement in Copenhagen. Thumbs Down. Germany, Finland, Sweden, Austria, United Kingdom and Estonia benefit most from their projected baselines.
US				??? Because the United States is not a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, it has not been participating in negotiations about accounting for emissions from forest management. The U.S. has been unwilling to say whether these rules will apply to them or what their baseline would be.

The scorecard is broken down into six columns:

Country: This lists each developed country that has been scored. The UN’s three letter abbreviation code for countries is used. Clicking on a country’s name will take you to their actual forest management submission.
Historic baseline: To account for increases in carbon emissions from cutting down trees a country needs to have a starting point, a baseline from which to measure. A historic baseline is an estimate of the actual carbon stored in forests or released by cutting forests in a past year. Using a historic baseline is important but does not guarantee that a country will account for actual increases in its carbon emissions.
Projected baseline:. This refers to setting a baseline in a FUTURE year from which carbon emissions will be counted. This method is problematic for catching actual increases in carbon emissions from year to year. These projections are more or less guesses and the public and other countries are unable to verify how truthful they are.
Accounting for increased emissions: A green check for countries that will account for increased emissions from cutting down trees from year to year.
Hiding increased emissions: A red X for countries that will not account for increased emissions from cutting down trees from year-to-year. Countries can avoid accounting for increased emissions through the choice of year for a historical baseline or by building an increase in logging and greenhouse gas emissions into a projected baseline. I consider use of this method to be cheating.
Henschel rating: Thumbs Up if a country is taking real responsibility for actual increases in its carbon emissions from cutting trees. Thumbs Down if a country is trying to increase its carbon emissions without being held responsible. Countries receiving Thumbs Down are weakening their target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Details: A summary of why I gave a country a thumbs up or a thumbs down on the scorecard.

Scorecard for Developed Countries

The scorecard is broken down into six columns:

Resources