At the national level, the US government wrote to appropriate ~2 billion USD towards the forest-protectionist REDD for 2011. The money would go to certain countries which in return,would not do something, i.e., cut down trees, which they might do, if the money was not given to them.
Fine, it is just a billion. just take it and go – you might exclaim. After all, the United States is pumping $7 billion annually to its own farmers to produce ethanol.
That is not how things work though. These monies are expected to become a part of ‘committments’, of ‘long term co-operative action’ — you can add your own assortment of eye-poking UN blandness and other gobbledygook noodles behind this – ‘ad-hoc working group’, subsidiary body for scientific and technologic advice’ ‘country-driven, gender-sensitive, participatory and fully transparent approach’ — but the message is the same.
How then is it, that the only thing of any substance in the gobbledygook noodles is the REDD stuff (p.18), sure to ‘draw inspiration’ from subnational projects and “inform the broader UN level negotiations” as Dan Nepstad, whom Pearce calls a ‘key architect of REDD’ points out?
There is obviously a disconnect here.