Covering the ground: trees and COP26

Hey, Ryan Reynolds here wishing you a very happy half off holiday because right now Mint Mobile is offering you the gift of 50% off unlimited. To be clear, that's half the price, not half the service. Mint is still premium unlimited wireless for a great price. So that means a half day. Yeah, give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront.

Payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow 135 gigabytes of network busy taxes and fees extra see mintmobile.com.

Hello and welcome to the Intelligence from the Economist. I'm your host Patrick Lane, filling in for Jason Palmer. Every weekday we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world. This week, America's Supreme Court has been pondering the hot issues of abortion and guns. The conservative leaning court may strike down Texas controversial abortion law, but that's unlikely to be its last word. And it looks like lifting restrictions on gun licensing in New York cities. Looking for an economic Filip might consider inviting the United nations to set up shop. The areas around its African offices have their own rather upmarket economies. But first, Few expected that the UN Climate summit in Glasgow would be a spectacular or immediate success. But the week has yielded a number of pledges towards meeting the global temperature targets set in Paris six years ago. More than 40 countries have agreed to phase out the use of coal by 2030 or 2040, although that said, some of the biggest burners and miners, including America, Australia, China and India, haven't signed up. America and the European Union have promised to cut emissions of methane, the gas responsible for more warming than any other except carbon dioxide. And more than 100 world leaders have promised to end deforestation by 2030. They include President Joe Biden.

It is this simple.

Let's get to work. We can do this.

But also President Vladimir Putin, who noted in his speech that a fifth of the world's forests are in Russia. Getting such agreement between leaders is difficult, seeing the promises through much harder, not least when it comes to deforestation.

In the arsenal of things that can be done to tackle climate change, there's this perception that trees are the simplest thing that you can do. They're the easiest to understand, and all you have to do is plant a tree.

Katharine Brajk is the Economist's environment editor and one of the team on, To a Lesser Degree, our sister podcast about tackling climate change.

The irony is trees are in fact, one of the most complex aspects of all of this.

Kat, what's been tried before and is there a chance that this time might be different?

There have been similar declarations in the past. Most notably, in 2014, we saw the New York Declaration on Forests, in which governments, companies and NGOs committed to halving deforestation by 2020 and ending it entirely by 2030. The 2020 target was missed, and the 2030 target at the minute looks like it's going to be a stretch. Of course, that's now been rep in this new pact. One point is notable that this time Brazil and Indonesia have signed onto the agreement. India, however, has not. And then, very importantly, we've seen some commitments from the private sector, from financial institutions, to basically root deforestation out of the supply chains in the portfolios. And that is really important because it's really only once it's no longer financially viable to slash forests that the incentives to end deforestation will start to kick in.

And how significant is the role of deforestation in climate change?

It's really important. So slashing, burning, thinning trees, generally degrading forests, accounts for 11% of global emissions. It's also important to note that it's not just about stopping those kinds of activities, but also about reforesting, restoring areas that were once cleared. So forests serve as both a source of emissions through deforestation, but they're also carbon sinks, and they remove a net 7.6% 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year. So anything that can be done to a maintain that sink, but also importantly, increase that sink is key.

Okay, so suppose a country has a lot of existing forests. What might that imply for its climate change pledges?

Actually, a lot of countries around the world have incorporated forestry into their climate pledges under the Paris Agreement. And in some cases that makes sense, right? If you're a small country and you have a lot of forests and you're actually paying quite a lot, or you're investing quite a lot into maintaining those forests or possibly expanding those forests, and against that you have only a small amount of actual emissions. Then you can basically say that you've already reached net zero. So, for instance, Myanmar is in this situation. It emits less each year than its forests absorb. And so effectively, it can claim carbon neutrality. The quantities that we're talking about there are tiny. It becomes problematic when you're looking at a large country. So say Russia, which has vast forests but also significant industrial emissions. And Russia has always planned on using its forests in order to meet its Paris goals. It's actually written into its pledges, although it's allowed currently under accounting rules, if you Think about it. It's a little bit problematic to say because Russia has large forests that soak up lots of carbon every year, it can continue emitting lots of carbon. It might be sound in terms of current accounting rules, but it's not sound in terms of the physics of the climate. What really needs to happen is fossil fuel emissions need to come down. You can't carry on offsetting them against natural background forestry.

You mentioned the role of the private sector in the new agreements, Cat, can you say a little bit more about that?

There's several ways in which the private sector sort of has a role in forestry. One is basically through supply chains. There's actually quite a lot of deforestation that's embedded into trade and there's an increasing awareness of this. And increasingly the private sector is actually trying to strip deforestation out of its supply chains. There's also some legislation in the works, including for instance, in Europe and in the uk, to require of the private sector that it declare or that identify any way in which its supply chains might encourage deforestation. The other aspect is through voluntary carbon markets. And this is the kind of thing where, for instance, at the simplest level, when you fly to New York and back and you can buy offsets on the voluntary carbon market for that flight, there's very variable standards for the quality of that offset. And this is really important because ultimately, if you are buying an offset for, say, a ton of CO2, you want to know that that ton of CO2 is not going to end up in the atmosphere at some point. And there's many ways in which it could still end up in the atmosphere. If you're investing in trees, how could.

It still end up in the atmosphere?

The tree, for instance, could get cut down at some point, or it could end up in a wildfire and all of that carbon ends up back in the atmosphere. So this is the issue of permanence. There are issues of additionality. So you need to know that the project that you're putting your money in is genuinely add to the global area of tree cover. You want to ensure that you are not affecting local populations by basically forcing them off their land through afforestation programs. So there's a lot of standards and regulations that currently are kind of all over the place and that need to be thought through.

This week we've seen pledges on burning coal and on reducing methane emissions. How does curbing deforestation and planting trees fit into this?

Forests are a really important part of arriving at a stable climate. We know from climate models that in the second half of this century, if we are to stabilize the climate within Those periscopes of 1.5 to 2 degrees above pre industrial, not only will humanity have to have stopped burning fossil fuels, but on top of that we will also have to be removing large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. And the easiest, the cheapest, the best tested way of doing that is through forestry.

Kat, thanks very much for your time.

Thank you very much, Patrick.

Mr. Chief justice, and may it please the Court.

The Text it has been a weighty week at the U.S. supreme Court. The Justices heard arguments over two of the most contentious issues the Court touches on gun rights and abortion rights. On Monday, they looked again at Texas abortion law, which allows members of the public to bring lawsuits against anyone who enables an abortion after six weeks. And on Wednesday they heard debates over New York gun law touching on whether Americans have a right to carry a gun outside the home. No fresh judgments have yet been handed down in these cases, but the hearings shed some light on the future direction of the court, now that the three justices appointed by President Donald Trump are settled in and the Court has an established conservative majority.

The case is New York State Rifle and Gun Association v. Bruen, and it was about the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and more specifically whether and how this gives Americans a right to carry a gun outside their home.

Stephen Mazzy is the Economist's Supreme Court Correspondent.

Since 1913, the state of New York has said that only people who can show proper cause may get a general license to carry concealed weapons. It's pretty easy to get a restricted license to carry a weapon, to target practice or to go hunting. But if you would like to tote a gun along with you wherever you go, you need to give local authorities a good reason that goes beyond a general fear of crime or living in a high crime neighborhood. The Rifle association is suing to strike down that law.

So Stephen, how significant is this case? How big a deal is this?

The effects could be far reaching. The ruling will have an impact on New York State and six other states with similar laws, including California, New Jersey, Massachusetts. More broadly, the Court hasn't looked at gun rights in over a decade. In 2008, the Supreme Court struck down a handgun regulation in the District of Columbia in the Heller decision, and it recognized for the first time that an individual has a right to keep a gun at home for self defense. But since 2008, 2010, when they applied that ruling to state laws as well as federal laws, the justices have refused to weigh in on the constitutionality of other regulations, to the great chagrin of gun rights advocates. Well, that reticence to expound further in what the Second Amendment means seems to have dissipated as the conservative majority on the court has grown from a wobbly 5 to 4 to a fairly solid 6 to 3 over the past four years.

And how did the arguments play out?

In its original petition to the justices, the Rifle association said that the state may not reserve for a happy few a right that the Constitution protects for all the people. And that was really the heart of the plaintiff's argument yesterday. New York's lawyers insisted that their law is consistent with weapons restrictions going back seven centuries. You have to show that you have an atypical need to exercise the right that distinguishes you from the general community. That describes a privilege. It does not describe a constitutional right. That is a sufficient basis to invalidate the law. But then, as he was wrapping up his case, Paul Clement, the lawyer arguing against the law, said that having to establish that you are a member of the community with an atypical need to merit a general carry license describes a privilege, not a constitutional right.

What do you think the Court might decide?

New York's law seems destined to be struck down, so there are three possibilities. First, the court could strike the law down narrowly. They could say, rewrite your gun licensing rules to look more like those of the 43 states where you don't need to show some special cause to get a license. Second, the court could jump on a trend and force all states to allow people to carry guns without even applying for or having a license. This is so called constitutional carry, or more accurately, permitless carry. Or third, and most broadly, the court could radically expand the Second Amendment under an interpretation that would make it hard to pass or defend just about any gun control laws, including waiting periods or background checks or bans on certain types of weapons. We'll find out how this comes down in the spring. But given the questions from the justices, I think the first option is the most plausible. But even it will be far from mild. It could result in a vast proliferation of guns on the streets in dense urban areas like New York City.

But that wasn't the only prominent case that was argued this week. The justices also looked at Texas abortion law. What was being argued there, and how did that go?

Yes, it was a busy week at the court, to say the least. Two months ago, the court barely said anything when it voted 5 to 4 in declining to block the Texas law, which empowers any private citizen to sue anyone who helps facilitate an abortion after six weeks and then to collect a $10,000 bounty from them. This time, the Court is taking a closer look in a case from the federal government and one from abortion clinics. And I think this time it's going to come out differently. Only three of the nine justices are in their hearts concerned about protecting abortion rights per se. But at least three of the conservatives seemed very uneasy with the structure and the implications of Texas's law, which is designed to nullify a constitutional right. Justice Kavanaugh cited an amicus brief from the Firearms Policy Coalition and noted that Texas's approach could threaten other constitutional rights.

And it could be free speech rights, it could be free exercise of religion rights, it could be Second Amendment rights. If this position is accepted here, the theory of the amicus brief is that it can be easily replicated in other states that disfavor other constitutional rights.

He raised the hypothetical of a state that makes everyone who sells an AR15 subject to a $1 million fine through private lawsuits. Are these gun shop owners out of luck the same way that abortion providers would be and are In Texas, anyone.

A state passes a law, anyone who declines to provide a good or service for use in a same sex marriage, million dollars sued by anyone in the state that's exempt from pre enforcement review.

Texas lawyers said yes, yes, I'm sorry, you, Honor.

Yes, that's a yes. That's exempt from.

And this for me was the end of the argument, even though there was an hour and a half to go.

And so looking at these cases together, Stephen, on these two highly controversial issues, do you get a sense of the future of the court?

Well, it seems that the Texas abortion law may be on the way out. I think the Court will revive the abortion providers lawsuit and it may act with much more dispatch than it usually does, to my mind, before the month is out. And when it does that, the clinics will go back to the district court and persuade it to quickly put the law on hold while litigation presses on. That may doom the Texas law, but I'm not sanguine at all about the medium term future of abortion rights. In the hands of this majority, abortion is coming back on the docket in less than a month. On Dec. 1, the court could overrule Roe vs. Wade or more likely, in my view, mangle Roe and do real harm to abortion rights without explicitly abandoning the 1973 precedent. As for guns, there seems to be a conservative bloc that's perhaps just as hungry as the far right bloc, but a little more patient and less hasty. So I think this will be a first step, rather than a huge leap toward a more robust Second amendment.

Stephen, thank you very much for your time.

Thanks very much for having me on, Patrick.

If you ever find yourself in Dakar or Nairobi and you want to find an expensive restaurant, imported breakfast cereal or even a high end car wash, try looking up the local offices of the United Nations. You'll find bustling neighbourhoods full of foreign workers and their big bucks are creating special economies in the developing world.

I recently went to Gigiri. It's a very pleasant, leafy corner of Nairobi where the UN has its African headquarters.

Avantika Chilcote is the Economist's international correspondent.

It's really immediately clear how important the UN is there. The street signs make it completely obvious. You have United Nations Crescent, which leads to United Nations Avenue, and there are 5,000 UN staff at this headquarters. And you see the impact of that on the business around there. There's loads of fancy restaurants, there's hotels, there's even a really big shopping mall.

And are these fancy neighborhoods entirely to do with the UN's presence?

Yeah, I would say a large part of this economy that's based there is thanks to the un. You have UN employees with a lot of money to spend, basically propping up this economy. So in the un, you have something called professional staff. These are the guys who move around the globe and they can make between 60 to $200,000 a year, which is plenty to live in an African capital. And that's why, you know, you get big suppliers competing for UN contracts, you get businesses growing up around UN headquarters. If you're an unskilled worker, you want to get a job as a cleaner, a security guard, a driver in these areas. Even posh cafes and dry cleaners pop up around there.

What do the locals make of this little UN ecosystem of cash and restaurants and everything else?

The assumption would be, is there resentment? And of course, people are really aware of how much more money UN employees have. But a lot of people are pragmatic. I spoke to Dmitry Vasnier, who's a chef at a restaurant in Les Almady, which is a neighborhood in Dakar where the UN has a lot of its Senegalese offices. And he sees the irony in people who work on development and on the environment arriving at his restaurant in big four wheel drives in, ordering big buffets that go untouched. But he does recognize that the UN staff are a really important clientele to keep these businesses ticking.

So overall, this phenomenon is a net good for African capitals, then?

Well, there are obvious downsides. So A big UN presence can distort the local job market. The UN has this principle that suggests that locally hired staff who are paid in local currency should be paid among the best in an area, but not the absolute best. For example, in Nairobi, a driver could make between $9,000 and $14,000 a year. Say that's realistic. A skilled assistant could make 32,000 to $50,000. It's a lot less than expat staff. But in a country where the GDP per capita in a year is about $1,800, it's a lot. And that's pretty difficult for other employers to compete with.

And so presumably cities can become pretty dependent on this level of UN spending.

Yes, and you saw that really recently with COVID Businesses in Gagiri really struggled during the lockdowns. Offices emptied out. Expats were either leaving the country or working from home, and that impact was really felt. It's the same in Dakar. There's a plan to relocate the various UN officers from Las Al Medi to a new 30km outside Dakar. And lots of businesses are worried about it. Dimitri, the chef I spoke to, he's certainly worried. In general. He thinks, as a lot of people in the area do, that even if the UN leaves, the little economy that's grown up there should do well. All in all, people do realize that the UN's presence in these emerging market cities is a huge benefit to the local economies, even for the UN themselves. They appreciate that having workers on the ground, near the poor, near the places which need this development work is incredibly important. So it looks like African cities are going to keep benefiting from the UN's presence for years and years to come.

Vantica, thanks very much for joining us.

Thanks for having me.

That's all for this episode of the Intelligence. If you like us, give us a rating on Apple Podcasts and you can subscribe to the Economist at economist. Com intelligenceoffer. See you back here tomorrow.