A two degree rise in global temperatures could halve the value of rainforests as a carbon sink while if climate change reaches a four degree rise the rainforests could become a net contributor of CO2 emissions rather than soaking any up. This means that there is little point in saving the rainforests before providing clean energy because the rainforests would begin dying due to climate change. Rather concentrating on clean energy should in turn allow the rainforests to be saved.

Recalling the fact that tropical rainforests contain approximately 40% of the carbon stored on Earth's continents and also account for at least 1/3 of the annual exchange of carbon dioxide between the atmosphere and biosphere, leaving them intact and even planting more of these can sequester much more CO2 emitted than would be otherwise saved by clean energy, thus higher reduction per unit cost is achieved by preserving forests (at least a more feasible short-term option for developing nations particularly in the tropics).

And several more ideas about forests to bear in mind: 1. The rate of CO2 entrance into the atmosphere due to logging and burning of forests, until clean energy is developed and deployed to a full- and global-scale, is faster than the rate of CO2 saving. 2. Tropical rainforests are where the highest degree of biodiversity is found, when conserving them, not only do you ensure the cheapest way to keep CO2 well within vegetation, over half of the world's species dependent on and indigenous to such are also well protected.

Power generation accounts for up to a quarter of CO2 emissions. It accounted for nearly 10billion tonnes of CO2 emissions in 2007. The United States alone accounted for 2.8 billion tonnes of that with China accounting for a similar amount.

Moreover power generation is a rapidly growing source of CO2 emissions, particularly in the large developing countries such as China and India who are increasingly using coal. China is adding more than 60 gigawatts of electricity generation capacity per year, almost all of it coal fired. This is made more problematic both because building new coal fired power plants locks in the extra emissions for several decades because a country is not going to shut down a new power plant that has been a major investment.

The reason I say this is because in establishing methods to produce clean energy, the rainforests can be saved as there would not be such a greater need to use the trEstablishing methods to produce clean energy, the rainforests can be saved as we are losing Earth's greatest biological treasures. yes there very few rainforests remining as they are being destroyed by both companies, and land owners which the benefits far outweight cost in the meium term. There is increasing oversightas to who is actual benefitng. Therefore increasing use of clean energy should correspond with increasing forest tree diversity.

Using fuel wood unsustainably is still a familiar sight in developing countries, where women and children are the most affected. Air pollution from is one of the highest causes of infant mortality is from acute respiratory illness associated with the inhalation of wood smoke. Women still have to bear the problem of obtaining water and wood. This indicates that there is a need to develop efficient and safe technologies to relieve women from such a burden. Such improvements are generally part of integrated measures aimed at income generation via the pursuit of economic and agricultural development that afford women a more qualitative and productive time. However, the easier entry points for renewable energy are generally not in the remote rural areas, but in the urban household and industrial sectors. It is here that the possibilities of the highest causes of infant mortality is from acute respiratory illness associated with the inhalation of wood smoke. yes it is true or important strategy to focus on clean energy.... so as the corresponding factor- long-term stability of an ecosystem. so humans the main cause of deforestation may need to dversify and this can reduce the vulnerability of the forest species, inhabitants(including plants, animals and microorganisms) before they will be severely threatened.

Clean enrgy means it is less likely to suffer catastrophic loss from diseases or pests due to tree diversity. Furthermore as the rainforest species disappear, so do prescription drugs or Western pharmaceuticals.But activites should start now for land reclamtion, afforestaion in tropical forests in Africa, Asia, and South America to counter the destruction of rainforests as world is facing the challenge of harnessing the earth’s resources effectively and efficiently. There is still a vast dependence on fossil fuels, and the use of this energy source is common to both developing and developed countries. ees for fuel.

Yes CO2 emissions continue to increase due to our needs for energy and we need a way to resolve this. How? the rainforests themselves. These rainforests absorb large amounts of CO2 everyday from the air around us, thus should play a vital role as we try to cut our losses. Due to loggong and the need for lumber the area of forests over the world have shrunk, thus less CO2 is absorbed. Even if we do find cleaner energy sources then we'll still have a large amount of residual CO2 in the atmosphere that's gotta be taken out some how. In the past, large amounts of volcanic activity pumped tonnes and tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere for a great stretch of time. But our naturally filters, that is, the forests, have the abilities to absorb huge amounts of CO2 per day thus reducing CO2 effects on the planets. Same rule should apply here, Time should be spent on replenishing the rainforests as right now they are the best removers of CO2 in the atmosphere we have.

Even if we had plenty of land to build solar and wind farms (which technically we do), and harness geothermal and hydroelectric sources, it's still not stopping the Amazon or other natural rainforests around the world from being cut down. There is enough bare land to use for a variety of reasons, be it agriculture or building homes, but rainforests are still being cut down every day in the name of development simply because the lumber industry profits from it.

While it's important to implement the use of clean energy as widely as possible, it is unacceptable to continue destroying our irreplaceable rainforests, their natural biodiversity and efficiency as natural carbon sinks. Solar panels can be installed practically anywhere, and wind farms can be placed at any location that is windy enough. The implementation of clean energy has nothing to do with rainforests, and neither issue should EVER be tied together as an excuse to clear what little rainforests that are left.

Rainforests have been maintaining CO2 ever since and with that we managed to have stable climatic condition. Replacing them with clean energy won't be a good solution as what we shall be trying to do is to mimic nature. This process has a lot of uncertainties and no guarantee can be given

Both of the points mentioned above are as equally important, which is why such a decisions is almost impossible to make. Clean energy, even though will be more benifitial towards the environment, does not neccessarily mean that it will not produce any waste products and pollute. Pollution shall simply be minimised. Even thoguh a very expensive and long term process, establishing a clean energy supply such as Solar, Wind and Tidal is vital to reduced the increased amounts of emissions given out into our atmosphere. Similarly, the existence of rainforests is just as important as reducing the polluting emissions that are suspended in the air around us. Trees absorb CO2 and give out oxygen through a natural process called photosynthesis. Therefore, not only do they reduce the harful CO2, but simultaneously they give out the "source of life", oxygen. If the production of clean energy is put over rainforest conservation then not only will there be much less CO2 absorbed, but not enough oxygen produced to fill our population's needs. It is estimated that the Amazon Rainforest itself produces about 10% of the oxygen available on this planet and that's why it rightful deserves its nickname of "Earth's Lungs". Both action plans are as vital for our planet's future as eachother and therefore we cannot afford to make a decision. We must provide answers to both.