REDD (reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries or reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation)

is an effort to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development.
-Deforestation and forest degradation, through agricultural expansion, conversion to pastureland, infrastructure development, destructive logging, fires etc., account for nearly 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions
- Acknowledge the contribution of deforestation emissions to global greenhouse gases emissions.
-This group or efforts point of view would be that we should focus on deforestation emission reduction and not so much on other ways we could reduce such as higher efficiency cars etc

Potential GOOD:
-Creates financial value for carbon stored in forests
-Helps to preserve biodiversity and vital ecosystems
-Volunteer basis
-has a conservation aspect

Potential BAD:
-Emissions beyond project may not be able to be controlled

-Scale of emission reduction small

-Would the financial aspect cover deforestation as well as degradation of forests?

- REDD is not the solution to the whole problem just a part of it. The home page for REDD seems to see it as the solution to ALL of the problems or at least a large part of the solution, bigger that it actually is?