Living in a time where deforestation has led to global warming, the greenhouse effect, acid rain, loss of biodiversity and many more environmental issues; ‘saving trees’ to reduce emissions has become in the desperate need for a solution. The article ‘The Jargonaut: REDD All Over? Should we fight climate change by paying rainforest farmers not to raze tress?’ looks at an initiative presented at the United Nations climate summit last year. The initiative has the goal to “halt deforestation by 2030 and save the carbon equivalent of taking every car in the world off the road.” The initiative is known as REDD “Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation”. REDD’s strategy uses financial incentives to encourage governments and companies…show more content… Carbon trading is a covert scheme that uses forests in developing countries to continue the expansion and increase of Northern industrial pollution. It cannot be denied that the initiative could allow the conservation of rain forests, but does it really reduce greenhouse gases and carbon emissions in our atmosphere? Not if the REDD initiative continues to allow carbon trading. Relocating emissions is not by any means a solution to reducing them. Carbon trading “allows rich developed countries to dodge the hard work of reducing their own emissions.” Not only do I question REDD’s supposed claim to reduce carbon emissions, on the other hand is hesitant to believe their claim to respect indigenous communities. The use of financial incentives to encourage farmers to conserve their forests lead to a multitude of other concerns. The major concerns being that REDD or other industrial companies now have an incentive to forcefully take the land from the indigenous communities to profit off untouched resources. Therefore, collecting the ownership’s of the World’s forest resources into the control of a few corporations while leaving the indigenous communities to face the inequalities of