COVERING THE PLANET IN FORESTS STILL WOULDN’T STOP CLIMATE CHANGE

[Michie]

"…THERE AREN'T ENOUGH TREES TO OFFSET SOCIETY’S CARBON EMISSIONS — AND THERE NEVER WILL BE."

Carbon Cycle
Anyone who’s taken a science class has probably learned that burning things puts carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, while plants swap it out for oxygen. So it’s not surprising that so many plans and corporate pledges to help reduce the ravages of climate change involve planting more and more trees.

That’s great, and reforestation in areas where tree cover has been removed will only accomplish good things for the planet. But unfortunately, according to new research, it can never be enough to actually make up for all the harm that humanity is doing to the world.

“But the fact is that there aren’t enough trees to offset society’s carbon emissions — and there never will be,” Imperial College London climate change and environment lecturer Bonnie Waring wrote in The Conversation.

Net Loss

Continued below.
Covering the Planet in Forests Still Wouldn’t Stop Climate Change

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Yes on other boards I've talked about this sort of thing. Especially when people talk about "Common Sense" measurers. The various Global Warming formulas vary greatly (it seems every scientist makes his own one), but it is quite common that if you use any one of them and make Draconian cuts to make a dent. Like you would need to end most fossil fuels to lower the Global degrees in Fahrenheit one degree. So most Global warming measures are purely psychological rather than practical, its basically penance for perceived environmental sin.

 

[Bob Crowley]

Assuming our climate ills are all down to too much carbon burning, there are a number of things that can be done.

Planting trees and other biomass is certainly a good start, and there should be a lot more of it. Give the Chinese CCP their due - when they decide to do something, they do it.

Moving away from fossil fuels is another - solar, wind and water power, and possibly hydrogen hybrid power for cars. I'm not optimistic about battery powered cars as I don't think there is sufficient resources for everybody to have one.

I live in Australia. Water power, except for a few limited places, is not an option, as it's a dry continent, with 70% being arid or semi-arid. But we get plenty of sunlight, and some places are windy eg. Perth in Western Australia.

We could also better plan our cities. We've grown up in a society which takes it for granted that to go anywhere, it's quite ethical to push around a ton of metal and plastic to get us there, and much of a trip might involved sitting on a congested highway burning up fuel and going nowhere, because everybody else is pushing around their ton of metal with us.

We might weigh 80kg - the vehicle will probably weigh anywhere between 500 to 2000 kg. We could walk a lot more or use pushbikes, or maybe use delivery services. If one delivery service does ten drop offs, that's ten individual trips the customers haven't made.

Working from home could be a valid option for those who work in an office environment.

I remember some years ago seeing a town in the former USSR on TV. It was an academic city or university town. It had been designed so that people could walk anywhere in the town in 20 minutes. Mind you the typical soviet block structure of the buildings helped, as a lot of people could be accommodated in a relatively small area.

There's a lot we could do - having the collective and imaginative will to do it is another thing.

I'm one of those who think the Catholic Church is barking right up the wrong tree regarding the contraceptive pill - as far as I'm concerned it was God' gift, given at the very time population growth was becoming a real problem in some parts of the world, with Catholic researchers involved, and using the body's own biological rhythm. I'm pretty sure that if John XXIII had lived a bit longer, he'd have approved it for use by married couples as recommended by the committee he set up, and also the committee expanded by Pope Paul VI. But Paul VI was a different character.

In my lifetime alone the world population has gone from 2.7 billion to 7.8 billion, and is due to hit 8 billion in 2023, which means that by 2024 it will have increased three times since I was born. We're struggling with climate change as it is. If we in the West think we're entitled to our standard of lifestyle, then so is everybody else.

I remember an agricultural economist saying that in the West to put a calorie of food on the table takes a calorie of fossil fuel energy to get it there.

Having said that, I remember reading somewhere that the earth could cater for ("has been designed for ?") a total population of 40 billion. If we reach that total, what are we supposed to do then? Suddenly stop breeding? Or are we expected to use the brains God's given us and plan our own societies?

There are things we can do regarding climate change. The original command was to look after the earth. We exploit it.

PS - I wondered how long it would take to reach 40 billion if we keep growing at the current rate. World population growth is currently at about 1 percent. Even at that rate, it would only take us about 160 years to get to 40 billion.

If we still had the 1970's growth rate of about 2%, it would take a mere century to get to 40 billion.

The world population growth rate is slowing, but it's not because everybody's using NFP. Unfortunately all too often it's abortion, but my guess is the major reason is the widespread use of contraceptives of one sort or another.

If everybody around the world had the large families Catholics used to be noted for, it wouldn't take very long at all before we really would have major problems. Even at one percent growth, each week there are another 1.6 million people - that means by my off the cuff estimation another 800,000 new homes, probably about 800 schools, two or three hospitals, 16,000kms of roads, 800,000 vehicles, a university, and I suppose about another 400,000 tons of food - each week, each year, every year.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Over time trees could actually save us, but we have to re-imagine their utility as fuel and building material.

 

[Palmfever]

...However, the science of forestry plantings is considerably uncertain. A recent study undertaken by the Planck Institute found that whilst trees do sequester carbon they may also contribute to climate change simply because ‘the earth’s vegetation is churning out vast quantities of methane’ which carries with it a global warming potential 23 times that of CO2. In addition, the extent to which the carbon released from the disturbance of soil, implicit in forestry plantings, negates the benefit offered by the sequestering of carbon by the trees, has been questioned. It is also suggested that the significant amounts of water required by eucalyptus trees, favoured by forestry planting operations, can lead to the die-off of existing vegetation forced to compete for water resources.

Even if we accept that forestry plantings, on balance, sequester a significant amount of CO2, a remaining question is what happens to the sequestered carbon once the trees die. In the case that a plantation turns into a self sustaining forest then one could argue that the growth of new trees would simply take the place of old trees and sequester the carbon subsequently released.

However, the exact mechanics of such carbon cycling are highly uncertain. In addition, the presence of fire as a reality of the Australian landscape and the potential that the manifestation of climate change will bring lower levels of rainfall in some areas further queries the permanence, certainty, and reliability of forestry plantings as offsets. Such permanence issues underlie the statement from Cambridge University botanist, Oliver Rackham that, ‘Telling people to plant trees (to address climate change) is like telling them to drink more water to keep down rising sea levels.’
https://treenet.org/resources/trees-and-carbon-trading/

 

[OldWiseGuy]

...However, the science of forestry plantings is considerably uncertain. A recent study undertaken by the Planck Institute found that whilst trees do sequester carbon they may also contribute to climate change simply because ‘the earth’s vegetation is churning out vast quantities of methane’ which carries with it a global warming potential 23 times that of CO2. In addition, the extent to which the carbon released from the disturbance of soil, implicit in forestry plantings, negates the benefit offered by the sequestering of carbon by the trees, has been questioned. It is also suggested that the significant amounts of water required by eucalyptus trees, favoured by forestry planting operations, can lead to the die-off of existing vegetation forced to compete for water resources.

Even if we accept that forestry plantings, on balance, sequester a significant amount of CO2, a remaining question is what happens to the sequestered carbon once the trees die. In the case that a plantation turns into a self sustaining forest then one could argue that the growth of new trees would simply take the place of old trees and sequester the carbon subsequently released.

However, the exact mechanics of such carbon cycling are highly uncertain. In addition, the presence of fire as a reality of the Australian landscape and the potential that the manifestation of climate change will bring lower levels of rainfall in some areas further queries the permanence, certainty, and reliability of forestry plantings as offsets. Such permanence issues underlie the statement from Cambridge University botanist, Oliver Rackham that, ‘Telling people to plant trees (to address climate change) is like telling them to drink more water to keep down rising sea levels.’
https://treenet.org/resources/trees-and-carbon-trading/

People who do these myopic studies have little experience or imagination.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"…THERE AREN'T ENOUGH TREES TO OFFSET SOCIETY’S CARBON EMISSIONS — AND THERE NEVER WILL BE."

Carbon Cycle
Anyone who’s taken a science class has probably learned that burning things puts carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, while plants swap it out for oxygen. So it’s not surprising that so many plans and corporate pledges to help reduce the ravages of climate change involve planting more and more trees.

That’s great, and reforestation in areas where tree cover has been removed will only accomplish good things for the planet. But unfortunately, according to new research, it can never be enough to actually make up for all the harm that humanity is doing to the world.

“But the fact is that there aren’t enough trees to offset society’s carbon emissions — and there never will be,” Imperial College London climate change and environment lecturer Bonnie Waring wrote in The Conversation.

Net Loss

Continued below.
Covering the Planet in Forests Still Wouldn’t Stop Climate Change

Why make "the perfect the enemy of the good"?

 

[Michie]

Why make "the perfect the enemy of the good"?

Who is doing that?

“As an ecologist, I worry that a simplistic perspective on the role of forests in climate mitigation will inadvertently lead to their decline,” Waring wrote.

 

[Palmfever]

People who do these myopic studies have little experience or imagination.

Perhaps, but how much imagination or experience did that reply involve?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Who is doing that?

The point of the article seems to be tasking trees to remove all of the troublesome CO2 from the atmosphere. Of course this isn't possible.

 

[Michie]

The point of the article seems to be tasking trees to remove all of the troublesome CO2 from the atmosphere. Of course this isn't possible.

Things work in harmony. That one of the points the article makes.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Perhaps, but how much imagination or experience did that reply involve?

Lots.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Things work in harmony. That one of the points the article makes.

And presents a nearly zero sum benefit of planting trees by presenting a biological model that supports that contention.

 

[Palmfever]

Lots.

I think you and I may agree on most subjects. My apologies if my retort came across as somewhat snide.

 

[Michie]

And presents a nearly zero sum benefit of planting trees by presenting a biological model that supports that contention.

Whatever.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think you and I may agree on most subjects. My apologies if my retort came across as somewhat snide.

No problem. It's all part of the rough and tumble here.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Things work in harmony. That one of the points the article makes.

I don't think I could work in harmony with the author of the article.

 

[Michie]

I don't think I could work in harmony with the author of the article.

I agree.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I agree.

Thankfully his perspective is not winning the day.

 

[Michie]

Thankfully his perspective is not winning the day.

I saw nothing wrong with her concerns.