As of 2007, the shrinking forests in the tropical regions were releasing 2.2 billion tons of carbon per year. Meanwhile, expanding forests in the temperate regions were absorbing 0.7 billion tons of carbon annually. On balance, a net of some 1.5 billion tons of carbon were being released into the atmosphere each year, contributing to global warming.
The tropical deforestation in Asia is driven primarily by the fast-growing demand for timber. In Latin America, by contrast, it is the growing demand for soybeans and beef that is deforesting the Amazon. In Africa, it is mostly the gathering of fuelwood and the clearing of new land for agriculture as existing cropland is degraded and abandoned. Two countries, Indonesia and Brazil, account for more than half of all deforestation. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, also high on the list, is a failing state, making forest management difficult.
Included in the Plan B blueprint to stabilize climate are plans to end net deforestation worldwide and to sequester carbon through a variety of tree planting initiatives and the adoption of improved agricultural land management practices. Today, because the earth’s forests are shrinking, they are a major source of CO2. The goal is to expand the earth’s tree cover, growing more trees to soak up CO2.
Although banning deforestation may seem far-fetched, environmental reasons have pushed three countries—Thailand, the Philippines, and China—to implement complete or partial bans on logging. All three bans were imposed following devastating floods and mudslides resulting from the loss of forest cover. After suffering record losses from several weeks of nonstop flooding in the Yangtze River basin, Beijing noted that when forest policy was viewed not through the eyes of the individual logger but through those of society as a whole, it simply did not make economic sense to continue deforesting. The flood control service of trees standing, they said, was three times as valuable as the timber from trees cut. With this in mind, Beijing then took the unusual step of paying the loggers to become tree planters—to reforest instead of deforest.
Other countries cutting down large areas of trees will also face the environmental effects of deforestation, including flooding. If Brazil’s Amazon rainforest continues to shrink, it may also continue to dry out, becoming vulnerable to fire. If the Amazon rainforest disappears, it would be replaced largely by desert and scrub forestland. The capacity of the rainforest to cycle water to the interior, including to the agricultural areas to the south, would be lost. At this point, a fast-unfolding local environmental calamity would become an economic disaster, and because the burning Amazon would release billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere, it would accelerate global warming.
Just as national concerns about the effects of continuing deforestation eventually eclipsed local interests, now global interests are beginning to eclipse national ones as deforestation has become a major driver of global warming. Deforestation is no longer just a matter of local flooding, but also rising seas worldwide and the many other effects of climate change. Nature has just raised the ante on protecting forests.
Reaching a goal of zero net deforestation will require reducing the pressures to deforest that come from population growth, rising affluence, the construction of ethanol distilleries and biodiesel refineries, and the fast-growing use of paper. Protecting the earth’s forests means halting population growth as soon as possible, and, for the earth’s affluent residents who are responsible for the growing demand for beef and soybeans that is deforesting the Amazon basin, it means moving down the food chain. A successful deforestation ban may require a ban on the construction of additional biodiesel refineries and ethanol distilleries.
Against this backdrop of growing concern about the forest-climate relationship, a leading Swedish energy firm, Vattenfall, has examined the large-scale potential for foresting wasteland to sequester carbon dioxide. They begin by noting that there are 1.86 billion hectares of degraded land in the world—land that was once forestland, cropland, or grassland—and that half of this, or 930 million hectares, has a decent chance of being profitably reclaimed. Some 840 million hectares of this total are in the tropical regions, where reclamation would mean much higher rates of carbon sequestration.
Vattenfall estimates that the maximum technical potential of these 930 million hectares is to absorb roughly 21.6 billion tons of CO2 per year. If, as part of a global climate stabilization strategy, carbon sequestration were valued at $210 per ton of carbon, the company believes that 18 percent of this technical potential could be realized. If so, this would mean planting 171 million hectares of land to trees. This area—larger than that planted to grain in India—would sequester 3.5 billion tons of CO2 per year, or over 950 million tons of carbon. The total cost of sequestering carbon at $210 per ton would be $200 billion. Spread over a decade, this would mean investing $20 billion a year to give climate stabilization a large and potentially decisive boost. This global forestation plan to remove atmospheric CO2, most of it put there by industrial countries, would be funded by them. An independent body would be set up to administer, fund, and monitor the vast tree planting initiative.
Aside from the Vattenfall forestation idea, there are already many tree planting initiatives under way that are driven by a range of concerns, from climate change to desert expansion, to soil conservation, to making cities more habitable. In late 2006, the U.N. Environment Program, inspired by Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangari Maathai, announced plans for a worldwide effort to plant 1 billion trees in one year to fight climate change. This initial target was easily exceeded and by mid-2008, more than 2 billion trees had been planted in more than 150 countries. The new goal is to have 7 billion trees planted by the end of 2009—just over one tree for every person on the planet.
A number of agricultural practices can also increase the carbon stored as organic matter in soils. Farming practices that reduce soil erosion and raise cropland productivity usually also lead to higher carbon content in the soil. Among these are shifting from conventional tillage to minimum-till and no-till, the more extensive use of cover crops, the return of all livestock and poultry manure to the land, expansion of irrigated area, a return to more mixed crop-livestock farming, and the forestation of marginal farmlands.
Rattan Lal, a Senior Agronomist with the Carbon Management and Sequestration Center at Ohio State University, has calculated the range of potential carbon sequestration for each of many practices, such as those just cited. For example, expanding the use of cover crops to protect soil during the off-season can store from 68 million to 338 million tons of carbon worldwide each year. Calculating the total carbon sequestration for the practices he cites shows a potential for sequestering 400 million tons of carbon each year at the low end, and 1.2 billion tons of carbon per year at the more optimistic high end. For our carbon budget we are assuming, perhaps conservatively, that 600 million tons of carbon can be sequestered as a result of adopting these carbon-sensitive farming and land management practices.
Ending net deforestation and sequestering carbon as described above will put us on the path to the Plan B climate stabilization goal of cutting net carbon emissions 80 percent by 2020. To see how raising energy efficiency and harnessing renewable sources of energy complete the picture, see Earth Policy Institute’s carbon cutting blueprint here.
——-
Originally published at earthpolicy.org. Adapted from Chapter 8, “Restoring the Earth,” in Lester R. Brown’s book Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008).
Copenhagen climate summit (part 1): the expectations
Soil carbon—a blind spot in the debate on carbon
Comments
View as Threaded
Pompey Road Posted 9:44 am
30 Dec 2008
The Amazon Rain forest gets more attention than the Appalachian Forest. I guess it may seem more sheik or PC to talk about the Brazilian forest but I can't under stand why environmentalist give them so much attention while our deciduous forest are being not only clear cut but the topsoil blown or scrapped off. I have no idea how much co2 the Appalachian Forest capture or sets during the spring through fall season. The methane gas from the rotting forest floor may offset what carbon they capture. A quick Google Earth tour of East Ky. And W.Va. Will give you an indication of the scope of the problem. Environmental attention and action should begin at home. I doubt U.S. Environmentalist will have much influence on foreign governments especially when they can't even stop deforestation in their home country.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
erich Posted 10:43 am
30 Dec 2008
Ultimately we must leave the combustion age behind. Charcoal to the soil is a bridging first step as other energy conversion technologies bloom from Nano and bio reasearch. Thankfully we can do TP now.
Oil interest must come to see the overwhelming value of their carbon as the feedstock for the manufacture ( via carbon nanotubes, fullerines, DNA programed nano self assembly, etc.) of virtually all things in the near future.
This convergences of different technologies will end the Combustion age.
TP starts as a soil nano technology with increased CEC, than a micro tech with our wee- beasties / fungus, and macro with bugs and worms.
Changing World Technologies
Ultimately we must leave the combustion age behind. Charcoal to the soil is a bridging first step as other energy conversion technologies bloom from Nano and bio reasearch. Thankfully we can do TP now.
Oil interest must come to see the overwhelming value of their carbon as the feedstock for the manufacture ( via carbon nanotubes, fullerines, DNA programed nano self assembly, etc.) of virtually all things in the near future.
This convergences of different technologies will end the Combustion age.
Terra Preta starts as a soil nano technology with increased CEC, than a micro tech with our wee- beasties / fungus, and macro with bugs and worms.
Biotic Carbon, the carbon transformed by life, should never be combusted, oxidized and destroyed. It deserves more respect, reverence even, and understanding to use it back to the soil where 2/3 of excess atmospheric carbon originally came from.
We all know we are carbon-centered life, we seldom think about the complex web of recycled bio-carbon which is the true center of life. A cradle to cradle, mutually co-evolved biosphere reaching into every crack and crevice on Earth.
It's hard for most to revere microbes and fungus, but from our toes to our gums (onward), their balanced ecology is our health. The greater earth and soils are just as dependent, at much longer time scales. Our farming for over 10,000 years has been responsible for 2/3rds of our excess greenhouse gases. This soil carbon, converted to carbon dioxide, Methane & Nitrous oxide began a slow stable warming that now accelerates with burning of fossil fuel.
Wise Land management; Organic farming and afforestation can build back our soil carbon,
Biochar allows the soil food web to build much more recalcitrant organic carbon, ( living soil biomass & Glomalins) in addition to the carbon in the biochar.
The recent EU permits granted 3RAgroCarbon , after 4 years of testing show Biochar's massive increase in yields of more than 100%
"Doses: 400 kg / ha - 1000 kg / ha at different horticultural cultivars
Plant height Increase 141 % versus control
Picking yield Increase 630 % versus control
Picking fruit Increase 650 % versus control
Total yield Increase 202 % versus control
Total piece of fruit Increase 171 % versus control
Fruit weight Increase 118 % versus control"
http://www.3ragrocarbon.com
Indeed, Dr. James Hansen, NASA's top Atmospheric authority, is now placing it in the center stage of pro-active solutions for the climate crisis.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf
As Dr. Lehmann at Cornell points out, "Closed-Loop Pyrolysis systems are the only way to make a fuel that is actually carbon negative". and that " a strategy combining biochar with biofuels could ultimately offset 9.5 billion tons of carbon per year-an amount equal to the total current fossil fuel emissions! "
Terra Preta Soils Carbon Negative Bio fuels, massive Carbon sequestration, 10X Lower CH4 & N2O soil emissions, and 3X FertilityToo
This some what orphaned new soil technology speaks to so many different interests and disciplines that it has not been embraced fully by any. I'm sure you will see both the potential of this system and the convergence needed for it's implementation.
The integrated energy strategy offered by Charcoal based Terra Preta Soil technology may
provide the only path to sustain our agricultural and fossil fueled power
structure without climate degradation, other than nuclear power.
Senator / Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar has done the most to nurse this biofuels system in his Biochar provisions in the 07 & 08 farm bill,
http://www.biochar-international.org/newinformationevents ...
POZNAN, Poland, December 10, 2008 - The International Biochar Initiative (IBI) announces that the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) has submitted a proposal to include biochar as a mitigation and adaptation technology to be considered in the post-2012-Copenhagen agenda of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). A copy of the proposal is posted on the IBI website at
The International Biochar Initiative (IBI).
Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.
In a recent National Public Radio interview, Michael Pollan talks about how he was approached by a Democratic party staffer about his New York Times article, The"Farmer & an open letter to the next president concerning U.S. agriculture/energy policy. The staffer wanted Pollan to summarize the article into a page or two to get it into the hands of Barack Obama. Pollan declined, saying that if he could have said everything that needed to be said in two pages, he wouldn't have written 8000 words.
Michael Pollan is well briefed about Biochar technology, but did not include it in his "Farmer & Chief" article to President Obama, (Which he did read & cited in a speech) but I'm sure Biochar will be his 8001th word to him.
Erich
540 289 9750
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 1:57 pm
30 Dec 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:38 pm
30 Dec 2008
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 7:37 pm
30 Dec 2008
Almonds are about as nutritious as soybeans and while they won't give you as much protein per acre the input costs are smaller as well. I'm sure there is some kind of tree crop that could be developed in the Amazon the could assist in maintaining tree cover and shade soils. I'm pretty fond of brazil nuts and would like to see more of them around.
Worldwide we need to see what we can do to promote tree crops and the effective storage of their produce. Even a line of shelterbelts or hedgerows between fields does a lot to maintain biodiversity and retain topsoils. The old shelterbelts planted in the 30's have been neglected and could do with some replanting.
Like the old saying says; when the going gets tough the tough go nuts.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 5:16 am
31 Dec 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
In the belly Posted 7:21 am
31 Dec 2008
BTW, this was the diagnosis on House the only time I ever got one right...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:30 am
31 Dec 2008
But they also have a large amount of carbon beneath the soil
AND the trees themselves emit water vapor during the day, and not at night. This allows for the region of the earth that gets the most sunlight, to reflect sunlight back out into space.
You get a lot more bang for your buck in tropical regions.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 5:14 am
01 Jan 2009
Point of use solutions are the only economically and environmentally viable renewable energy solutions. we need to STOP killing the Mojave, and allow it to function in the way it was designed to function, and focus on policies that will get panels and windmills onto structures and feeding TRULY clean power into the grid. 40 Nations, including Albania and Algeria are ahead of every state in the US on clean energy policy, even if their solar and wind resources are only 50% what ours are. why? because Big Energy is trying to scam us - again - into their greenwashed lies about how much we need to destroy open spaces for energy, and our government is enjoying the cover the "environmentalists" are providing for their big donors...
It's so obvious what they are doing - can we all rise up and refuse to participate in these environmentally devastating pyramid schemes and insist on FITs, efficiency, storage, smart grids and other solutions that will actually HELP the planet?
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
georgia Posted 5:46 am
01 Jan 2009
The backbone of this cruel hoax rests on two falsehoods. First, that our atmosphere is like a greenhouse (ie. more CO2 increases heat absorption). Second, that there is scientific consensus that agree with the first premise. I'd sure like to see the thousands of scientists that supprt these two notions sign their names to a report or a petition. Why are they unwilling to put their reputations on the line?
Can we now move on to addressing real environmental and energy problems?
Also, more CO2 in the air means more crop yield, which equals less land to produce the same amount of food. CO2 is a good thing. We need MORE of it, not less in the atmosphere.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 6:25 am
01 Jan 2009
Well, were you to look around our solar system you would find at least one planet that gets enough sun to be nice and warm, but a planet devoid of an atmospheric blanket to hold in a sufficient amount of that heat.
You would only have to go as far as our moon to find a place that would benefit from a nice greenhouse blanket.
Here - from "Ask an Astronomer for Kids"...
"The temperature on the moon varies from -387 Fahrenheit (-233 Celsius), at night, to 253 Fahrenheit (123 Celsius) during the day. Because the moon has no atmosphere to block some of the sun's rays or to help trap heat at night, its temperature varies greatly between day and night."
Now...
"Second, that there is scientific consensus that agree with the first premise."
That, and much of the rest of your post, is factually incorrect.
The very, very vast number of climate scientists have looked at the issue and are in amazing agreement that we've got a serious problem staring us in the face.
I suspect you've been mislead by one of those phony lists that contains the names of scientists whose names were placed there without their consent (and who accept global climate change), scientists who are dead, and people who really aren't climate scientists but economists, biologists, weathermen, ....
Permalink
hapa Posted 6:34 am
01 Jan 2009
next it will be proven by real scientists that warmth comes from inside the earth; the sun is a heatless sparkler for our pleasure.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 6:35 am
01 Jan 2009
Remember that there are many deserts that man created. Think about the "Cradle of Civilization".
Some math will tell us whether it makes sense to return trees to places we stripped.
No one is suggesting we reforest National Parks.
Permalink
hapa Posted 6:36 am
01 Jan 2009
Permalink
hapa Posted 6:42 am
01 Jan 2009
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 7:16 am
01 Jan 2009
are we perhaps warming the climate because we are not eating enough possum?
Permalink
hapa Posted 7:30 am
01 Jan 2009
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 7:38 am
01 Jan 2009
back in the olden days, when we didn't need government at all and everyone was incredibly wealthy, the moths moved heat to the sunny side of the globe, thus allowing nighttime cooling.
now mankind has screwed up the climate by leaving our porch lights on and disrupting the rhythm of nature....
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 12:57 am
02 Jan 2009
It may not be a question of eat a possum and save a tree. It may come down to save a tree and eat a possum to cut down on all the methane gas produced by the vegetarian tree huggers who are simply put "full of it"
.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink