I don't really like football, but I love the Super Bowl. Chips, dip, friends, commercials, man-hugging -- it's one of my favorite days of the year. And this year, it'll be extra-super, as it'll be carbon neutral. Thanks to the planting of hundreds of trees, the event might even be carbon negative, says the NFL's environmental program director, Jack Groh. Score!
And checking in on Olympics updates:
Construction in Beijing will continue through the 16-day Olympics in 2008, despite pollution and traffic fears. Says Sui Zhenjiang of the department of Project Management for the Olympics:
The construction projects in Beijing will continue to be developed both before the Olympics and after it and they would not be stopped for the opening ceremony of the Olympics because every project has its own economic background and will be developed naturally. However, before the Olympics, or during the process of the Olympics, we will conduct strict management to some projects in specific areas such as the places near the Olympic venues so as to make the air quality of Beijing better.
Got that?
And with 2,012 days to go, London is goin' for the gold "greenest games to date," with recycled stadiums and the like. Jolly good.
Seattle Storm WNBA team shoots 3’s for trees
What is Obama’s international climate strategy?
China blasts U.S. climate bill enabling penalties on trade partners
Comments
View as Flat
d41295 Posted 4:21 am
24 Jan 2007
trees
Oh please--you really think a few hundred trees are going to make a difference?
Isn't Grist devoted to scientific conclusions?
Trees, and forests, are relatively dark, and soak up heat and warm the surrounding area. Also, trees eventually die and decay, releasing their carbon back to the atmosphere. As scientist Ken Caldeira wrote recently in the New York Times, "...the notion that we can save the planet just by planting trees is a dangerous illusion. To preserve our environment, we must drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions...."
Please, provide us with scientific conclusions and not your do-goodism simplicity.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 7:42 am
24 Jan 2007
Our resident troll makes a good point here
>Trees, and forests, are relatively dark, and soak up heat and warm the surrounding area. Also, trees eventually die and decay, releasing their carbon back to the atmosphere. As scientist Ken Caldeira wrote recently in the New York Times, "...the notion that we can save the planet just by planting trees is a dangerous illusion. To preserve our environment, we must drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions...."
Same quote I was going to make. Offsets are really iffy things, and tree planting one of the most iffy. Tree planting can accomplish various things, but offsetting significant amounts of carbon is not one of them.
Please ignore the provocation that accompanied DTthinganumber's post; he is a resident troll and wants to make you lose your temper if he can. But please don't ignore his rare valid point, just because it came from him.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:06 pm
24 Jan 2007
Super Bowl
I agree with Gar and Dt. A few hundred trees? What part of the super bowl would that make carbon neutral? The fan travel? The media travel?
OTH, one can make an argument for neutrality for the Super Bowl, which I offer up for free. During the game most of America sits in a drunken stupor unmoving in front of their tv sets (except for quick trips to the fridge).
This means that very few people are driving!!! This is a great thing for the environment and global warming. So, huzzah!!! Go team go!! Let's hope for triple over time, lots of bare breasts (who ever's turn it is this year), and as little domestic violence as possible!!!
(Confession, I stopped watching American football after the failure of the players strike many years ago. Haven't missed it. But I am a basketball fan!!).
As to the Olympics, not sure of the point of the post. Beijing is a huge city, and keeping some construction projects running is unlikely to ruin the Olympics.
The air that time of year is usually not so bad, so I suspect that won't be a problem. Dust storms are a late winter early spring phenom, so that should be okay. It should be dry and hot!!
Heat will be the main thing. (grin). If you're planning to come, they are getting ready to start taking hotel reservations. My room is about a 40 minute bike ride from the main Olympic sites. Construction is moving along nicely, should be done in plenty of time.
The birds nest stadium is unusual indeed, it has to be seen from close up to feel the impact. The first link is to the Chinadaily web page for the Olympics, the second to their front page where they always have articles about the Olympics in a special section. BTW, both are in English.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/2008/
Permalink
SKenzie Posted 8:34 pm
24 Jan 2007
Waiting for Doug Flutie...
IMHO those who don't think planting trees can save the planet are dropping the ball and missing the point. We mustn't wait for a "Hail Mary" pass to save the game.
The planet will be saved by the aggregate of many actions large and small that directly and indirectly reduce emissions. At this very early stage in the process of planet saving the indirect impacts are arguably the most important.
The real value in the Kyoto Protocol is not in the emissions directly reduced by its provisions; Kyoto is important because it raises awareness of AGW and builds momentum for significant emissions reductions in the future. Similarly, Exxon has done far greater harm to the planet via their investment in obfuscation than through their direct GHG emissions.
Obviously the direct climate impact of planting a few hundred trees will be negligible, but the impact of an august institution such as the NFL acknowledging that climate change is happening could be huge. For many people tuning in to the big game this could be the first time they've heard a "credible" voice recognizing the problem. And perhaps it will get them concerned...
The NFL is voluntarily mitigating a portion of its environmental impacts and establishing an important precedent that major US events/organisations can and should consider their climate impact. This should be commended. Of course they could do more, but couldn't we all? Doing good (even if slightly misguided) is always better than doing bad or doing nothing.
The NFL is just coming off the bench in the climate change game and they should be cheered, not booed.
Permalink
kmp Posted 11:43 pm
24 Jan 2007
Trees are good
I agree with SKenzie - why all this bashing? Must we search for the gloom, even admidst good news?
I think all on this list understand that ONLY planting trees will not save the planet. Neither will ONLY utilizing carbon offsets. So, by all means, let's discuss (again and again) the right trees to plant in the right areas, the amount of carbon fixed in said tree, the albedo of various forms of plant life.... but when groups like the Indy 500 & the NFL sit up and take notice of climate change, let's applaud whatever effort they make. It's still more than our President has done.
FWIW, I believe the trees were a symbolic gesture and the real "carbon neutral" SuperBowl is to come from offsets. Whatever your opinion of offsets, I suspect that at least some of that money must be going towards support of alternative energy: research, building, implementation. This can only be a good thing.
Personally, I have little to no interest in American football, and (now that the Pats & the Saints are out) absolutely no interest in the SuperBowl. Which is a good thing, since I'll be in sunny Mexico, learning how to surf.
Yes, I am flying to Puerta Vallarta in an evil, CO2-spewing jet plane. Yes, I offset my flight with trees. Let's take a moment to reflect on what a bad, misinformed and generally clueless environmentalist I am.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 12:15 am
25 Jan 2007
trees?
Goddamnit, trees are a good thing!
They take up CO2, and while eventually more than half of it is released back into the environment, this will happen a hundred plus years later.
Albedo effect is real, but I believe it's overstated: deciduous trees have lower albedo than conifers, but conifers up north protect soils from emitting methane and CO2 during the summer when the soils would warm. Snow is important only during the winter and early spring, when the impact of incoming radiation is minimal. The only time albedo at the surface would really make a difference is about April. Once again, this will be offset by carbon sequestration due to leaf litter decomposition and incorporation into the lower (i.e. geologic)soil horizons.
P.S. I will read that paper and tear it apart soon...
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 1:26 am
25 Jan 2007
Trees
Trees are indeed a good thing. But they are not going to make a significant contribution to fighting global warming.
>While eventually more than half of it is released back into the environment, this will happen a hundred plus years later.
Umm a hundred years from now we are still going to be facing warming from already released carbon. One hundred years is not long enough for sequestration. And it is not not like you get the sequestration immediately from planting a tree. Most these "offsets" offset decades of future sequestration from trees against current emissions. Sometimes the offsets are from trees that have not even been planted yet; and sometimes they are from trees that never will be planted. I think I need to do a post on tree planting.
Incidentally another point is that tree planting in cold climates often takes place in areas where you alread have grassy plants. And it turns out than in cold climates grassy plants sequester more carbon in soil than trees. In general it is worth remembering that a lot of "carbon plantations" plant monoculture trees on land that already has functioning eco-systems. Bottom line: we may get some marginal benenfits from certain types of tree planting; but there is not substitute for leaving most fossil fuels still in the ground in the ground.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:43 am
25 Jan 2007
Troll bridge
The d-man uses the nonsense from the nYT op/ed.
"Trees, and forests, are relatively dark, and soak up heat and warm the surrounding area."
And someone falls for it?
"Same quote I was going to make"
And yet another?
"I agree with Gar and Dt"
Told you so. Despite the qualifications that the "scientist" who wrote the op/ed put into it.
The fact that even trees planted in snowy zones cool the planet for over half the year is ignored. It is automatically assumed now that trees warm the earth. Nice propaganda!!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Sarah K. Burkhalter Posted 2:09 am
25 Jan 2007
FWIW
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:57 am
25 Jan 2007
Gar
I cannot argue on the merits of this paper, because it is actually not out in print just yet, but here's the abstract:
When changing from grass and croplands to forest, there are two competing effects of land cover change on climate: an albedo effect which leads to warming and an evapotranspiration effect which tends to produce cooling. It is not clear which effect would dominate. We have performed simulations of global land cover change using the NCAR CAM3 atmospheric general circulation model coupled to a slab ocean model. We find that global replacement of current vegetation by trees would lead to a global mean warming of 1.3 degrees C, nearly 60% of the warming produced under a doubled CO2 concentration, while replacement by grasslands would result in a cooling of 0.4 degrees C. It has been previously shown that boreal forestation can lead to warming; our simulations indicate that mid-latitude forestation also could lead to warming. These results suggest that more research is necessary before forest carbon storage should be deployed as a mitigation strategy for global warming.
Basically it looks at albedo, evapotranspirative cooling, and, I hope, actual carbon sequestration. This last part is not obvious from the abstract. As far as your confusing statement about offsetting the offsetting and the trees, I think you lost not only me, but yourself as well. Maybe not, but plenty of others.
As far as monocultural plantations on existing grasslands, well you got me there, no one (except for some failed ranchers) is arguing for that, but if we really want to do something with regards to the albedo, why don't we just tarp as much land as possible with the white polyurethane? That should work.
Also carbon sequestration is not as simple as you make it out to be: at the end of one hundred (or whatever the rotation is) years those trees will become wood products (in many cases), such as furniture, paper and such, and the product will remain for a longer period of time.
If you propose doing nothing to currently sequester the carbon, then you are clearly not aware that the climate and the global carbon cycle have already shifted. Even if we stop using fossil fuels right now, about another 50-100 ppm rise in atmospheric carbon is likely, particularly due to deep ocean circulation. I think one of the best means to use terrestrial biosphere to sequester carbon is to grow and preserve more wood products.
Concurrently, old growth forests are not a good means for carbon sequestration, because at best, on a landscape scale, they are carbon neutral. On a stand scale, they could be either carbon positive or negative, depending on the temporal scale. With regard to carbon, it is best to keep stands and landscapes at their maximum growth rate and cut the trees over that hump (or something along the lines of selection system silviculture).
Permalink
atreyger Posted 3:00 am
25 Jan 2007
correction
I just realized that the paper might be out in print, but Syracuse does not yet have the issue, and their electronic subscription to the journal is not yet working, so it's not out in print for me...
Permalink
bookerly Posted 5:02 pm
25 Jan 2007
Hundreds
Dear DrX,
Actually, you are too sensitive!! And should read more carefully. I can't speak for anyone else, but was merely referring to the idea that "hundreds" of trees (a paltry number in my view) would be enough to make a difference!
Let me clearly state that I am in favor of trees, planting them, looking at them and even sitting in them (grin).
And no, I don't buy the idea that planting them is a problem. First of all, we have a damn long way to go before we plant more than we cut down. So, on balance, we are not even catching up with our on-going destruction.
As to what kind and where, I leave that to others.
patrick
PS. noting from Sarah's clarification, they are only offsetting the electrical usage (which usage?) which is only a small part of the event. But, still, all of those folks passed out in front of tvs instead of driving must count for something!
Permalink
bookerly Posted 5:06 pm
25 Jan 2007
Oh, and Super Bowl Bashing
Actually I want to agree with the folks who think it is a good (if insufficient) thing. If the tv people mention this during the game, it's like zillion or so bucks worth of free publicity for the idea that we should do something about the issue, and it will be beamed all over the red zone!!
You can all make fun of basketball when the NBA playoffs come if you like!
patrick
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 11:54 pm
25 Jan 2007
"man-hugging"
Thanks to Sarah K.B. for putting all this mischegass into perspective.
"Man-hugging" is a fine sport, plus a wonderful method of establishing international relationships. How can I ever forget that shoeless blond fellow from Antwerp, hanging out in the "Portugal conquers Asia" room of the Museo dos Azulejos in Lisbon?
Or was it the Hall of the Blue Last Judgement, with Crocodiles? My mind is in a muddle with thrilling memories ...
Who was indeed cute but very boring, once it became obvious that his feeding tube was his undeniable cell phone. I mean, sure, he was Western Europe's favorite, but really ...
No problem, I passed the time profitably by doing the Stations of the Cross in a 17th-century chapel, not far from the gift shop.
Still, he was a jerk. Aren't they all. Surtout ceux-la qui saient qu'ils sont "cute." : (
Anyway, why has not more been done to discourage travel to international events? I know, it was quaint that the Prince of Asturias and his popular, pretty, commoner bride showed up during Spain's games at the World Cup. But on the other hand, as much as I loved the array of waving plastic kangaroos -- hint hint, Valentine's Day is coming up, and I would do almost anything for an inflatable kangaroo -- , did all those Australians really need to fly up to Germany? True, their last-minutes victory over South Korea was one of the greatest things at the World Cup, something Kaela might appreciate, but few other Americans.
Curiously, neither France's nor even Italy's men were all that huggable. But I did indeed notice a few likely specimens among the Portuguese, and the host Germans, and the Argentines, and the Brazilians, and especially the Spaniards, a young squad showing much promise indeed ...
FYI, that Swede who is a famous shirt-shedding model, and mocked therefore by his teammates, is not at all someone whom one would kick out in a blizzard, on the one hand; but on the other, he is not really my type.
As for US pro-football players, they are pretty much invisible automatons. To that extent, one understands those journalists who do what they can to penetrate the locker rooms; and one understands football groupies generally. But in fact, the players do not seem all that remarkably worthwhile a bunch of guys. Too big, too puffed, too pompous. Sorry guys; but perhaps there are exceptions, I admit I could be wrong; just let me know, and I shall hitch up the goat cart.
And as for games such as the Super Bowl, the World Cup and the Olympics (in London 2012, if not Beijing 2008), it is a good sign, whatever it really means, that the organizers try to profess that they are being "carbon neutral."
Really, though, if they were being sincere, the organizers would say clearly and distinctly, "STAY AT HOME!!! WATCH THIS ON TV!!! THE ADS ARE CUTE!!!"
And indeed, they would be right about the last point. I have still not got over the FedEx ad, with the caveman and the dinosaurs.
Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:45 pm
26 Jan 2007
Travel and Hugs
Dear CanisCandida,
Maybe there is something migratory in many of us that makes us want to see what is beyond the next ridge? We are one of the most widespread of species, perhaps it is a genetic disposition to moving around that has caused us to inhabit most parts of the planet?
I understand that travel can be considered bad, but people are gonna go!! (As a migrant myself, who started in VA, moved to NE, then CA, and who now finds myself in China, I definitely know the feeling of itchiness!).
In terms of hugging, and interesting side note (do they hug a lot during the Super Bowl? perhaps Sarah can tell those of us unable to watch?).
Hugging in public is not generally an Asian custom (at least in terms of China, Japan and Korea, I am not sure of others!). Someone in Australia started the idea of hugging strangers as a way of connecting to society and helping reduce the stress of modern life. There have been tv reports lately of groups of young people Beijing and Korea holding up signs in the streets offering hugs.
They have met with mixed results, but enough enthusiasm to continue, and the idea seems to be spreading. Several of my Chinese friends have taken to hugging me when we meet. I was at first quite startled, but hey......
So, I hope those carbon neutral American football players remember to hug as they play!
patrick
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 11:01 pm
26 Jan 2007
travel patterns
Mon cher Patrick a` Beijing,
of course we Homo sapiens need to travel from time to time. But ideally, being moral beings as well as traveling beings, we think about what it all means. Sometimes we NEED to do it, sure; but often, lately, we Americans, and other relatively wealthy inhabitants of developed countries, tend to do it a bit too frivolously, a bit too often.
There is that "Sylvia" cartoon, where she is watching TV, and the romantic hero says, "You know, my dear, I love you truly, but I've gotta be movin' on." So from deep within her couch, Sylvia says, "Shoot him in the knee caps."
"Hugging" is indeed perhaps a bit romanticized, a too easy solution to serious huge problems. I would not try it, right off the bat, with a Korean. But you know, by huge, somewhat embarrassing coincidence, my birthday happens to be April 15, Death Day here in the US, but the joyous day of celebration as the birthday of Kim Il Sung, Kim Jung Il's big daddy, for which date cities and other important places have been named in North Korea. So I wonder if I should become a North Korean citizen ... I would bet that does not happen very often, a non-Korean trying to become a North Korean citizen, so there would probably be a fairly decent story in it, n'est-ce pas?
By the way, do you know anything about any reaction to a curious East Asian phenomenon in the "Star Trek: Voyager" series, now defunct but always well-loved, in which a presumably Chinese-American actor, VERY cute, Garret Wang, played a presumably Korean-American character, equally cute, naturally, named Harry Kim? Harry and Tom Paris made such a lovely couple, in spite of his transparently false claim to carry a torch for one of the Delaney sisters ...
Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:29 pm
27 Jan 2007
Star Trek
My Dear CanisCandida,
Sorry, I missed the Star Trek series, so don't know anything about this (where do you find time to be aware on so many different subjects?).
Actually, the tv report on hugging in Korea was very interesting. Some of the people seemed deeply moved. (To be clear, someone stands in a busy intersection holding a sign offering free hugs, and people approach them and exchange non-sexual hugs.)
One of my students went to North Korea as part of a Chinese delegation, she had interesting tales to tell. I would love to visit, but fear being Guantanamoed if I do! I don't think they are accepting immigrants currently (grin).
Travel is an issue. I confess I am preparing to take a trip across China (32 hours) by train to visit friends in another city. I will note that six people will share a sleeper, but I have no idea of the train engine type or how to calculate my carbon output (the train itself will be very very full!). I actually don't travel very often, but considering that my general lifestyle is very low carbon usage, I don't feel any guilt either.
It seems to me that we will be less successful in convincing people not to travel than in convincing them to be vegetarians without cars who live in small units in urban areas.
patrick
Permalink
Ru Posted 4:23 am
05 Feb 2007
some more possible problems with Caldiera work
Just to add a couple of points to the above discussion. I plant offset trees in temperate latitudes for a living so I'm inevitably biased against the recent research by Caldiera etal indicating that treeplanting outside the tropics may warm us.
- The modelling in question appears to take no account of the emissive effects of alternate land uses. It posits the temperature effects of mature forest canopy vis-a-vis bare ground/pasture.To explain this. The land we are planting on was hitherto used as pasture for methane generating ruminant animals. Methane is more than 20 times more 'warming 'than CO2 and the U.N. estimates that human agriculture is responsible for 18-19% of all anthropogenic ghg emissions. When we replace grazing pasture with trees we get the added benefit of a reduction in atmospheric methane concentrations. No account of this is taken in this research and this is in my view a critical error.
- Global climatic modelling of this kind can help us to understand in outline terms, the complexities of the interactions between oceans, forests and the atmosphere. However it can never accurately predict the temperature effects of treeplanting on a local or even regional level. To give an example. The land we are planting on is north facing. The reason for this is simple. North facing land in the northern hemisphere is generally cheaper than south facing land because it receives less solar insolation and is thus less productive agriculturally. At this time of year the sun doesn't even touch the land we work on! What this means is that the warming effect of a mature forest canopy, in terms of its reduced albedo (reflectivity) as envisaged by this model does not really apply.
- If I understand it correctly, The model uses a 'slab' or uniform representation of the earths oceans. i.e. The oceans are given a uniform temperature and there is no attempt to incorporate the complexities of the planets ocean circulation in the calculations. Obviously this is quite a gross simplification of what is one of the main drivers of global climate. Given that the earth is 70% water- covered and the deep-sea currents undeniably influence our climate on a massive scale , I feel this to be an area of inevitable inaccuracy.
- The model posits the temperature effects of mature, natural, forest canopy, covering entire areas of the planet. Now this is never going to happen. We need land for a myriad of other uses so forests can never cover all the surface, however much some of us may want this. There will be massive breaks in the cover that will allow 'albedo cooling'. Furthermore we are planting managed woodland and so can tailor our planting to minimise the envisaged warming effect of a close canopy. As mentioned above, we can plant on north facing slopes. We can select species such as Ash that are inherently more reflective than say, Beech or Oak as they only retain their leaves for 5-6 months of the year and these leaves are in any case slender and shiny. Also we can manage the woodland to improve its albedo by leaving open spaces, planting the trees further apart and by ensuring a wide diversity of tree types. The result of this is that the trees will mature at different rates and thus be harvested at different times so ensuring that rather than having one complete area of mature canopy, we have a dynamic situation where individual trees are cut down and replaced as they mature. This means that the woodland will never represent the dense mature canopy that this model is based on.
- The logical development of this research (however much the authors may cavil at this) is that, if serious about attacking global warming, we should consider cutting down trees in temperate and boreal zones. They can't have it both ways. Either trees are cooling in temperate regions or warming. If they are warming then they have to go! This to me is the most dangerous repercussion of this work.
Meet the new climate criminals - deciduous trees in temperate latitudes!Permalink
Gymbo Posted 11:37 pm
05 Aug 2008
Carbon Credits
As long as the NFL purchases carbon credits for all the carbon they release into the air then the NFL will make the world a better place. So if they go carbon neutral, negative or positive they should just purchase carbon credits. It will benefit everyone.
Little Rock Divorce Lawyer
Permalink