Everybody loves trees. They are so popular as offsets they even make Wikipedia's definition:
When one is unable or unwilling to reduce one's own emissions, Carbon offset is the act of reducing ("offsetting") greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere. A well-known example is the planting of trees to compensate for the greenhouse gas emissions from personal air travel.
But does planting trees reduce global warming? Not in most places on the earth. The Carnegie Institution's Ken Caldeira summarized the result of a major 2005 study (PDF) this way: "To plant forests to mitigate climate change outside of the tropics is a waste of time."
Why? Because forest canopies are relatively dark, compared to what they replace outside the tropics -- grass, croplands, or snowfields -- and so they absorb more of the sun's heating rays that fall on them. That negates the "carbon sink" benefit trees have soaking up carbon dioxide. Worse, the study found that planting a large number of trees in high latitudes would "probably have a net warming effect on the Earth's climate." Ouch!
So what about an offset project involving tree planting in the tropics where water evaporating from trees increases cloudiness, which keeps the planet cool, according to models? Tropical-tree-planting offset projects suffer from a different problem:
How can we be sure that the project is resulting in a net increase in tropical trees? Imagine planting 1,000 acres of trees in Brazil, where the full extent of annual deforestation is not known precisely. How do we know that an extra 1000 acres won't be chopped down somewhere else in the country?
Until countries with tropical forests join an international greenhouse gas treaty and are subject to rigorous verification strategies, tree-related offset projects will not deliver guaranteed, quantifiable benefits.
So if you are thinking about purchasing offsets, be wary of any company that says it plants trees.
As for the study mentioned earlier, "Climate Effects of Global Land Cover Change" (PDF), by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Carnegie Institution of Washington, here's the abstract:
There are two competing effects of global land cover change on climate: an albedo effect which leads to heating when changing from grass/croplands to forest, and an evapotranspiration effect which tends to produce cooling. It is not clear which effect would dominate in a global land cover change scenario. We have performed coupled land/ocean/atmosphere simulations of global land cover change using the NCAR CAM3 atmospheric general circulation model. We find that replacement of current vegetation by trees on a global basis would lead to a global annual mean warming of 1.6 C, nearly 75% of the warming produced under a doubled CO2 concentration, while global replacement by grasslands would result in a cooling of 0.4 C. These results suggest that more research is necessary before forest carbon storage should be deployed as a mitigation strategy for global warming. In particular, high latitude forests probably have a net warming effect on the Earth's climate.
Offset projects should simply not include tree planting.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Jon Stewart praises ‘SuperFreak’ author
Kerry-Boxer muddies handling of international offsets
Comments
View as Threaded
odograph Posted 6:32 am
02 Jul 2007
FWIW, I'm disappointed that tree planting is not "generally good" in northern climes, but pleased that it is at least not "universally bad."
The trick would seem to be in identifying niches where it provides maximum benefit, yes?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:41 am
02 Jul 2007
Forward!
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:59 am
02 Jul 2007
Permalink
feonixrift Posted 8:16 am
02 Jul 2007
Permalink
odograph Posted 9:35 am
02 Jul 2007
Isn't this like "Imagine buying a Prius. How do we know that a Hummer H2 will not be bought elsewhere in the country?"
"Imagine buying a compact fluorescent light bulb. how do we know that an incandescent won't be sold somewhere else?"
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:19 am
02 Jul 2007
When it comes to flora and fauna, it's the big end results of evolution that end up consuming everything.
In that sense, the trees are no better than us -- they suck in huge amounts of resource mainly for the sake of being trees.
As the article states, a cover of ferns would do way more for global warming than a forest.
That's why I support carnivorism. We play a key roll in reducing the big mammals -- by eating them.
John Bailo
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Joseph Romm Posted 12:09 pm
02 Jul 2007
Isn't this like "Imagine buying a Prius. How do we know that a Hummer H2 will not be bought elsewhere in the country?"
"Imagine buying a compact fluorescent light bulb. how do we know that an incandescent won't be sold somewhere else?"
Precisely. That's why those aren't offsets. Didn't say they weren't a good idea. Just that no one should pay you to buy a Prius -- It's actually worse for a Prius since CAFE means Toyota can sell an extra fuel-inefficient car for every Prius they sell.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 3:40 pm
02 Jul 2007
Nobody should diminish the value of trees and other plants in the environment, not ever.
We should always have a good sense of biogenic, geogenic, and anthropogenic emissions and how it changes over time.
Until we learn the heat, carbon, and water flux of the biogenic interactions more fully we should probably chill and focus on reducing anthropogenic emission reductions from internal and external combustion sources.
Capisce?
-sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
mattkc Posted 6:00 pm
02 Jul 2007
Permalink
noolympics Posted 7:38 pm
02 Jul 2007
Talking about carbon dioxide emission by plants in a static way is misleading! Isn't it obvious that the entire ecological dynamic system cannot be simulated using simple models. Go check with the weathermen and see what kind of lousy predictions they obtain using simulations. They can't even forecast the weather a week from today. And yet some biologists are coming out to tell people they can predict the effect of tree planting on green-house gas emission 5-10 years from today?
We are talking about an entire endogenous dynamic ecosystem with not only plants but also animals affected by exogenous environmental factors such as wind speed, humidity, temperature, type of soil, etc, pal!
The simple solution is carbon tax. Tax the polluters and subsidize environmental friendly technologies. Stop messing around with the ecosystem!
freehk.org | chinasick.blogspot.com | noolympics.blogspot.com
Permalink
adriandeveny Posted 8:51 pm
02 Jul 2007
It is clear that planting trees in northern latitudes has a net warming effect due to albedo, and it is also clear that planting trees in the tropics would have a net cooling effect. The effect of planting trees in temperate regions is less clear.
So why not focus our replanting efforts in the tropics? You mention a commonly cited problem known as "leakage" where the planting and protection of one grove of trees may simply lead to loggers diverting their efforts in a nearby region. This is certainly a well documented problem, and for this (and several other reasons), forest carbon projects have been quite limited relative to all the other types of offset projects
Right now there are only two ways in which carbon can be officially offset through tree planting: 1. customized offsets purchased in the voluntary markets, 2. afforestation/reforestation projects under the Clean Development Mechanism. Both of these have had very little success to speak of. As a result, people are now looking at the post-2012 Kyoto policy framework for new ways to address this critical issue, and it is increasingly become a major point of discussion at the COP meetings. There have recently been several calls for new approaches to address this issue, and there is now increasing support for one approach referred to as Compensated Reductions. This approach would create a new carbon trading mechanism where reductions in national deforestation levels from a historical baseline can be assigned carbon credits that are tradable in the global carbon market. This national approach to addressing tropical deforestation will effectively eliminates the leakage problem once effective satellite monitoring systems are put in place (expected around 2010 according to the FAO).
The bottom line is that we will never really stabilize emissions without curbing tropical deforestation. Since most offsets from carbon sequestration that exist today are unhelpful, this only means that more needs to be done to curb tropical deforestation, not less. Hopefully we will see something emerge for the post-2012 Kyoto framework, and if it's designed well, we should all support it. But let's not send the wrong message with simplistic proclamations that we should avoid forest projects. It's just not that simple.
Permalink
odograph Posted 10:40 pm
02 Jul 2007
If I help someone else buy a Prius, does that become an offset?
Permalink
odograph Posted 11:27 pm
02 Jul 2007
That trees should not be planted some places is useful information, but that they should not be planted anywhere is an improper generalization.
It would be like saying all Gist comment-creatures are churlish, just because a few of us are ;-)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:45 pm
02 Jul 2007
I warned about this little lie when it first appeared here. Now it's a BIG LIE.
Please read back through the threads and stop this lie joe. It's being used as an excuse to clear cut arboreal forests now.
This only appliers to uprooting natural vegetation and planting trees where they weren't, as Gar has explained many times. Ask him.
It does not in anyway apply to preserving forests by replanting logged or burned over areas. The anti-enviro nut wing is using this BIG LIE now to turn forests into golf courses and parking lots from sea to oily sea, please don't help these assholes anymore.
Trees darker than grass? The original computer modeling only claimed tress were darker than snow. you even added to the lie joe.
Trees put up clouds that reflect sunlight and cool the earth. Only in winter, when sunlight is weakest and shortest, do trees in the far north (the only place with snow for a signifigant poertion of the year)absorb more heat than snow.
That is more than offset by cloud generation from trees the rest of the year, in 24 hour, very intense sunlight in alaska for instance. Think joe, then write.
Don't repeat and enhance harmfull nonsense cooked up by some geek at lawrence/Livermore to make the weapons lab look enviromentally conscious (and siphon off enviromental grant money). It's Rove's minions a scamming funds from eco research coffers.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:50 pm
02 Jul 2007
Wow. Get busy retracting or get off this blog Joe!! You have gone way too far.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
atreyger Posted 12:55 am
03 Jul 2007
Furthermore, the amount of sunlight reaching high latitude forests is minimal during the majority of the snowpack months, the angle of incidence is too oblique, and the amount of clouds is too large (as an e.g. Syracuse typically has two or three sunny days per month during the winter) to provide considerable warming.
That said, and I believe firmly that this model is reliant on too broad a scale without any substantial experimentation, there is an interesting feedback between trees and snow. The trees keep in radiative efflux from the snow, thereby reducing the snowpack quicker than in the open. This is a local phenomenon, and would have an effect on a larger scale. The major difference between the existing model and the above example is that it does not account for carbon storage within the soil as a result of peat or organic matter build-up in northern forests, nor does it account for the cooler temperatures during the summer, which reduces carbon efflux.
Plus, carbon sequestration in the tropics and mid-latitudes is a total myth: old growth forests consume exactly as much carbon as they put out. Not so in the high latitude forests, which store more carbon than they put out. It is, however, equally as important to retain the old growth forests, since the wood and plants contain a large amount of carbon. So, au contraire, my climate friends from Carnegie Insititute, ecological and biogeochemical knowledge is on my side.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 1:01 am
03 Jul 2007
Permalink
Ian99 Posted 1:32 am
03 Jul 2007
Urban Tree Planting and Greenhouse Gas Reductions
Greg McPherson, Ph.D.
USDA Forest Service
Director, Center for Urban Forest Research
Davis, CA
March 12, 2007
Several stories have appeared recently in popular news outlets suggesting that trees are not a solution in the fight against global warming. In a report from Reuters ("Trees take on greenhouse gases at Super Bowl", 30 January 2007), Dr. Ken Caldeira, a Carnegie Institute climate scientist, was reported to say, "It's probably a nice thing to do, but planting trees is not a quantitative solution to the real problem." Dr. Philip Duffy of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory said, "If you plant a tree (CO2 reductions are) only temporary for the life of the tree. If you don't emit in the first place, then that permanently reduces CO2." Dr. Caldeira had made similar arguments previously in an op-ed in the New York Times ("When Being Green Raises the Heat, 16 January 2007).
A New Scientist article ("Location is key for trees to fight global warming," 15 December 2006) reports results from a study by ecologist Dr. Govindasamy Bala of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The model developed by Bala and colleagues indicates that, while trees planted in tropical regions have a clear net cooling effect, trees planted in mid-latitudes may absorb so much heat from the sun that they actually contribute to warming.
These stories fail to capture the complexity of the role that city trees play in fighting global climate change. Trees reduce carbon dioxide in the air, thereby reducing the warming "greenhouse" effect of the gas, in two main ways. First, as they grow, they take carbon dioxide out of the air and transform it into roots, leaves, bark, flowers, and wood. Over the lifetime of a tree, several tons of carbon dioxide are taken up (McPherson and Simpson 1999). In fact, trees are the only known feasible way to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Even if we were able to switch immediately to fuel sources that do not emit carbon dioxide, the current levels in the air are higher than at any time in the past 400,000 years, according to the UN's International Panel on Climate Change, and because of the long "lifetime" of carbon dioxide, will remain so for decades or even centuries.
Second, by providing shade and transpiring water, trees lower air temperature and, therefore, cut energy use, which reduces the production of carbon dioxide at the power plant. Two-thirds of the electricity produced in the United States is created by burning a fuel (coal, oil, or natural gas) that produces carbon dioxide--on average, for every kilowatt hour of electricity created, about 1.39 lbs of carbon dioxide is released (eGRID 2002). It is certainly true, as Dr. Duffy states, that not emitting carbon dioxide in the first place is a good strategy. Lowering summertime temperatures by planting trees in cities is one way to reduce energy use and thereby reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
To address the other claims made above: Are carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas reductions from tree planting temporary? In a sense, yes, greenhouse gas reductions are temporary if trees are removed and not replaced. To achieve long-term reductions, a population of trees must remain stable as a whole. This requires a diverse mix of species and ages so that the overall tree canopy cover remains intact, even as individual trees die and are replaced. Although sequestration rates will level off once an urban tree planting project reaches maturity, the reduced emissions due to energy savings will continue to accrue annually. Dead trees can be converted to wood products or used as bioenergy, further delaying, reducing, or avoiding greenhouse gas emissions.
Dr. Caldeira suggests in the Super Bowl article that tree planting projects are "risky." They may appear more risky than reducing emissions by building solar or wind farms because the tree-related climate benefits are less easy to document and because the 50- to 200-year life span of a tree seems less permanent than a new power plant. This uncertainty can be offset by legally binding instruments such as contracts, ordinances, and easements that guarantee tree canopy in perpetuity. And, of course, trees and alternative energy sources are not mutually exclusive--both have a place in reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Will urban tree planting in mid-latitude cities result in zero or even negative climate benefits? Dr. Bala's study in the New Scientist article describes two main ways trees lower temperature: they remove carbon dioxide from the air, reducing the greenhouse effect, and they release water vapor, which increases cloudiness and helps cool the earth's surface. But because tree leaves are dark, they also absorb sunlight, which increases the temperature near the earth's surface. The difference between trees in tropical latitudes and those in mid-latitudes has to do with the difference in how much sunlight forests reflect compared to other possible surfaces, especially during winter. Snow reflects more sunlight back into the atmosphere than forest vegetation, resulting in less heat trapped near the earth's surface. Large-scale tree planting projects that replace highly reflective surfaces with forests will result in more heat trapped near the ground during winter.
In cities, this fact is less relevant. Asphalt, concrete, and roof surfaces account for 50 to 70% of urban areas, with the remaining area covered by trees, grass, and bare soil. The difference in the solar reflectances, or albedos, of the different urban surfaces is small. Vegetation canopies have albedos of 0.15 to 0.30, the albedo of asphalt is 0.10, that of concrete and buildings is 0.10 to 0.35, and the overall albedo in low density residential areas is 0.20 (Taha et al. 1988). In cities, increasing urban tree canopy cover does not appreciably alter surface reflectance, or increase heat trapping.
At the same time, as described above, a number of field and modeling experiments have found that urban trees reduce summertime air temperatures through evapotranspiration and direct shading (Akbari and Taha 1992, Rosenfeld et al. 1998, McPherson and Simpson 2003). This reduces energy consumption and the emissions related to energy generation. Recognizing the climate benefits of trees, the California Climate Action Team Report (2006) recommended planting 5 million trees in cities to reduce 3.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Since 1990, Trees Forever, an Iowa-base nonprofit organization, has planted trees for energy savings and atmospheric carbon dioxide reduction with utility sponsorships (McPherson et al. 2006). Over 1 million trees have been planted in 400 communities with the help of 120,000 volunteers. These trees are estimated to offset carbon dioxide emissions by 50,000 tons annually.
Do tree-planting projects give people a "feel-good illusion that they are slowing global warming?" The climate benefits of trees in mid-latitude cities are not an illusion, although they certainly feel good. Reductions in atmospheric carbon dioxide are achieved directly through sequestration and indirectly through emission reductions. Still, planting trees in cities should not be touted as a panacea to global warming. It is one of many, complementary bridging strategies, and it is one that can be implemented immediately. Moreover, tree planting projects provide myriad other social, environmental, and economic benefits that make communities better places to live. Of course, putting the right tree in the right place remains critical to optimizing these benefits and minimizing conflicts with other aspects of the urban infrastructure.
References
Akbari, H.; Taha, H. 1992. The impacts of trees and white surfaces on residential heating and cooling energy use in four Canadian cities. Energy. 17(2):141-149.
Brahic, C. 2006. Location is key for trees to fight global warming. New Scientist. Dec. 15, 2006. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn10811 ....
Caldeira, K. 2007. When being green raises the heat. New York Times. 16 January 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/opinion/16caldeira.html ...
California Climate Action Team. 2006. California Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature. California Environmental Protection Agency. Sacramento, CA. http://climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports.
eGRID 2002. Emissions and generated resource integrated database. U.S. EPA, version 2.01.
Gardner, T. 2007. Trees take on greenhouse gases at Super Bowl. Yahoo! News. Jan. 30, 2007. http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type= ...
McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R. 1999. Guidelines for calculating carbon dioxide reductions through urban forestry programs. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-171. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.
McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R. 2003. Potential energy savings in buildings by an urban tree planting programme in California. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening. 2(2): 73-86.
McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Gardner, S.L.; Vargas, K.E.; Maco, S.E.; Xiao, Q. 2006. Midwest Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic Planting. PSW-GTR-199. Pacific Southwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Albany, CA. 85 p.
Rosenfeld, A.H.; Akbari, H.; Romm, J.J.; Pomerantz, M. 1998. Cool communities: strategies for heat island mitigation and smog reduction. Energy and Buildings. 28:51-62.
Taha, H.; Akbari, H.; Rosenfeld, A.; Huang, J. 1988. Residential cooling loads and the urban heat island--the effects of albedo. Building and Environment. 23(4):271-283
Permalink
sunflower Posted 2:19 am
03 Jul 2007
Doing good deeds won't stop bad deeds. Trees and solar collectors will not stop coal. I will no longer be passive. I am focused, with tears in my eyes, on stopping coal with ramming speed.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:31 am
03 Jul 2007
(1) Person A destroys, directly or indirectly, a healthy forest and all the associated ecological cycles by cutting down and removing the trees. By doing so, he emits carbon dioxide and reduces future sequestration of carbon.
(2) Person B is allowed to emit ADDITIONAL carbon dioxide if he agrees to pay for replanting the trees cut down by Person A, though the effort will never restore the original ecology and capacity for sequestration of carbon. Indeed the trees are likely to be fast-growing varieties that will also be destroyed.
(3) Person C will now be able to emit ADDITIONAL carbon dioxide if he agrees to pay for replanting the second population of trees cut down!
It does not appear that purchasing offsets really reduces the overall amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It simply justifies putting even more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
For those worried about their CO2 emissions...
I'm afraid offsets aren't going to work... unless you a planting trees where there hasn't been much vegetation for thousands of years. Though this raises two moral issues. (1) Near-desert landscapes are inhabited by organism adapted to those conditions and planting some sort of tree would probably lead to the extinction of those unique species. (2) Planting trees in those regions would likely demand sending scarce fresh water there and/or genetically engineering plants so they can grow fast enough to accumulate the desired amount of carbon in such harsh environments.
You're just going to have to find a way to reduce your CO2 emissions. There is no way to significantly enhance Earth's ability to absorb more CO2. It's already working as hard as it can at each latitude, unless humans have done something to interfere. And you really can't claim your balancing new CO2 emissions when you are still trying to repair earlier damage (clear-cutting, agriculture, pavement, et cetera).
For those worried about deforestation...
The only only solution, it appears to me, is to demand that those cutting down the trees immediately replace them with the same species so the forest can regenerate naturally. Alleviating guilt via selling offsets will not generate enough revenue to keep up with ongoing efforts to destroy our planet.
In the mean time...
I suggest just planting a tree wherever a tree might be appropriate and improve the local climate (macro or micro), shelter and nourish threatened animals, enhance the beauty of an area, preserve an endangered plant, preserve biodiversity, or some other perfectly good reason. That is sufficient justification. It does not matter whether that tree will reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere. There are, perhaps, far more important reasons to encourage people to plant trees.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:54 am
03 Jul 2007
It is interesting how the conversation is NOT about whether offsets are a good idea, BUT whether funding the planting of trees is an appropriate offset. I believe you folks have been hoodwinked again.
It reminds me of a scene from "The Manchurian Candidate". I don't recall the details, but the fellow being manipulated complains that he does have precise information regarding the number of communists who have infiltrated the government. He gives reporters a different answer every time it comes up during a press conference. But his mother (or wife) responds by telling him everything is going according to plan. The public discussion is NOT about whether there really are communists in the government, BUT how many there are in the government. The more important question is entirely by-passed.
Just a threory.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:57 am
03 Jul 2007
Sorry.
Forward!
Permalink
atreyger Posted 3:27 am
03 Jul 2007
Let me step back from the above statement.
First of all, I don't think I fully understand the concept of a carbon offset. A consumer buys an 'offset' to redeem the amount of carbon that she put out into the atmosphere by, say, taking a flight to Zamibia. The 'offset', from what I understand, is meant to take up carbon or reduce carbon in some other sector through renewable energy or efficiency increase. It would seem to make sense to buy an 'offset' to remove the carbon rather than induce energy efficiency, as the latter only reduces the impact of somebody else's action, rather than actually 'negate' some or all of the action of the customer. It seems, at best, contrived to combine these two aspects under the same umbrella term, as they have very different implications.
OK, now that I stated my lack of understanding, let's consider only calling 'offsets' only those things that sequester carbon, as the other 'offsets' do not actually 'offset' the atmospheric carbon input. The latter, coincidentally, seems to be the big push by J. Romm, since he pretty much rules out the first, and is in fact a physicist with a solid track record of work in energy efficiencies and energy technologies and applications.
Mind you, I am not saying that we should only call sequestration projects 'offsets', partially because it is currently the case, and partially because I don't understand what 'offsets' are, remember?
But, here's where I am going with this: if I put out a certain amount of carbon into the air, and I am willing to pay a certain amount of money in order to negate the effects of my carbon output, I would want that carbon to be sequestered. Instead, it seems that the current push is for another industry to receive a consumer subsidy to be developed, and that is already something that either should be done or is done anyway, as with the renewable energy credits purchased through utilities.
As a result of my ecological knowledge, I am led to believe that reforestation and afforestation, if done properly and in right locations is an appropriate carbon 'offset'. This includes reforestation in both northern latitudes and southern latitudes, and should especially includes appropriate thinning and selection cutting regimes as the quickest way to get to a 'steady-state' forest. Also, it would include things like the Planktos project, or other bio- or geosequestration projects.
As long as 'carbon offsets' are aimed at reducing the carbon footprint, it matters little if the speculated regional effects of the reduced albedo warm a proportion of the earth. Carbon is being stored, which is the ultimate goal of the customer.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 3:49 am
03 Jul 2007
Photosynthesis, in which CO2 is taken in and converted to glucose (stored energy)
Respiration, in which CO2 is given off in the process of converting glucose to ATP (energy)
The net balance is nearly impossible to quantify, but most agree that photosynthesis takes in twice as much CO2 and it respires.
When forest burning and drought affects an area, plants can be stressed and update glucose stored in the roots and vascular system so as to stay alive. This can cause a net increase in CO2 emissions from trees and plants - not to mention that less oxygen is produced. Thus, severe drought and a slash-and-burn monoculture can be a double-whammy of disastrous proportions.
-sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:57 am
03 Jul 2007
Yes, "plants" are beneficial, but I mean, just look at a tree. Look at how much "infrastructure" is there just for the outer shell of leaves -- the functional part -- to work.
I mean, does one really have to put up your CO2 scrubbers 100 feet in the air? Supported by a nutrient draining large trunk and tree structure?
Seriously, if the Department of Defense contracted with General Dynamics to build a leafy plant -- it would be a tree.
By clear cutting, we allow the more efficient (to us) ground cover to thrive and do an even better job of scrubbing CO2.
I wouldn't be surprised that part of the reason for high CO2 levels is all the efforts by humans to "preserve the forest" rather than letting them burn up and letting new growth occur.
John Bailo
You Read It Here First
Permalink
atreyger Posted 4:01 am
03 Jul 2007
Huh? There are plenty of ways to quantify the net balance, from single plants using growth chambers to whole ecosystem using flux towers.
Artem
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 5:16 am
03 Jul 2007
Maybe a trivial point, but respiration is there and trees and plants make CO2 to a certain degree. There is a feed-black loop because some of the released CO2 due to respiration can be absorbed downwind or even in nearly stomata, the leaf cells that breathe.
You know the deal, at night the photosynthesis stops because of the loss of energy input from the sun. Respiration and growth can often occur at night as a result, with some species being quite prolific growers. Certain species of oriental bamboo and squash can be visibly watched as they grow well over a centimeter per hour. Our agave plant flower stem ("century plant") grew 30 cm in one night. In the plains of Iowa, they say you can hear the corn grow and creak at night it is so prolific.
That's when they make CO2 in massive quantities.
-sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
birdboy Posted 5:52 am
03 Jul 2007
There are, in fact, more immediate problems that have tree-based solutions, perhaps the most important of which is reminding people that our home is a living thing, not a metal and glass spaceship.
Besides, shouldn't we have learned our lesson about taking results of early studies to be absolute truth? The authors themselves state in their abstract that
It is not clear which effect [heating or cooling] would dominate in a global land cover change scenario.
Perhaps we should await further study, since our atmosphere is about as easy to model as it is to control. In the meantime, I'm for putting back some of the trees that humanity has been so busy removing from the face of the Earth.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:37 am
03 Jul 2007
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 10:38 am
03 Jul 2007
At the current rate we are plowing down the grasslands, brushy areas, thickets, and forests, all one can do is feel comfortable that you're trying to do something because of the idiocy of modern developers and the bureaucracies that allow them to bulldoze wherever they want.
It is strange we get all these grand concepts to geo-engineer the world but we can't even learn how to protect our greatest resources, including the trees. Management of the forests to protect them has actually foisted policies that kill the forests. I hate to sound like a misanthrope but folks we really screwed the pooch on this one.
The corollary is "how can we control CO2 when we don't even have policies to save the trees?"
sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
guade00 Posted 2:12 pm
03 Jul 2007
And "carnivorism." Wow, that's even funnier. Let's eat more ground beef, and, eventually, if we just buy enough of it, it'll all go away, like all those fish we have trawled nearly to extinction. Again, I appreciate the irony.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 4:59 pm
03 Jul 2007
-sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
randino Posted 10:31 pm
03 Jul 2007
Take biofools for instance, no really please take them.
One of the big agriculture concerns is trying to get approval for genetically engineered trees that grow super fast so they can be harvested for cellulosic ethanol. The rationales are: the trees, while standing up will sequester carbon, and when we cut them down and chip them they will become earth friendly bio fuels.
The problem is that tree plantations are not forests. They have no similarity to forests in the propagation of ecological diversity. They don't even look like forests.
It is an excellent example of how environmentally commendable motives can be put to hellish use.
I think eastern forests have about as much future as peace and democracy in Iraq. You have the regime of sprawl. You have timber companies turning themselves into real estate companies. (Who would've ever thought we would miss our old foes?) Every year debutes a new invasive pest from hell, like the emerald ash borer that is sending our Ash trees the way of the Chestnut and American Elm. Then the drying out of the West will reverse the dynamic that took the pressure off eastern forests a century ago, with the turning of the west through irrigation into the nations bread basket. The West in a few years is going to resemble the Dunes triology. Where will everybody go? Back to the East and you will be glad to find five trees standing in close proximity to one another. Then we have the cellousic ethanol scam coming down the pike.
The eastern forests? Stick a fork in them. They are done.
Randy Cunningham
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
odograph Posted 11:35 pm
03 Jul 2007
But. Indulgences made promises for another world, beyond ours. There was nothing that could be measured with science. A piece of paper said you were cool for Heaven.
The reason the word "indulgences" is not appropriate, and should be struck even from talk-radio, is that offsets are about things that can be measured, in our world, with science.
The math itself isn't that hard. It is accounting more than calculus. It is just tedious from the volumes of data that must be shifted. Is replanting "this" forest good? You've got to identify the CO2 credits and debits and add them all up.
But. You don't have to wait until the afterlife to see if your paper is good.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 5:25 am
04 Jul 2007
Myself, I've managed to grow a few flats of native trees from seed and am getting ready to plant the two year pots this winter, the preferred time way down South. And no, there are no "offsets" involved. I have other priorities ...
/sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
ttyler5 Posted 10:41 pm
04 Jul 2007
Why, we will have to feed entire families to the Great Sink in order to even cover the pollution from private celebrity and rock band jets criss-crossing the globe to attend the concerts.
Permalink
youstinktome Posted 5:51 am
05 Jul 2007
Permalink
Jake Billings Posted 9:07 am
05 Jul 2007
Your logic on CFLs means we also should not buy renewable energy. Or energy efficiency. Both of which you've spent a career promoting.
Why? Because they reduce my emissions, which is exactly what carbon offsetting is all about.
But, Joe, if you agree renewable energy and energy efficiency don't work, then should we just stick with old reliable COAL?
Jake
Permalink
Eco Interactive Posted 11:15 pm
16 Feb 2008
We invite you to read to put this report in proper perspective:
http://ecopreservationsociety.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/do ...
Permalink