(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)
Objection: The United States absorbs more CO2 into its land than it emits into the air. The world should be grateful.
Answer: As often the case, at the heart of this talking point is a grain of truth. But it does not serve the purpose for which it's been enlisted. According to the U.S. Department of Energy land-use changes in the U.S. between 1952 and 1992 have resulted in a net absorption of CO2. But this is only true of natural CO2 -- the natural flux of CO2 into and out of forests and peat bogs and soil, as well as carbon that's been sequestered as lumber and other wood products. These fluxes are actually much larger than anthropogenic emissions, but they go both ways, whereas fossil fuel burning only emits carbon.
This net sink of natural carbon has only been sufficient to offset around 25% of fossil fuel carbon emissions from vehicles, power plants, and the like. In Chapter 7 of this 1996 report, the DoE notes:
For purposes of comparison, this estimated amount of sequestered carbon offset approximately 17 percent of the 1,381 million metric tons of carbon (or 5,068 million metric tons of carbon dioxide) emitted in the United States in 1992 from the burning of fossil fuels.
So at least for 1992, that leaves 83% of fossil-fuel emissions in the atmosphere to spread over the globe or be absorbed into the oceans. In the 2003 report, that number has increased to 83.1%:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates annual U.S. carbon sequestration in 2003, based on data generated by the U.S. Department of agriculture (USDA), at 828.0 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e), a decline of approximately 21 percent from the 1,042.1 MMTCO2e sequestered in 1990 (Table 33). Land use, land-use change, and forestry practices offset approximately 16.9 percent of total U.S. anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in 1990 and 11.9 percent in 2003. [page 75-76]
With per capita emissions five times greater than the global average, that leaves a lot the world does not have to thank the U.S. for.
Jeb Bush still skeptical about climate change
The new Senate global warming deniers
20 climate experts call for aggressive U.S. action
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 3:02 am
28 Jan 2007
However
Your article does highlight that fact that carbon sinks work. Emissions dominate the discussions, while the importance of carbon sinks tend to be glossed over. Carbon sinks also preserve biodiversity and for that reason should be given more visibility as a way to fight global warming (and I am not talking about running around planting trees in cities).
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:14 am
28 Jan 2007
I knew
You were gonna say that bio-d! The US could become a net carbon sink.
But not with agribizz fuel farming.
Think of our European allies joining in. with all of the developed world becoming a net carbon sink and encouraging the developing world with trade policy? Well? Reverse global climate change from gHGs?
It's possible.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
tico89 Posted 12:37 pm
28 Jan 2007
Carbon sinks or carbon stinks?
Thanks for a great guide (just discovered it), it's really useful to be able to know in advance what the sceptics are saying and have the answers ready, and so avoid being accused of not knowing what you're talking about.
Well, obviously carbon sinks can offset natural carbon emissions, as they have been doing so to a certain extent for millions of years. In the same way, it seems impossible that people believe they can take on all the emissions pouring out from human sources.
However, with global warming kicking in, and the permafrost starting to melt in areas, exposing more peat bogs and soil, will these carbon sinks still be able to cope with natural emissions?
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:41 pm
28 Jan 2007
tico89
That is the big worry. It is called a tipping point, a point of no return, a runaway heat engine.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
tuc Posted 6:17 am
24 Jul 2007
A question of a study regarding U.S. as a CO2 sink
Dear Coby,
First of all, thank you very much for a really great guide, it has helped me a lot (I think Gristmill web pages have had thousands of hits from Finland because of me alone)! There are still some denialists here in Finland, luckily only about 10 % of the population.
However, while arguing about this subject, I saw this research:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/newrec/2407/tmpl/story.2.html
"The mean atmospheric CO2 concentration on the East Coast has been observed to be lower than that over the Pacific coast. This means that more CO2 is taken up by land ecosystems over the United States than is released by industrial activities."
I know this study is from 1998 and the methodology isn't of accurate nature, but what would be a good response if someone uses this study as an argument that U.S. is a net carbon sink?
Best Greetings
Tuukka Simonen
Finland
Veganism is the best way to cut down emissions. Go vegan!
Permalink
John Sol Posted 7:43 am
16 Oct 2007
energy imports
Don't forget all those imported goods which cause carbon emissions, and other pollution, in the producing country.
Don't forget the streets!
Permalink
Mostirritatingnewaccoundever Posted 8:33 am
16 Oct 2007
Carbon sink, more like eco-trash compacter
Its simply a flawed arguement. But I'll bite. Say that somehow, the US sucks up more carbon that it spits out (quite the feat, considering only 10% of its forrests are left, and US'ers are responcible for 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the pollution) That means that everyone else is more of a carbon sink, so no bragging rights. Then there's the fact that the US is actively trying to make sure that no countries recieve compensation for being a carbon sink from the UN, cuz their afraid of big scary countries like the Congo lording their rainforrests over poor little USA. Then theres the fact that if it was true, the only environmental contribution that the States has ever given the world is completely co-incidental, un-intentional, and soon to be rectified. Yup, we should be grateful to the US. Now we know what BS smells like.
Permalink
spoon13 Posted 9:44 am
05 Mar 2008
CO 2
considering that CO 2 is only 0.035% of our atmosphere some people surely give it more than its due. if i remember right from school many years ago CO 2 is a very good thing. the more you have the better things grow. that is why greenhouse operators buy it in pressureized tanks and release it into said greenhouses to make their plants grow at rates up to 125 time faster than normal (for our times) outside crops. maybe if we are lucky it will increase a whole bunch then we can feed the starving people in the 3rd world countrys.
spoon13
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 9:59 am
05 Mar 2008
Uh, no...
...spoon13, increases in CO2 will only benefit plant growth until the decomposition rate catches up with the new production. Any increase in plant growth, if any, would be short term.
Add to that much of the increase in CO2 is actually due to deforestation and desertification...in other words, a loss of plant biomass.
And in case ya didn't know, CO2 is an acidic substance. That means that increases in CO2 will result in increasing acidification of water sources and soil...which is also bad for plants.
Also, the fact that much arable farmland may be lost due to changes in climate and sea-level rise.
You're more likely to get a reduction in crop size/quality value as a whole rather than an increase.
considering that CO 2 is only 0.035% of our atmosphere some people surely give it more than its due.
Little amounts of certain substances can do big things. One wouldn't think that just .03 alcohol level would be much...but it can really ruin your body if you're not careful.
By the way, where did ya get the idea that America is a carbon sink?
Permalink
In the belly Posted 11:04 am
05 Mar 2008
125 times faster?
Like, seed to seed in one day?
Permalink