'The U.S. is a net carbon sink'

Only if you ignore fossil fuel emissions 10

(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.

Former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer. Same old story…

I have been blogging about climate change since 2006 at A Few Things Ill Considered.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 3:02 am
    28 Jan 2007

    HoweverYour 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

  2. amazingdrx Posted 3:14 am
    28 Jan 2007

    I knewYou 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

  3. 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

  4. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 2:41 pm
    28 Jan 2007

    tico89That 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

  5. tuc Posted 6:17 am
    24 Jul 2007

    A question of a study regarding U.S. as a CO2 sinkDear 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

  6. John Sol Posted 7:43 am
    16 Oct 2007

    energy importsDon't forget all those imported goods which cause carbon emissions, and other pollution, in the producing country.

    Don't forget the streets!

    Permalink

  7. Mostirritatingnewaccoundever Posted 8:33 am
    16 Oct 2007

    Carbon sink, more like eco-trash compacterIts 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

  8. spoon13 Posted 9:44 am
    05 Mar 2008

    CO 2considering 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

  9. 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

  10. In the belly Posted 11:04 am
    05 Mar 2008

    125 times faster?Like, seed to seed in one day?

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Series Intro
'There is no evidence' -- Yes, there is 59
'Mauna Loa is a volcano' -- CO2 rise is measured on top of a volcano! 8
'Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect' -- No, it isn't 25
'One hundred years is not enough'--Yes it is 18
'The scientists aren't even sure' -- No scientist ever is 33
'One record year is not global warming'--Luckily, there are plenty more years to consider 19
'Glaciers have always grown and receded'--A few glaciers melting does not mean global warming 14
'The temperature record is unreliable'--But temperature trends are clear and widely corroborated 8
'It's cold today in Wagga Wagga'--Weather and climate are different 2
'The satellites show cooling'--No, they don't 15
'What about mid-century cooling?'--No one said CO2 is the only climate influence 11
'Antarctic ice is growing'--Well, probably not, but even if it were, we are not off the hook 8
'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick 170
'But the glaciers are not melting'--Except ... they are! 3
'Antarctic sea ice is increasing'--Yes, but ... 14
'Sea level in the Arctic is falling'--Sea level is a surprisingly complicated thing 11
'Climate sensitivity is not very high'--Thermal inertia of the oceans means the jury is still out 2
'Some sites show cooling'--But you can't draw global conclusions from individual sites 0
'Global warming is a hoax'--I wish James Inhofe were just a hoax ... 12
'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? 109
'Position statements hide debate'--True enough, but that is not the whole picture 5
'Consensus is collusion'--Is climate science maturing, or should we reach for our tinfoil hats? 8
'Peiser refuted Oreskes'--In a poor piece of work that has been retracted by its author 4
'Models don't account for clouds'--Clouds are complex and uncertain, but unlikely to stop warming 6
'Climate models are unproven'--Actually, GCM's have many confirmed successes under their belts 13
'Aerosols should mean more warming in the south'--More North. Hemisphere warming is well-understood 1
'We can't even predict the weather next week'--But weather is not climate 11
'Chaotic systems are not predictable'--Sure, but who says climate is chaotic? 13
Understanding what is happening right under our noses does not require paleoclimate perfection 1
'They predicted global cooling in the 70s'--But that didn't even remotely resemble today's consensus 29
'Hansen has been wrong before'--Maybe, but not about the climate! 13
'It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum'--This period was not global and not like today 4
'The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today'--Repeating this point does not make it true 216
'Greenland used to be green'--Don't judge a book by its cover, much less a land by its name 23
Yes, the last ice age started thawing over 20,000 years ago, but that stopped a long time ago 5
'The hockey stick is broken'--Well, no ... but who's playing hockey anyway? 6
'Vineland was full of grapes'--Or was it an early advertising campaign? 4
'Global warming is part of a natural cycle'--This idea is one short step above appealing to magic 39
'Mars and Pluto are warming too'--No they aren't -- and what if they were? 24
'Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans'--Not even close ... 31
'The null hypothesis says warming is natural'--An inappropriate test, and one that would fail anyway 4
'Climate is always changing'--That doesn't mean it isn't different today 5
'Natural emissions dwarf human emissions'--But emissions are only one side of the equation 5
'The CO2 rise is natural'--No skeptical argument has been more definitively disproven 12
'We are just recovering from the LIA'--Why should we expect this to happen? 4
'Climate scientists dodge the subject of water vapor'--No, they really don't 4
Water vapor is indeed a powerful greenhouse gas, but there is plenty of room for CO2 to play a role 29
There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence 78
'CO2 doesn't lead, it lags'--Turns out CO2 rise is both a cause and an effect of warming 43
'Geological history does not support CO2's importance'--Just not true 0
'Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change'--Not so 19
'It's the sun, stupid'--Very bright, yes, but not getting brighter 18
The problem is not how high the temperature may go, but how fast it is changing 14
'Kyoto is a big effort for almost nothing'--Kyoto is only in its first phase 16
China and India have joined Kyoto, they just have different obligations, as is morally appropriate 3
'Climate change mitigation would lead to disaster'--Not really, but this may be lesser of two evils 6
Only if you ignore fossil fuel emissions 10
In 2008, did temperatures drop as much as they rose over the whole 20th century? 71
Is the IPCC so wrong their theories contradict a basic laws of physics? 23
Is the American Physical Society a crack in the climate change consensus? 3
Summer ice in the Arctic has recovered--Was the Arctic ice retreat a climate anomaly? 7
'Global warming comes from within'--Is heat at the Earth's core the real cause of global warming? 10
Was there another breathless announcement of another phony record, and another quiet retraction? 1
Hansen wants the skeptics thrown in jail--Did James Hansen really want to try the climate skeptics? 6
Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement