Ken Calderia, of the Carenegie Instition's Department of Global Ecology has an op-ed in the NYT today, in which he cautions against willy-nilly tree-planting projects for carbon sequestration:
While preserving and restoring forests is unquestionably good for the natural environment, new scientific studies are concluding that preservation and restoration of forests outside the tropics will do little or nothing to help slow climate change. And some projects intended to slow the heating of the planet may be accelerating it instead.
Trees don't just absorb carbon dioxide -- they soak up the sun's heating rays, too. Forests tend to be darker than farms and pastures and therefore tend to absorb more sunlight. This has a warming influence that appears to cancel, on average, the cooling influence of the forest's carbon storage. This effect is most pronounced in snowy areas -- snow on bare ground reflects far more sunlight back to space than does a snowed-in forest -- so forests in areas with seasonal snow cover can be strongly warming.
In contrast, tropical forests appear to be doubly valuable to the earth's climate system. Not only do they store copious amounts of carbon, the roots of tropical trees reach down deep, drawing up water that they evaporate through their leaves. In the atmosphere, this water may form clouds that reflect sunlight back to space, helping to cool the earth.
He goes on to play out some reasonable concerns about the application of forest-planting schemes:
These findings have important policy implications. It has been suggested that agreements to limit climate change should consider carbon stored in forests. If so, they would need to consider the direct climate effects of forests so as to avoid perverse incentives to plant warming forests in places like the United States, Canada, Europe and the former Soviet Union. However, tropical forests, which are generally found in developing countries, may be due a double climate credit -- one for their carbon storage and another for their cooling clouds.
In the end he (IMHO) rightfully points the finger back at policy makers and leaders to take the hard road:
We cannot afford to indulge ourselves with well-intentioned activities that do little to solve the underlying problem. Instead, we must demand that our political leaders do more to revolutionize our energy system and preserve our environmental inheritance for future generations.
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 11:56 am
16 Jan 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:09 pm
16 Jan 2007
On the other hand, he is arguing that planting trees in high latitudes does not have the effect desired by many carbon-offsetters, i.e. to counter global warming. Planting trees in the tropics is another matter entirely. And so, as has been suggested in Gristmill from a number of angles and by a number of contributers, carbon-offsetting is a tricky business. And it should definitely not be assumed to be a solution. Direct regulation of GHG emissions, with a view to reducing them, is the only solution.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
TokyoTom Posted 5:20 pm
16 Jan 2007
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:44 pm
16 Jan 2007
N.B.: "Whither"; "Caldeira"; "Carnegie"; "Institution."
And I am not sure you use "willy-nilly" quite correctly. "Whether you want it to happen or you don't, tough, it's going to happen anyhow." Sure, that can be related to Caldeira's observation, that many of us send money to tree-planting organizations, without clearly understanding the consequences. But it is hardly the same thing.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Kif Scheuer Posted 11:13 pm
16 Jan 2007
Both of these definitions capture the essence of the problem Caldeira is pointing out.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:50 pm
16 Jan 2007
There's hardly any snow left to reflect heat anymore. Really really dumb. Thanks again NYT. trying to appear fair and balanced?
I'm betting there is zero science behind this and all politics. Finally the Reagan notion that trees are sources of pollution is almost conventional wisdom?
Bush tried to do his best with this by cutting cedar on the "ranch" to save water for his cattle. More insanity disguised as enviro science.
When the new foresat service head uses this to increase cutting, we'll find out it was based on a study backed by the timber industry.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:06 am
17 Jan 2007
He's been on this for awhile.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Kif Scheuer Posted 12:23 am
17 Jan 2007
and who is the "you" who just gave the "bush tree cutters an excuse"?
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 12:24 am
17 Jan 2007
It is just another example of how complex enviro problems are, and how we often need to assess and make tradeoffs between competing environmental (moral) objectives.
Here in S Africa we have a massive government programme to cut out alien invasive plant species. In the Western Cape these are mainly Australian Acacias, which are smothering thousands of hectares of super-diverse and highly threatened fynbos vegetation.
However, fynbos is really crap at storing carbon, and Aussie Acacias much better at it.
We have chosen to trade biodiversity for carbon storage. There is seldom one totally correct manner of proceeding in this mixed-up global ecosystem of ours.
Cheers
Whiskerfish
Permalink
Backcut Posted 12:34 am
17 Jan 2007
Luckily, you all will be relieved to know that our planting practices have changed. After a forest fire, instead of planting trees in a 10x10 or 8x8 pattern, we now plant in clumps to make a more "natural" loking plantation.
We also used to "experiment" with alternating rows of clearcuts in an attempt to have more snow actually cover the ground instead of having it melt off the trees. Luckily, that "experiment" was shown to be a failure, resulting in gopher-infested "wind tunnels" that cause the remaining standing trees to blow over.
Again, people don't seem to see the "big picture" in our forests today. We need to continue to move towards a kind of "wholistic" management of our forests. Too many think that the cutting of ANY tree is "murderous".
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:50 am
17 Jan 2007
I don't think your featuring this op/ed does much damage though. The main damage will be from the NYT op/ed. Backcut and his colleagues are not going to suddenly change their opinions based on this "research" (computer modeling guestimating is what Ken uses, the computer usually used for simulating nuclear explosions at Livermore). But this will be yet another excuse for more cutting in their minds.
Ken and climate modeling colleagues make Livermore an environmentally friendly lab! Greenwashing nuclear armageddon.
Why didn't Ken study the effect of sequestration of natural prairies instead? Or sequestration by coral reefs?
Look at his other computer modeling "research", trying to model the CO2 sequestration by ocean water due to the "conveyor" effect of ice formation. The guesses made in the modeling don't seem to have any backing in reality.
Science is all about emprical data, but when the data itself is gleaned from virtual computer models, the results are virtual not based in reality.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:56 am
17 Jan 2007
Check this interesting part of the link.
"Founded in 1952, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is a national security laboratory, with a mission to ensure national security and apply science and technology to the important issues of our time. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is managed by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration."
A great source of environmental information! Their mission "ensure national security".
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Backcut Posted 1:20 am
17 Jan 2007
Really, I see no danger of a study like this affecting what we do in fuels reduction projects. Our goal is still to restore our forests back to a more "natural" state, with a nice side effect of timber volume.
If I could take the profit out of forest management and still restore our forests back to health, I would do so in a second.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
wackatalpidae Posted 1:30 am
17 Jan 2007
The article says forests absorb more energy than grassland or pasture. So, commentator, it doesn't matter if continuous seasonal snow cover is already gone. Forest is still not necessarily better than grass! And when there is a bit of snow, ever notice a woody area is darker than a grassy area.
However much I hate Bush, his clearing brush -- like cedars -- makes sense. He does not care about the globe, but he cares about his own property. It is not natural for it to be covered by cedars. Cedars are invasive in some areas and destroy quality of grassland as nesting habitat for certain birds. He and Laura like their savanna and are taking appropriate care of it. Why don't you bloggers learn a little about ecology in different areas? TREES ARE NOT NATURAL EVERYWHERE.
This is Smoky The Bear all over again. First the greenies want to put out all fires. Then they don't want the Forest Service to repair the damage. Then they decide we should plant trees EVERYWHERE, ruining various ecosystems.
The jury is also still out on whether forest or grass is best for carbon sequestration. Forest matter is largely above ground and subject to rapid decay. Grassland biomass is largely below ground and remains fixed longer, actually continues accumulating and building soil year after year. Wher do you think Great PLains soil came from?
Trees belong in certain areas. Learn where they belong. Restore grass throughout Great Plains. Restore forest in New England and along the East Coast. Restore savanna in Texas. Figure out what ias best for West Coast and restore that.
The article is not a license to clear-cut north forests. It calls on left and right to figure out the best solution. The world is !@#$% complicated. Don't criticize someone who is trying to understand the problem and find REAL solutions just because it doesn't fit your world view.
FAR LEFT and FAR RIGHT, you are ALL part of the problem, not part of the solution. Learn some actual ecology instead of regurgitating far left and far right propaganda.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:31 am
17 Jan 2007
Smokey the bear brainwashed US.
That process is being repeated for scientists like Ken. it is happening faster though. They have no cute spokes-animation/cartoon characters to help them.
Foresters serve the timber industry, scientists serve corporate/government power. A good rule of thumb. Make the individuals under scrutiny prove they are the exception. It's like trusting car salesmen or doctors. Just don't do it!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:47 am
17 Jan 2007
It's the NYT trying to do its fair and balanced act. To best effect.
Clear cut those drought stricken, bug infested, tinder dry, fire hazard western forests and turn it all into grassland to better reflect sunlight from snow, thus cutting global warming. I bet Gail already has a memo out on this.
Think of the cattle grazing, hunting, and great golf courses once all those pesky trees are shipped to china.
I sense BIG research grant money appearing in Ken's bank account! Fire up that supercomputer Ken, maybe nuclear exchanges in the middle east will actually fight global warming by placing a fallout haze in the upper atmospohere? An excuse to nuke Iran? Hehehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
wackatalpidae Posted 2:15 am
17 Jan 2007
Cons will use it as an excuse for clear-cutting western forests??? And perhaps to justify attacking Iran???
Gee. Maybe we should just get rid of science all together and duke it out the old fashioned way. Us folks who care about the environment will just assume we are RIGHT and kill everyone who disagrees. I mean if you don't want to bother looking at the scientific evidence anyway, better to invest the ressearch money in better guns, no? Let's all embrace Environment Fundamentalism. It is the WAY to TRUTH. No one else understands. Believe or die. That approach has worked so well in the past.
Whatever.
Permalink
Kif Scheuer Posted 2:27 am
17 Jan 2007
Didn't an early plan for US involvement in Kyoto, demand carbon credits for existing forests? If this research has merit, there's a legtimate concern about how carbon sinks for forests are allocated.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:46 am
17 Jan 2007
The corporatist agenda pretty much has done that already. We ought to try to reclaim science from rampant corporate bribery and corruption.
This just in!
Talked to a friend about this just a few moments ago. She pointed out that northern forests still produce cooling in every part of the year when snow is not covering the ground.
Did Ken factor this in? Since snow cover in northern forests is less than half the year now and decreasing rapidly? Nope, no mention of it. Still think Ken has the pristine mantle of science to backup his computer modeling conjecture?
The computer, no matter how super, can only deal with the data you input. Ken inputs wrong headed guesses, that my friend saw through instantly, being a lifelong forest land resident who notices how cool it gets when one leaves a town and enters a forest in the hot summer time.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:00 am
17 Jan 2007
Are tree planting projects a big drain on funding for other enviro projects? I seriously doubt it. Fuel farming, now that's a subsidy sucking boondoggle that greenwashes gas guzzling while at the same time destroying the cO2 sequestration of the soil. There's a drain, that's a drain.
And of course this computer modeling will be used as an excuse for clearing all those global climate disaster belleaguered forests. That is how these good corporate friendly Rovian folk operate. They won't notice the nuance Ken inserted (to assuage his conscience?)in the op/ed.
Examine backcut's arguments. He states that trees ought to be thinned to match the water availability. Trees are thinned, more warming (as in deforested areas like Haiti) occurs, less water is available. That in turn kills more trees, which in the mind of foresters justifies more thinning. And so it goes.
A vicious cycle until it's all golf courses and grazing/hunting land. That's Cheney country!
Did that recent Malibu fire impell this op/ed? Hehehey. Oh those bi-coastal intellects.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Backcut Posted 3:01 am
17 Jan 2007
Imagine that?!?
Now, if it would have been funded properly, we'd have a lot more results and accomplishment than what we have now.
Again (ad nauseum), NONE of our National Forest logs go to the Orient, DrX. Maybe you should link up with that eco-lawyer guy and take us to court?
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Backcut Posted 3:14 am
17 Jan 2007
Maybe in Haiti, it does. I never advocated wholesale "thinning" in Haiti, now did I? Where's the science to support your assumption that "thinning" increases global warming?
The truth is that thinning makes more water available in the soil. We need to re-establish that groundwater buffer we had before the Europeans came over. That means we need to have less trees than we currently have in our crowded forests.
In the forests, it's all about balance and site specific science. I've SEEN all the evidence I need out there in the woods.
Old willow snags at dried up springs
Massive bark beetle infestations
Catastrophic uncontrollable wildfires
Three record fire years this decade
There ARE ways to deal with this through sound science, hard work and money....lots of money.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:23 am
17 Jan 2007
Don't worry, just stock up on sunscreen.
Deserts reflect more sunlight than grasslands! Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
wackatalpidae Posted 3:46 am
17 Jan 2007
Just because someone believes PLANTING trees instead of grass is not always best, they are not advocating converting grass to desert!!
In some cases grass to desert is a natural cycle and you cannot prevent it.
But desert to grass is natural in some places.
And grass to forest is natural in some places.
And forest to grass is natural in some places.
Why in your mind is defense of grassland synonymous with clear cutting and desertification?
I suppose if you were among the pioneers moving west across North America, you would have looked at the Great PLains and said: this is awful, lets rip up this ecosystem that is appropriate for the dry climate and plant a bunch of cedars; who cares about the native prairie flora and fauna; we need more habitat for eastern grey squirells.
Permalink
willa Posted 3:56 am
17 Jan 2007
Permalink
Backcut Posted 4:37 am
17 Jan 2007
Here in California we have a strict moratorium on cutting trees over 30" dbh. We generally cut trees in the 9-18" size class. So much for "cutting th biggest, healthiest, most commerically valuable trees, leaving behind only the fire-prone scrub".
Apparently, you've never been to our dry western forests, willa. They are dry as a bone for the summer months, even with them being so overstocked. What about pre-European conditions that had MUCH less in the way of tree cover? Why do people so vehemently persist in preserving an out of balance ecosystem, complete with its increasing problems and probability of complete loss through catastrophic wildfire?
As long as people continue to punish the Forest Service for what happened in the last millenium, they will hinder the ultimate restoration of our precious National Forests.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Backcut Posted 1:24 am
19 Jan 2007
http://www.bhfra.org/mythsandfacts.htm
Regardless of where it has come from, there's truth in there. Embrace the truth and free the mind.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Eco Interactive Posted 11:12 pm
16 Feb 2008
For those interested in digging a little deeper on this subject we invite you to read:
http://ecopreservationsociety.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/do ...
Permalink