So far as policy recommendations go, this is a subtle essay, and not easy to interpret.  Ken Caldeira explicitly advises AGAINST cutting down trees, anywhere.  With a very broad and generous vision, not always to be found in environmentalist writing, he says, subtly but clearly enough, that our gaining some control over the climate change by, say, restricting greenhouse gas emissions is just a means to an end; the end is not in itself forestalling the climate crisis; the end is preserving biodiversity.  So, cutting down trees is not a solution.  Caldeira is NOT recommending that we start taking down the boreal forests of the Old and New Worlds.

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!

Let us not allow misspellings to accumulate, dear Kif.

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!

but I'll stick by willy-nilly. According to some quick searches for definitions we get - "randomly: in a random manner"  and "without order or plan; haphazardly."
Both of these definitions capture the essence of the problem Caldeira is pointing out.

This is a really stupid idea to mess with.  You just gave the bush tree cutters an excuse.

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

amazingdrx - what are you getting at here? You're criticising the NYT but linking to a site that says the same thing and references the same work. I'm confused.

and who is the "you" who just gave the "bush tree cutters an excuse"?

It is not a dumb article.

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

"You" refers to Ken.  The NYT is a constant source of enviro and scientific confusion.    

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

The link shows this is not a new theory.  Why did it hit the "Times" op/ed page now?  Ken has been working on this since 2005 at least.  

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

Hi. You know who you are, so I'll skip pulling quotes from above.

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.

The trust level of the environmentally engaged public in foresters is exactly zero.  As it should have been all along.

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

You know very well this will be used by new bush appointee Gail "slash and burn" to justify more "healthy forests".  Is that exactly why this op/ed appeared now, just as the new appointee is unveiled?

  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

You are overreacting. I'm tired of the slippery slope problem. We are supposed to ignore science showing tree PLANTING is not always appropriate for fighting global warming because the Neo-
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.

Maybe I'm naive, but I thought this article was a reasonable warning to be careful about tree planting projects, not political cover for rapacious tree clearing. I think Canis captured this well.

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.

"Maybe we should just get rid of science all together"

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

"I thought this article was a reasonable warning to be careful about tree planting projects"

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

Right?  It's a natural cycle converting forests to grasslands to desert.  

Don't worry, just stock up on sunscreen.

Deserts reflect more sunlight than grasslands!  Hehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

enough of the slippery slope!!

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.

Yep, Backcut, money, and lots of it.  That's why they "thin" by cutting th biggest, healthiest, most commerically valuable trees, leaving behind only the fire-prone scrub.  You know perfectly well that the fires and the bark beetles are a result of the destruction of the mature trees that shade the forest and keep things damp and cool on the ground.  For shame!