Climate scientists now believe their predictions about the rate of the global temperature increase have been too conservative, and stronger and more decisive action is needed to reduce dangerous greenhouse gas emissions.
Hi! Not a climatologist, but plant scientist/ecologist. Can you elaborate more about why tree planting isn’t enough? A mature forest is carbon neutral, yes. Young saplings will fix atmospheric carbon as they grow, though. I have no idea how many you’d have to plant to make a dent in the runaway atmospheric carbon levels - is that the issue? It would also have to be a careful species choice depending on location, with (I’d imagine) a preference for longer-lived species with persistent wood.
I’m not saying afforestation is the solution, but surely it’s one facet of a comprehensive solution?
Let’s pretend the natural, completely free of human influence planet has 10 carbon units in the carbon cycle. If something were to burn down trees it does upset the natural balance of atmospheric carbon, but you are simply changing where the carbon is, not the total amount. This might upset the climate temporarily, but the total number of carbon units in circulation is still 10.
Now let’s add human activity to the equation. We are taking carbon that was in long term storage (oil, coal, natural gas) and adding it to the 10 carbon units we had before. So now instead of a total of 10 carbon units either in trees, the atmosphere, etc, we have a total of 13. Ignoring the fact that we can’t just plant or expect lush forests everywhere, the maximum impact they could potentially have us not actually all that great.
If we wanted to biologically sequester carbon, we would have better luck using fertilizers directly into the oceans to force algal blooms which then die and sink. Of course, this has other consequences unfortunately
Hi! Not a climatologist, but plant scientist/ecologist. Can you elaborate more about why tree planting isn’t enough? A mature forest is carbon neutral, yes. Young saplings will fix atmospheric carbon as they grow, though. I have no idea how many you’d have to plant to make a dent in the runaway atmospheric carbon levels - is that the issue? It would also have to be a careful species choice depending on location, with (I’d imagine) a preference for longer-lived species with persistent wood.
I’m not saying afforestation is the solution, but surely it’s one facet of a comprehensive solution?
Think of it like this:
Let’s pretend the natural, completely free of human influence planet has 10 carbon units in the carbon cycle. If something were to burn down trees it does upset the natural balance of atmospheric carbon, but you are simply changing where the carbon is, not the total amount. This might upset the climate temporarily, but the total number of carbon units in circulation is still 10.
Now let’s add human activity to the equation. We are taking carbon that was in long term storage (oil, coal, natural gas) and adding it to the 10 carbon units we had before. So now instead of a total of 10 carbon units either in trees, the atmosphere, etc, we have a total of 13. Ignoring the fact that we can’t just plant or expect lush forests everywhere, the maximum impact they could potentially have us not actually all that great.
If we wanted to biologically sequester carbon, we would have better luck using fertilizers directly into the oceans to force algal blooms which then die and sink. Of course, this has other consequences unfortunately