Trees Won't Fix Global Warming

[Pale Blue Dot]

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070808_tree_banks.html

The plan to use trees as a way to suck up and store the extra carbon dioxide emitted into Earth's atmosphere to combat global warming isn't such a hot idea, new research indicates.

Scientists at Duke University bathed plots of North Carolina pine trees in extra carbon dioxide every day for 10 years and found that while the trees grew more tissue, only the trees that received the most water and nutrients stored enough carbon dioxide to offset the effects of global warming.

**

These differences are key since the weather isn't always cooperative with human needs—if a drought takes hold, trees won't be able to do much in the way of carbon storage.

"If water availability decreases at the same time that carbon dioxide increases, then we might not have a net gain in carbon sequestration," Oren said.

Fertilizing forests to spur more carbon dioxide uptake is impractical, Oren added, because of the ramifications to the local environment and water supply.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

1. Oh my freaking God.

:crazy: MKJ

[Buzz Clik]

2. So... what the hell is MKJ, and what is your comment supposed to mean?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

4. An acronym of my initials and it means that a scientific study that disses the benefit of trees is

insane.

The researchers are enamored of their equations, nothing more.

We would be lucky if we could replace a fourth of the trees we've destroyed. MKJ

on edit, added e to benefit. And s to trees.

[Buzz Clik]

5. Thanks. As for the scientific study, it was a bit misrepresented by the article.

The purpose of the study was to determine if elevated CO₂ would stimulate tree growth with the CO₂ being fixed in the trees as structural carbon. The increased CO₂ was fixed in appreciable quantities only if water and nutrients were abundant.

The bottom line, therefore is NOT that planting new trees won't have an impact but that existing trees will not compensate for elevated CO₂ by growing faster and/or bigger.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

7. :-)

Thanks for explaining the equation so even I can understand it, no small feat.

And, I agree, it was a bit misrepresented in the article.

At least I can rest assured, if I plant a tree, I won't overtax our environment.


:-) MKJ

[amitten]

3. Well, the cooling effect from the shade alone is worth it.

Trees provide major amounts of surface cooling, CO2 absorption aside.

Trees should still at least be included in the solutions used.

[Dr Batsen D Belfry]

6. I wonder how much we contribute

by creating more of these massive parking lots that store the heat of the day and release it later. I always thought we ought to have more trees in these lots or some other way of shading them.

DBDB

[Eugene]

9. Planting trees in the wrong place may be counterproductive on that count.

Tree shade may have an overall warming effect on the ground
as trees absorb warming sunlight more than other kinds of
ground cover and trap heat near the ground.

Trees in the tropics offer climate benefits that more than
offset their warming effects. Trees at higher latitudes may
not.

---

Two articles about a study by Govindasamy Bala and Ken Caldiera
describe the effects in detail:

How trees might not be green in carbon offsetting debate - The Guardian, Apr. 10, 2007

Care needed with carbon offsets - BBC News, Dec. 15, 2006

[zalinda]

8. Then, one of the answers is hemp

Hemp can be grown in poor soil in semi-drought conditions. Now all we have to do is convince the DEA it's not marijuana.

zalinda

[Hobbs]

10. Well then we better start

clear cutting.

[GliderGuider]

11. Terra Preta might, though.

Here's how it might work:

Plant huge plantations of fast growing trees like coppice willow or poplar, or other woody plants like bamboo. Harvest the material at the end of its young fast-growth cycle. Turn it into charcoal. Bury the charcoal in arable soil.

What do you get? Carbon sequestration for a thousand years or more, and a 200% fertility improvement of the carbon-laced soil. One low tech process addresses two of our most urgent problems, climate change and soil fertility depletion. If you wanted to get fancy you could capture some of the gases driven off during the carbonization and use them to make synthetic motor fuel.

http://deltafarmpress.com/news/051114-terra-preta/
http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/terra_preta/TerraPretahome.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060301090431.htm

It's amazing stuff.

[corbett]

12. The Good And The Bad

There's real merit to their predictions. Reducing carbon emissions is the best choice. Carbon sequestration won't play more than a small part in our overall plan to save ourselves from global warming.

HOWEVER, reforestation has other key benefits which we must continue to pursue, including reductions in erosion, sandstorms and wide temperature fluctuations. Trees also are vital for water purification and, of course, habitat for wildlife.

I write about reforestation quite a bit on my blog. Give it a try. It's free:

http://www.keyboard-culture-global-warming.com

[ramapo]

13. Sounds like a stupid idea anyway

Nothing against planting trees. I am for it, even more for not cutting them down in the first place.

But this just sounded like another "let's find an easy, painless way to solve a problem caused by our runaway use of fossil fuels" tactic.

I don't think we could plant enough trees to counter the number of new coal plants that have come and are coming on line.

The burning of coal has to stop. The slavery to the automobile has to end. We are like the mythical lemmings (I think I read that they're really smart enough to avoid the cliff, I don't know that we are though).