User login
Navigation
Search
The Need for Trees
12 June, 2009 - 15:57
I propose that, whereas we totally accept the need to reduce the rate at which new carbon is released to the atmosphere, we must recognise the urgent need to replace the global ecosystem's lost component - the carbon absorbing, carbon store that existed in our lost forest. A terrible 50% of natural forest is gone and, if you look at the gross volumes involved, move towards its replacement on a major scale is the most sane way we can totally restore the atmosphere to its pre carbon economy levels.
It should be noted that even if we stopped all new felease of Carbon into the atmosphere cimate change would continue, practically unabated for a very long time.
There, that'll do!
13 June, 2009 - 18:26
#2
Wish to policy? Yes, for sure. To answer specifics:
- Prime target would be marginal farmland. Typically we pay farmers to keep livestock on this land and they make far more money from these subsidies than ever they can through selling the meat. Without the subsidies they would not be there. There are analogous situations Worldwide and the sum total of reforested land need cause no loss of any productive farmland whatsoever but could nigh on double our tree cover. To achieve that would totally clean the atmosphere - I can show clear calculations. Interesting is the reverse calculation that shows the existing loss of tree cover, that is from 10 000 years ago to date is the equivalent of around 150 parts per million of carbon di oxide in the atmosphere. QED.
- Yes, there's little absorbtion of carbon for the first few years but after ten progress is swift and absorbtion plentiful, depending on the site chosen, of course.
- As part of a move towards far lower levels of animal husbandry and a corresponding increase in arable production we will create a new dynamic social landscape.
- Yes we should do this in the UK and the sooner the better. Then we will have a moral high ground as we try to persuade the rest of the World to do the same.
As a policy I'd polish up what I first posted but can provide lots of back up data.
23 June, 2009 - 23:40
#3
Is a greater UK climate change impact not through deforestation elsewhere? I would think a higher priority would be to end UK companies buying products (and UK banks' investment) that are linked to destruction of tropical forests. For example, as detailed in the recent Greenpeace report: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/press-releases/uk-high-street-brands-driving-amazon-destruction-beef-and-leather-20090612 and of course unsustainable wood.
Also biofuel use in transport, because of the close link between an increased global demand for these fuels and rainforest destruction for palm oil plantations. However, I don't know how much the UK government can now do about this given that policy is now set at an EU level - perhaps someone can tell me?
24 June, 2009 - 22:18
#4
That's certainly the crux of the problem, in that systems are so full of inertia it's hard to steer them in a new direction or, indeed, stop them. My point is that we should show our national commitment here in the UK or why should other countries listen to what they could probably call our bossiness. Our Colonialist stance.
In the UK we could fix well over one billion tonnes of carbon di oxide without taking out any productive farmland. It would improve the landscape vastly and provide a lot of new, sustainable employment. Directly and indirectly, of course, we belch out much more annually but if forest is restored Globally then we can totally clean the atmosphere up. Yes and we must adjust so many of our habits. The challenge is enormous, but part of our adjustment must surely be to regrow our own rainforests and show that we're part of a global movement to re-energise our environment and build up a far more sustainable infrastructure.
PS - yeah, biofuels is dumb, in the tropics or back in the UK and Europe, except coppicing native deciduous trees and maybe algal cultivation in vats. Also sustainable harvest of timber, wherever, allows more carbon to be fixed in the replacement growth trees and is thus still a good thing. Always best used locally of course but it'll take a while to shrink back from Globalism. And, yes, we must retain the biodiversity and maturity of existing forest ecosystems.
PPS - Please, though, could we not talk of "greater priorities"? It's all important but remember that if we stopped all fossil fuel use tomorrow climate change would continue unabated. We need to clean up the atmosphere and vegetation is our only sustainable and obviously effective way to achieve this. Further, it can be argued that temperate rainforests are a better carbon store than their tropical counterparts. Mostly though I just feel that we should show the way here at home before lording it over others. We are no longer an imperial power and sorry, I do repeat myself. But it is crucial.
I hope that took things forward - I liked John's point earlier about creating an actual policy as I feel this area is very overlooked of late.
Can you convert that wish into a potential policy? Where do you think the trees ought to be planted? Existing farmland, public spaces, gardens. Presumably CO2 absorbtion from the planted trees would take 20 years or so to slowly build up while the trees grow.