The Carbon Underground: Reversing Global Warming

If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current levels [398 ppm.] to at most 350 ppm " ~ Dr. James Hansen

Since Dr. James Hansen, a leading climatologist, warned in 2008 that we need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere to 350 parts-per-million (ppm) in order to preserve life on Earth, little has been done to get us there.

It's getting late. If we're going to preserve a livable Earth, we the global grassroots, must do more than mitigate global warming.

We must reverse it.

How?

Hint number one: not by politely asking out-of-control corporations and politicians to please stop destroying the planet.

Hint number two: not by pinning our hopes for survival and climate stability on hi-tech, unproven and dangerous, "solutions" such as genetic engineering, geoengineering, or carbon capture and sequestration for coal plants.

Hint number three: not by naively believing that soon (or soon enough) ordinary consumers all over the planet will spontaneously abandon their cars, air travel, air conditioning, central heating, and fossil fuel-based diets and lifestyles just in time to prevent atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from moving past the tipping point of 450 ppm or more of CO2 to the catastrophic point of no return.

Read more: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/09/18/carbon-underground-reversing-global-warming

Forest and wood are protectors of the climate

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Within the framework of photosynthesis trees extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and thus reduce the CO2 content.

In order to produce one ton of wood trees extract from the atmosphere around 1.9 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) detrimental to the climate and lock up 500 kg carbon in the wood. Thus our woods and forests perform a critical and crucial contribution to the protection of the climate. The proper utilization and development of our woods and forests together with a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions form an important measure in the fight against the greenhouse effect.

Woods and forests give us air to breathe and raw materials for our life. Without forests and woods there would be no life possible on Earth for every human and every animal requires oxygen in order to be able to breathe. A single say 100 year old beech tree produces every year about 4,600 kilograms of oxygen; enough for one adult to breathe for 13 years..

For trees oxygen is sort of a by-product in the production of timber and foliage. By means of photosynthesis the tree absorbs carbon-dioxide and together with water and the energy from the sun turns this into sugar molecules, required for the production of wood. The oxygen left over during this process the tree exhales into the atmosphere while it locks carbon up in its biomass.

Different to most plants trees do not just grow upwards but also outwards as far as the trunk is concerned. Responsible for the growth of the girth of the tree trunk is the so-called cambium, a material that created the cells of the wood. During winter it takes a little break and this can be seen by the growth rings of the tree.

Carbon-dioxide storage with triple effect

Alone in the forests and woodlands of Germany are currently around 2.6 billion tons of carbon fixed in the wood of the trees. This is equal to a sequestration of 9.5 billion tons of carbon-dioxide.

Woodlands and forest play an important role in combating the effects of the greenhouse effect and climate change and in relation to that directly threefold. First they remove carbon-dioxide out of the atmosphere and stores it in the wood. This storage is extended, secondly, when the wood is used in new buildings, renovations of old buildings and for the production of furniture where the carbon stored in the timber is then locked in for as long as the timber remains timber and is neither burned or disposed off in the waste stream.

A low energy house built to a great extent from wood, for example, relieves the atmosphere of around 80 tons of carbon-dioxide.

And thirdly does wood, when used in building, replace other energy intensive materials such as steel and concrete which are produced on the basis of finite raw materials.

This means that – and this is the case in Germany and other countries – if our woods and forests are managed in a sustainable manner, that is to say that never more timber is being harvest than regrowth available, the resource wood never going to be exhausted and permanently renewable. The ratio between harvest and regrowth is always regarded to be at least a 1:3 that is to say one felled tree is replaced by at least three new ones, either already growing as natural regeneration or being planted. In fact, the ideal scenario is to plant, in addition to the natural regeneration existing.

Sustainably managed woods and forests make an enormous contribution towards combating the greenhouse effect and climate change through their ability of reducing the carbon-dioxide content of the atmosphere and they are thus protectors of the climate.

We need to manage our woods and forests properly so that not only do they do the job as they do now but to increase the CO2 sequestration by means of trees. The more trees the greater this absorption and at the same time we get wood as raw material.

© 2013

Forests back in fashion as weapon to combat climate change

by Michael Smith

The Earth's forests, which are perhaps one of the greatest, if not indeed the greatest, natural defenses against climate change, got somewhat of a boost recently with Britain's Prime Minister and a host of environmental lawyers throwing their support behind plans to protect them and eventually include the forestry sector in carbon markets.

Now who would have thought that the experts suddenly realize what we who have had dealings and have been working in forestry and related sectors for most of our lives have known all the time and those that set up managed forestry have known for centuries, namely that forests are good for the Earth.

A review commissioned by Gordon Brown and led by advisor Johan Eliasch has concluded that deforestation in countries heavily covered by rainforest could be halved in the next 12 years and the world's forestry sector could be carbon neutral – effectively sustainable in the long term – by 2030.

The review looks at the financial mechanisms needed to make this happen and comes down heavily in favour of wealthy industrialized nations offering funding to support forestry in poorer nations and somehow incorporating the carbon sink effect of existing forests into global carbon trading.

In a nutshell, the report says that countries that protect their forests should be rewarded for doing so by the international community.

The specific mechanisms recommended for doing this are slightly more complex.

Mr Eliasch said: “Saving forests is critical for tackling climate change. Without action on deforestation, avoiding the worst impacts of climate change will be next to impossible, and could lead to additional climate change damages of $1 trillion a year by 2100.

“Including the forest sector in a new global deal could reduce the costs of tackling climate change by up to 50% and therefore achieve deeper cuts in emissions, as well as reducing poverty in some of the world's poorest areas and protecting biodiversity.

“Deforestation will continue as long as cutting down and burning trees is more economic than preserving them. Access to finance from carbon markets and other funding initiatives will be essential for supporting forest nations to meet this challenge.”

I wonder whether readers remember that a while ago the papers and the media were full of suggestions that forests actually are bad for the environment. Don't ask me what those experts had been drinking but... Forests are more than carbon neutral; they are carbon sinks, and we need more of them and not just old forests. New planted and commercially managed forests and woodlands have been proven to be as useful as primal forests.

The review has been broadly welcomed in political circles, but environmental NGOs have given it a frostier reception.

Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Tom Picken said: “Allowing rich countries and businesses to 'offset' their carbon dioxide emissions by buying up huge tracts of forest is riddled with problems and will do little to tackle climate change.

“The industrialised world must rapidly cut its dependency on fossil fuels if we are to prevent catastrophic climate change from taking hold. The Eliasch plan will simply create a smokescreen allowing us to carry on polluting - it's the climate change equivalent of sub-prime mortgages.

“Forests and forest communities urgently require protection. Financial packages are needed - but we must also address the underlying causes of deforestation, such as biofuels, excessive meat consumption and industrial logging.”

We can but agree with the statements by the Friends of the Earth, though I also know that often FoE have a problem with commercial forestry per se and would like to see forests and woodlands remain unmanaged. This is not something that works and is not good for the forests and woodlands either, especially not with those, say, in Europe who have always been managed for the last millennia and if they would be no longer managed they would soon completely fall apart, literally. This is something that I have spoken about as regards to the coppice woodlands in the South of England, for instance.

The carbon offset idea, in my opinion, is a total stupidity anyway and we must get away from this notion that we can pay our way out of polluting the planet by paying, say, Brazil or such, to conserve their forests. I am sorry, but this notion is ludicrous. The developed world cannot be allowed to continue polluting just because they can buy carbon credits from the Third World. This is just not sustainable.

© M Smith (Veshengro), December 2008
<>