Tree Planting, Despite Hype And Memes, Won't Even Be Close To A Comprehensive Climate Solution

[hatrack]

EDIT

Researchers estimate that nature might annually be able to remove 5 gigatons of carbon dioxide from the air and avoid another 5 gigatons through stopping emissions from deforestation, agriculture and other sources. This 10-gigaton figure has regularly been cited as “one-third of the global effort needed to stop climate change,” but that’s misleading. Avoided emissions and removals are not additive.

A new forests and land-use declaration announced at the UN climate conference in November also highlights the ongoing challenges in bringing deforestation emissions to zero, including illegal logging and protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples.

Stored carbon doesn’t stay there forever

Reaching the point at which nature can remove 5 gigatons of carbon dioxide each year would take time. And there’s another problem: High levels of removal might last for only a decade or so. When growing trees and restoring ecosystems, the storage potential develops to a peak over decades. While this continues, it reduces over time as ecosystems become saturated, meaning large-scale carbon dioxide removal by natural ecosystems is a one-off opportunity to restore lost carbon stocks.

Carbon stored in the terrestrial biosphere – in forests and other ecosystems – doesn’t stay there forever, either. Trees and plants die, sometimes as a result of climate-related wildfires, droughts and warming, and fields are tilled and release carbon. When taking these factors into consideration – the delay while nature-based removals scale up, saturation and the one-off and reversible nature of enhanced terrestrial carbon storage – another team of researchers found that restoration of forest and agricultural ecosystems could be expected to remove only about 3.7 gigatons of carbon dioxide annually.

Over the century, ecosystem restoration might reduce global average temperature by approximately 0.12 C (0.2 F). But the scale of removals the world can expect from ecosystem restoration will not happen in time to reduce the warming that is expected within the next two decades.

EDIT

https://theconversation.com/forests-cant-handle-all-the-net-zero-emissions-plans-companies-and-countries-expect-nature-to-offset-too-much-carbon-170336

[jimfields33]

1. So let's do it anyway and just have it as an addition to other things

This article is frustrating. So it’s not perfect but helps some.

[Pobeka]

2. I agree. There is much more to it as well.

In terms of temperate forests, the period of maximum annual volume growth is just starting to happen when they are about 10-30 years old. I am assuming that also means the maximum annual carbon sequestration starts about then as well.

But then, what to do with the wood fiber? You could just leave the tree standing, but at some point the volume growth slows down. A younger tree would sequester more carbon per year.

- If you let it just die, the dead tree will continue to hold carbon for a very long time while younger trees take its place.

- If it's good enough wood, traditionally the tree becomes lumber and paper fiber (which requires energy to harvest and convert).

- Using the plant fibers to produce biofuels is another option, and there are now jet fuels available made from biofuels. If you can get that done properly, it becomes a net zero fuel source.

I realize tropical rainforests are a different situation altogether. But temperate forests, either rural or urban would provide benefit for several decades while other solutions are worked on. And we know how to plant and maintain trees right now. Every little bit helps.