Reversing forest decline can combat climate change
The future of the planet's forests must play a big part in efforts to combat climate change says Lester Brown in this latest assessment of the continuing decline in tropical forests - and how that can be reversed.
As of 2007, the shrinking forests in the tropical regions were
releasing 2.2 billion tons of carbon per year. Meanwhile, expanding
forests in the temperate regions were absorbing 0.7 billion tons of
carbon annually. On balance, a net of some 1.5 billion tons of carbon
were being released into the atmosphere each year, contributing to
global warming.
Growing demands
The tropical deforestation in Asia is driven
primarily by the fast-growing demand for timber. In Latin America, by
contrast, it is the growing demand for soybeans and beef that is
deforesting the Amazon. In Africa, it is mostly the gathering of
fuelwood and the clearing of new land for agriculture as existing
cropland is degraded and abandoned.
Two countries, Indonesia and Brazil, account for
more than half of all deforestation. The Democratic Republic of the
Congo, also high on the list, is a failing state, making forest
management difficult.
Included in the Plan B blueprint to stabilise climate [set out in the Earth Polich Institute book listed below] are plans to end net deforestation worldwide and to sequester carbon through a variety of tree planting initiatives and the adoption of improved agricultural land management practices. Today, because the earth's forests are shrinking, they are a major source of CO2. The goal is to expand the earth's tree cover, growing more trees to soak up CO2.
Although banning deforestation may seem farfetched, environmental reasons have pushed three countries - Thailand, the Philippines, and China - to implement complete or partial bans on logging. All three bans were imposed following devastating floods and mudslides resulting from the loss of forest cover.After suffering record losses from several weeks of
non-stop flooding in the Yangtze River basin, Beijing noted that when
forest policy was viewed not through the eyes of the individual logger
but through those of society as a whole, it simply did not make
economic sense to continue deforesting. The flood control service of
trees standing, they said, was three times as valuable as the timber
from trees cut. With this in mind, Beijing then took the unusual step
of paying the loggers to become tree planters - to reforest instead of
deforest.
Other countries cutting down large areas of trees
will also face the environmental effects of deforestation, including
flooding. If Brazil's Amazon rainforest continues to shrink, it may
also continue to dry out, becoming vulnerable to fire. If the Amazon
rainforest disappears, it would be replaced largely by desert and scrub
forestland. The capacity of the rainforest to cycle water to the
interior, including to the agricultural areas to the south, would be
lost. At this point, a fast-unfolding local environmental calamity
would become an economic disaster, and because the burning Amazon would
release billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere, it would
accelerate global warming.
Just as national concerns about the effects of
continuing deforestation eventually eclipsed local interests, now
global interests are beginning to eclipse national ones as
deforestation has become a major driver of global warming.
Deforestation is no longer just a matter of local flooding, but also
rising seas worldwide and the many other effects of climate change.
Nature has just raised the ante on protecting forests.
Reaching a goal of zero net deforestation will
require reducing the pressures to deforest that come from population
growth, rising affluence, the construction of ethanol distilleries and
biodiesel refineries, and the fast-growing use of paper.
Food chain
Protecting the earth's forests means halting
population growth as soon as possible, and, for the earth's affluent
residents who are responsible for the growing demand for beef and
soybeans that is deforesting the Amazon basin, it means moving down the
food chain. A successful deforestation ban may require a ban on the
construction of additional biodiesel refineries and ethanol
distilleries.
Against this backdrop of growing concern about the forest-climate relationship, a leading Swedish energy firm, Vattenfall, has examined the large-scale potential for foresting wasteland to sequester carbon dioxide. They begin by noting that there are 1.86 billion hectares of degraded land in the world - land that was once forestland, cropland, or grassland - and that half of this, or 930 million hectares, has a decent chance of being profitably reclaimed. Some 840 million hectares of this total are in the tropical regions, where reclamation would mean much higher rates of carbon sequestration.
Vattenfall estimates that the maximum technical
potential of these 930 million hectares is to absorb roughly 21.6
billion tons of CO2 per year. If, as part of a global climate
stabilization strategy, carbon sequestration were valued at $210 per
ton of carbon, the company believes that 18 per cent of this technical
potential could be realised. If so, this would mean planting 171
million hectares of land to trees. This area - larger than that planted
to grain in India - would sequester 3.5 billion tons of CO2 per year,
or over 950 million tons of carbon.
The total cost of sequestering carbon at $210 per
ton would be $200 billion. Spread over a decade, this would mean
investing $20 billion a year to give climate stabilisation a large and
potentially decisive boost. This global forestation plan to remove
atmospheric CO2, most of it put there by industrial countries, would be
funded by them. An independent body would be set up to administer,
fund, and monitor the vast tree planting initiative.
Aside from the Vattenfall forestation idea, there
are already many tree planting initiatives under way that are driven by
a range of concerns, from climate change to desert expansion, to soil
conservation, to making cities more habitable. In late 2006, the UN
Environment Programme, inspired by Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangari
Maathai, announced plans for a worldwide effort to plant 1 billion
trees in one year to fight climate change. This initial target was
easily exceeded and by mid-2008, more than 2 billion trees had been
planted in more than 150 countries. The new goal is to have 7 billion
trees planted by the end of 2009 - just over one tree for every person
on the planet.
Soil erosion
A number of agricultural practices can also
increase the carbon stored as organic matter in soils. Farming
practices that reduce soil erosion and raise cropland productivity
usually also lead to higher carbon content in the soil. Among these are
shifting from conventional tillage to minimum-till and no-till, the
more extensive use of cover crops, the return of all livestock and
poultry manure to the land, expansion of irrigated area, a return to
more mixed crop-livestock farming, and the forestation of marginal
farmlands.
Rattan Lal, a Senior Agronomist with the Carbon
Management and Sequestration Center at Ohio State University, has
calculated the range of potential carbon sequestration for each of many
practices, such as those just cited. For example, expanding the use of
cover crops to protect soil during the off-season can store from 68
million to 338 million tons of carbon worldwide each year.
the total carbon sequestration for the practices he
cites shows a potential for sequestering 400 million tons of carbon
each year at the low end, and 1.2 billion tons of carbon per year at
the more optimistic high end. For our carbon budget we are assuming,
perhaps conservatively, that 600 million tons of carbon can be
sequestered as a result of adopting these carbon-sensitive farming and
land management practices.
By Lester R.Brown
From People and
Planet










