The Impact of Global Burning on Reforestation.

Some greens dismiss Reforestation because the rate at which Carbon is being released into the atmosphere is too substantial for Reforestation to counter in order to combat global burning. Others dismiss Reforestation because they believe global temperatures are already too great for Reforestation to combat global burning or that global temperatures will be too great for Reforestation to be able to combat global burning. Some argue that Reforestation is too late to combat the start of global burning, or the current rate of global burning, or an irreversible momentum in global burning. There are numerous turning points which, once passed, makes it more and more difficult for Reforestation to play any role in combating global burning. But, where is the scientific evidence showing where these turning points are or when they were passed?

22: ‘Global Burning will increase Forest Decay, and Forest Fires, releasing Vast Amounts of Carbon into the atmosphere and boosting Global Burning’.

Greens’ Proposition.

It is feared that if global temperatures rise then Carbon emissions from Forest respiration and Forest fires could overtake the absorption of Carbon causing a build up of Carbon in the atmosphere. Under these circumstances, natural Reforestation would only add to a global burning disaster.

Green Proponents.

Jorge Sarmiento.

One green commentator seems to believe that for a couple of decades, the Earth’s terrestrial Phytomass has been releasing more Carbon than it’s been absorbing, “Jorge sarmiento of princeton university has estimated the sizes of terrestrial CO₂ sources and sinks. (In 1976) Land plants had apparently started giving off as much CO₂ as they absorbed.” [139]

World Wildlife Fund.

“Nearly half of the planet’s forest has already been destroyed and the rate of loss is still alarmingly high. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (the ipcc - a group of more than 2,500 of the world’s leading scientists) has concluded that “forests are highly sensitive to climate change” and that up to one third of currently forested areas could be affected in some way.” [140]

Hadley Centre (British Met Office).

“Just prior to the COP6 negotiations at the Hague, the science journal Nature (9.11.2000) published the alarming findings of the latest Hadley Centre climate model. The Hadley Centre, part of the Met Office, is one of the world’s leading climate research institutions. It has been developing intricate climate models for many years, with each new model introducing greater complexity than the last. The new model is the first to model feedback effects of climate change on vegetation, soils and the oceans. The model focuses attention on the controversial issue of using forests (‘sinks’) as a method for absorbing CO₂ emissions. The United States is keen for carbon dioxide absorbed by forestry practices to count against its emissions reductions targets set by the Kyoto protocol. Other negotiating parties at the COP6 talks, including the EU, say that the science of sinks is too uncertain, and they should not be used until they are proven to reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels. The model would suggest that forest sinks are definitely not a solution to the problem of climate change. The new model predicts that large forests will switch from being net carbon absorbers to net carbon emitters around 2050, as a result of dieback caused by increased global average temperatures. As the forests decay, they will release CO₂ into the atmosphere, accelerating the process further. Atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ could be as high as 980 parts per million (ppm) by 2100, leading to localised warming of 8 degrees centigrade over some land areas. Previous models, without feedback between atmosphere and vegetation show carbon concentrations of only 700ppm. However the findings are enough to demonstrate that the only solution to climate change will be cutting emissions at source, rather than depending on mother nature to fix the problems we have created.” [141]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

It is quite true that a rise in global temperatures will cause an increase in Forest respiration and Forest fires and that, eventually, Forests will release more Carbon than they absorb. However, it is not known when these turning points will occur. There is no evidence that there has been an increase in Forest respiration and there is no evidence that Forests are releasing more Carbon than they absorb. There could be an increase in Carbon emissions from Forests for many years until the point is reached when they exceed Carbon absorption. Whilst jorge sarmiento suggests that these turning points have already been passed the hadley centre argues “large Forests will switch from being net carbon absorbers to net carbon emitters around 2050”. The prediction from the hadley centre thus implies that oomans have half a century in which to promote Reforestation and combat global burning before Forests themselves begin to boost global burning.

At the present moment, and given current global temperatures, it has to be suggested that if natural Reforestation is permitted on too small a scale then these Forests could well die off before they become established and thereby contribute to global burning. However, the fact is that if Reforestation was carried out on a large enough scale it could combat the rise in global temperatures and thus prevent Forest respiration and Forest fires becoming more significant than Photosynthesis.

The hadley centre is doubtlessly doing an excellent job of creating a model of the Earth’s climate. But these models do not take into account all of the factors which contribute - see Carbonomics 4: ‘The Inadequacies of Computer Models of the Earth’s Climate’ p.39. It is only when all of these factors are taken into account that there will be a clearer idea of the likely consequences of Reforestation. The hadley centre’s computer model, like all other climate models around the world, are useful for pointing out the possible role of specific factors in climate change but they are far from being an accurate representation of reality or a clear cut guide to future developments.

Natural Reforestation is so obvious an answer to combating global burning there are times when it is suspected the only reason green organizations could oppose such a policy is because of ulterior considerations, e.g. that foE’s over-paid, over-privileged staff would lose their company cars, fuel allowances and, perhaps, even their jobs?

23: ‘Natural Reforestation could not extract Carbon from the Atmosphere rapidly enough to combat Global Burning so we’ll have plant Tree Plantations’; ‘Natural Forests cannot extract Carbon from the Atmosphere rapidly enough to combat Global Burning so they’ll have to be replaced with Tree Plantations’; ‘The only way to bring about a rapid reduction in Global Burning is through the Rapid Harvesting of Tree Plantations’.

Greens’ Proposition.

It has been argued earlier that because young Trees absorb Carbon more quickly than old Trees then it would be wise to replace natural Forests with Tree plantations. A variation on this theme is that global temperatures are currently rising so rapidly that natural Reforestation does not have the time to combat global burning - only Tree plantations could extract Carbon from the atmosphere quickly enough to prevent the destabilization of the climate. Even those greens who acknowledge that natural Reforestation stores more Carbon than Tree plantations believe that natural Reforestation couldn’t extract Carbon quickly enough from the atmosphere to combat global burning. Only fast growing Tree plantations, which would be harvested as rapidly as possible, could combat global burning. Once again this leads to the conclusion that it would be necessary to replace natural Forests with Tree plantations. [142]

Green Proponents.

Ipcc.

The ipcc argues that even if dramatic technological reductions in Carbon emissions took place the momentum of global burning will continue to boost global temperatures for another half century or more during which time Forests would become more vulnerable to environmental damage.

Florentin Krause, Wilfrid Bach & Jon Koomey.

"In principle, the percentage of the Earth's land surface under Forests could probably be returned to the 6 billion ha level of pre-industrial times. If left alone and given sufficient time, nature might do the job on its own. However, the climate problem must be addressed in the next 5-10 decades. This presents a logistic constraint." [143]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

Firstly, there is no evidence that natural Reforestation couldn’t help to combat global burning. Secondly, it is commonly believed that Tree plantations could extract Carbon more quickly than natural Reforestation, so the less time that is perceived to be left for extracting Carbon, the greater the temptation to rely on Tree plantations. However, the more rapid the harvesting of Tree plantations, the less Carbon they would be able to store, the more self defeating it would be to replace natural Forests with Tree plantations. It has to be suggested that natural Reforestation would reduce global burning more rapidly than Tree plantations which are inherently unstable and cannot offer any long term storage of Carbon.

The main reason this green criticism of natural Reforestation is irrelevant is because Forests have multiple impacts on global burning. Forests reduce global temperatures firstly through the Photosynthetic effect. This involves not merely the extraction of Carbon from the atmosphere but water. Although there are vast quantities of water vapour in the atmosphere which makes it difficult to extract enough of it to reduce global temperatures there are commentators who believe that Forests could respond to rising temperatures by absorbing more water which could cause a reduction in the concentration of water vapour and thus global temperatures. Secondly, Forests reduce global temperatures through the albedo effect. Whilst Forests have a low albedo which would absorb solar energy and thus boost global temperatures, they release water vapour which forms clouds whose high albedo effect reflects sunlight back into space. This is one of the biggest cooling impacts that Forests have on the climate. It can be argued therefore that massive Reforestation could bring about a rapid, and substantial, reduction in global temperatures by boosting the Earth's albedo effect. New Forests could make a significant contribution to combating the momentum of rising global temperatures through the Photosynthetic extraction of atmospheric Carbon but it is possible they could make an even more substantial contribution through increasing the scale of the Earth’s albedo effect. The greater the scale of Reforestation, the greater the albedo effect, the greater the reduction in global temperatures.

The rule of thumb guide over the feasibility of using natural Reforestation to combat global burning before rising temperatures make such a policy redundant, is that the time it would take for naturally regrowing Forests to reduce global temperatures depends entirely upon the scale of the land put aside for Forests to regrow. For example, if half a continent’s worth of land was put aside for natural Forests then it would take twice as long to extract the same amount of Carbon as Forests growing on a whole continent. If oomans want to reverse global burning rapidly they have got to abolish the entire Animal exploitation industry and allow Forests to regrow on these massive areas of pastureland.

24: ‘So much Carbon could be released into the Atmosphere that it would be Impossible for Reforestation to Extract enough of it to Combat Global Burning’.

Greens’ Proposition.

Some greens believe that such huge quantities of Carbon could be dumped into the atmosphere that the scale of Reforestation needed extract this Carbon would be too great for the Earth’s terrestrial limitations. If more and more Carbon is dumped into the atmosphere there will come a point when it will be impossible for Reforestation to remove it before it triggers a rapid rise in global temperatures.

Green Proponents.

Fred Pearce and the Ipcc.

“If the ipcc .. is correct in its 1995 estimate that a global reforestation programme could cover 350 million hectares - an area slightly larger than the e.u. - then this would lead to the sequestration of up to 35 billion tonnes of Carbon in 50 years. That is equivalent to soaking up around 6% of projected CO₂ emissions between now and 2050.” [144]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

It is quite true that if all countries around the world started to enjoy increasing economic growth and that this resulted in a massive increase in the global economy, the burning of fossil fuels would push so much Carbon into the atmosphere that even wholesale Reforestation could never extract the Carbon quickly enough before it triggered off a substantial rise in global temperatures. This is a theoretically feasible possibility. It is quite likely that if the increases in Carbon emissions into the atmosphere continue at ‘the business as usual rate’, then there will come a time when, even if all the land on Earth was made available for Reforestation, it would be impossible to extract enough Carbon from the atmosphere to prevent global burning speeding up or, even worse, prevent global burning from becoming unstoppable. The Earth would need a second planet to help it to extract the huge quantities of Carbon from the atmosphere to combat global burning.

Once again, the critical turning points in this scenario are not known. The points at which the concentration of atmospheric Carbon would mean it is no longer possible to extract Carbon from the atmosphere to prevent the start of global burning or to stop global burning from accelerating or to stop it from developing an irreversible momentum, are simply not known. At present it is suspected that the first of these turning points has been passed but the latter two have not yet been passed - even though oomans are certainly getting closer and closer to them.

The above quote from fred pearce contains a calculation by the ipcc which shows that Reforestation would not merely be inadequate in combating global burning but irrelevant. It is by no means clear whether pearce has accurately represented the ipcc’s view. However, let’s explore the figures provided. The sequestration of 35gtC in 50 years means an absorption rate of 0.7gtC per year. If Forests covered 350 million hectares this would mean the scale of absorption would be 2tC per hectare per year. This is an extremely low estimate of the amount of Carbon absorbed by a Forest. Even the great supporter of whale hunting, fred pearce, himself has suggested that normally, “It takes one hectare of forest land to absorb five tonnes of carbon a year.” [145] Gregg marland would regard the ipcc’s figures as inadequate because they are probably based on estimations that do not include measurements of the Carbon that Forests push into the soil. His estimate is that Forests absorb Carbon at the rate of 7.5tC i.e. nearly four times the rate suggested by the ipcc, “A hectare of Sycamore Trees in the u.s. soaks up from the atmosphere about 7.5 tonnes of Carbon per year, says marland. Of that, up to 5 tonnes may end up in soils rather than the Trees themselves. He calculates that, at that rate, we could absorb 5 billion tonnes of Carbon each year by planting 7 million square kilometres ...” [146]

The ipcc’s estimate of the rate of Carbon sequestration is not merely highly conservative it is highly suspicious. The ipcc’s computer models do not as yet measure the role of Forests on the global climate. The ipcc has had the audacity to make recommendations for Carbon emissions but has made no such recommendations about the scale of the earth’s forest cover. Houghton himself has expressed political misgivings i.e. non-scientific views, about the need to avoid getting into the politics of Reforestation. The ipcc’s rate of Carbon sequestration is simply a reflection of its political decision to pretend that the Earth’s global temperature is influenced solely by Carbon emissions.

25: ‘Global temperatures have already risen enough to make it Impossible for Reforestation to Combat Global Burning’.

Greens’ Proposition.

Some greens imply that global temperatures are already too high for Reforestation to be able to play any role in combating global burning.

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

There is no evidence for this proposition but clearly there is going to be a point when global temperatures will be too high for Reforestation to play any effective role in combating global burning.

The point at which global temperatures would have to rise before Reforestation would contribute to global burning rather than combating it, is not known scientifically. However, lovelock believes the danger point will come when global temperatures rise to 18C i.e. a mere 3C warmer than current global temperatures. It is at this point that most Photosynthesizers will start dying off and giving a huge positive feedback to the rise in global temperatures. [147] If this is the case then oomans have to prevent global temperatures from rising to 18C because thereafter the momentum of global burning will spiral out of control and Reforestation would never be able to reverse this climatic disaster. [148] Oomans are only three degrees away from a self perpetuating, global burning, disaster. However, this proposal implies there is still time to combat global burning through Reforestation - even if the current rise in global temperatures is making such a project more hazardous than it needs to be. What is interesting here is that whilst it isn’t known what level of atmospheric Carbon would trigger off a self perpetuating, global burning disaster, the global temperatures at which this will happen is known. Lovelock has no proof that his scientific explanation of the Earth’s climate is true but by the time the proof has been acquired it would be too late.