Northern Forests make Reforestation Redundant.

34: ‘Northern Countries have carried out Extensive Reforestation’; We don’t have to worry about Global Burning because Northern Forests are Flourishing and Extracting Atmospheric Carbon’; ‘It’s Northern Forests which are preventing a Global Burning Disaster not tropical Rainforests (which are in a steady state)’.

Greens’ Proposition.

Prior to the emergence in 1988 of global burning as a political issue, governments in the over-industrialized world coyly admitted they had devastated their Forests. Indeed, they were proud of this achievement because it provided a rough measure of their countries’ economic virility. However, after 1988, these governments reacted almost instinctively over fears about global burning by placing the blame on third world countries for burning down their Rainforests. They insisted the third world should protect the global climate by preserving their Forests. This knee-jerk response became a big stumbling block in subsequent climate negotiations - the industrializing countries became sick to death of listening to this demand from governments in the over-industrialized world. Greens pointed out the hypocrisy of the stance taken by the over-industrialized world which had long since devastated most of their Forests and, for the previous couple of decades, had been on a logging rampage around the world. It became a commonplace to hear greens pointing out that Forest destruction in canada was worse than in brazil, “It might be remembered that felling rates are greater in, say, British Columbia, than Brazil. It is said that the 'clearcuts' of Western Canada, are so big that they can be seen from outer space. Similarly deforestation rates in sub-tropical and tropical areas such as Florida and Queensland exceeded those in their poorer neighbours. In some areas, notably Central America, the 'hamburger connection' lies behind the clearance of forests for ranches.” [183]

During the 1990s the governments in the over-industrialized world began to suspect they might be required to implement Reforestation policies to counter global burning. Although they had focused public attention on the destruction of tropical Rainforests, they realized they were highly vulnerable on the Forest issue. So they changed their tactics and embarked on a massive Reforestation scheme - not a real one, of course, just an ideological one. Forest scientists in the over-industrialized world began to discover vast stretches of Forest they never knew existed. Over-industrialized governments were able to launch a propaganda campaign suggesting massive Reforestation had occurred in their countries over the previous few decades (apparently whilst no-one was looking). Whilst for years, green commentators had been pointing out that Forests in the over-industrialized nations were being decimated, suddenly Forest scientists started popping out of the academic woodwork to point out that this was not the case. Here was a grand chance for these psychophantic academics to prove their propaganda worth to their rulers in this new age of commercial universities.

The discovery of what has supposedly been happening in the over-industrialized nations also led to a theoretical re-evaluation of the role of northern Forests in the global climate. Whilst in the 1980s the over-industrialized nations believed that tropical Rainforests were the most crucial part of the Earth’s climate, in the 1990s more and more Forest scientists began arguing that it is northern Forests that are of importance to the climate. So, by the simple expedient of discovering Reforestation (whose existence was highly debatable) and by redefining which Forests were important for stabilizing the climate, the northern over-industrialized nations transformed themselves from climatic criminals into climatic heroes.

The political transformation of the scale and significance of northern Forests also turned out to be a propaganda bonus for the global burning sceptics. Climate sceptics were now able to argue that since northern Forests were more important climatically than tropical Rainforests and since northern Forests were flourishing then global burning posed no threat.

The over-industrialized nations’ Reforestation propaganda has been successful in convincing the public it has nothing to be guilty of as regards destabilizing the climate - partially because greens, being disinterested in Reforestation, never challenged this propaganda. Livestock consumers in the over-industrialized world now believe that the only problem left to stabilize the climate is stopping deforestation in the industrializing world. The over-industrialized nations’ Forests’ propaganda has changed significantly from its initial, knee jerk reaction of the late 1980s, but the sentiment is still the same - to minimize any action they might be asked to take to reduce global burning even though they are destabilizing the climate to a greater and greater extent.

Proponents.

Roger Sedjo - Resources for the Future - July 1992.

Roger sedjo was one of the first commentators to claim the over-industrialized nations had Reforested huge parts of their land, and were thereby helping to combat global burning. His views were brought to the attention of brutish scientific world by an all too eager reporter, fred pearce, “The Forests of europe, north america and the former soviet union have expanded so much in the past four decades that they are countering the greenhouse effect, according to a washington think-tank ‘resources for the future’. Roger sedjo, author of the study .. argues that new temperate Forests, most planted in the past forty years, are absorbing at least 700 million tonnes of Carbon a year from the atmosphere. Sedjo claims that his findings “go a long way towards explaining” the mystery of the missing Carbon sink. Now it seems this missing Carbon is accumulating in new temperate Forests close to the great power plants and highways where it is emitted. Sedjo says, 24 of the 25 European countries increased their Forest area between 1954 and 1984. Forest cover in the former soviet union has risen by more than 70 million hectares in 25 years.” [184]

Jorge Sarmiento - the Science and Policy Associates - September 1993.

“Data buried for years in forestry ministries have lent new weight to the theory that the Planet’s northern or ‘boreal’ Forest has played a key role in damping down the greenhouse effect. According to the records, over the past half century, the Forest has soaked up huge quantities of excess Carbon dioxide. The science and policy associates said the boreal Forest is crucial for controlling atmospheric CO₂. Jorge sarmiento of princeton university has estimated the sizes of terrestrial CO₂ sources and sinks. Between 1920 and 1976, Forests and other Plants soaked up 35 billion tonnes of CO₂. .. from 1976, the amount of CO₂ absorbed in the ocean and staying in the atmosphere equalled the amount released. Land plants had apparently started giving off as much CO₂ as they absorbed. The turning point, 1976, was the same year .. that the boreal Forests slipped from net growth to net depletion.” [185]

Brutland.

Brutland is also trying to claim that it is a part of the trend of northern countries’ increasing their Forest cover. On closer inspection it is discovered, somewhat unfortunately, that the increase in Reforestation will remove a piddling 600,000tonnes of Carbon a year - which also highlights the highly embarrassing fact that the country’s Forest cover is so tatty that it absorbs a truly minuscule 2.9mtC, “In 1990 .. an estimated 2.9mtC were removed from the atmosphere and stored in forests, vegetation and soils ­ equivalent to 1.4% of total emissions.” It was pointed out that by 2010 the situation might have improved even more!! .. “the total uptake by sinks from u.k. agriculture and forestry is projected to increase from about 1.7% of u.k. carbon dioxide emissions to 2% in 2010.” This meant that .. “if the present rate of increase in tree cover continues, afforestation since 1990 could save 0.6 mtC in 2010.” [186]

‘Environmental Scares’ - the Economist

“In the early 1980s acid rain became the favourite cause of doom. Lurid reports appeared of widespread forest decline in germany, where half the Trees were said to be in trouble. By 1986, the united nations reported that 23% of all Trees in europe were moderately or severely damaged by acid rain. What happened. They recovered. The biomass stock of european Forests actually increased during the 1980s. The damage all but disappeared. Forests did not decline: they thrived. A similar gap between perception and reality occurred in the united states. Greens fell over each other to declare the forests of north america acidified and dying. “There is no evidence of a general or unusual decline of Forests in the united states or canada due to acid rain,” concluded a ten year, $700m official study. In 1984 the united nation asserted that the desert was swallowing 21m hectares of land every year. That claim has been comprehensively demolished. There has been and is no net advance of the desert at all.” [187] Is it any wonder that when environmentalists are given $700 million to spend over ten years they are pleased to report that america’s Forests are doing fine? These anti-greens imply that Forests thrive on pollution, clear cutting, and soil erosion.

Carbon Modelling Consortium.

“The u.s. pumps around 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. But a new report claims that the nation’s trees could be sucking up just about all of this pollution. (To try to locate the gap in the Carbon cycle involving the disappearance of 2 billion tonnes of C0₂), a team of american researchers called the Carbon Modelling Consortium divided the world into four regions - eurasia, the southern continents and north america above and below 51N. They used models to work out how atmospheric C0₂ should be distributed between these regions, based on the known carbon sources and sinks and estimates of how air moves between these sites. To the researchers’ surprise, almost all the carbon was being taken up by north america south of 51N. They suspect that some of it is being absorbed by young trees in areas cleared in the victorian era that have since been reforested. The rest could be due to improved fire prevention.” [188]

Pat Michaels.

“If the Planet gets greener, which it is, as a result of what people are doing, is this (global warming) the serious problem that the political process believes that it is?” [189] Michaels argument seems to be that it doesn’t matter if global burning is increasing if Reforestation is increasing.

Green Proponents.

Easterbrook, Gregg - 1994.

“Though deforestation continues at an alarming pace in the tropics, in the developed world afforestation is the rule. The expanding boreal forests of north america and eurasia are much larger than the rainforests of the tropics. Within the boreal forests are tens of millions of acres of ‘managed’ woodlands in which trees aided by people grow faster than natural forest.” [190]

Greenpeace’s Views on Kauppi - 1994.

“Kauppi et al conclude that forest growth in Europe has increased by 30% over the last 20 years, although their estimate is hampered by the fact that good survey data are available for only one-third of European forests. But expansion of temperate forests would fit the need for a sink in the land biota: only growing forests, and/or forests responding to the putative ‘fertilization effect’ can sequester carbon on the scale needed to soak up a billion tonnes or more. Temperate forests growing back after being levelled in the 18th and 19th centuries could fit the bill. Kauppi et al conclude: “This information seemingly contradicts the commonly held view of a forest decline in Europe.”” [191] Although greenpeace points out that .. “although their estimate is hampered by the fact that good survey data are available for only one-third of European forests” this does nothing to diminish the conclusion that northern Forests are flourishing.

WWF.

Extreme right wing bigots began claiming it was only northern Forests that were extracting Carbon from the atmosphere. According to the world wide fund for nature, “Though there remain considerable uncertainty, much of this (1.8 billion tonnes of Carbon) currently appears to be absorbed by non-tropical forests in the northern hemisphere, through a mixture of new forest growth and possibly the fertilisation effect.” [192] It is interesting that tony juniper, whose article in the ecologist’s ‘Climate Crisis’ is analyzed below, quotes sedjo to justify his arguments against Reforestation.

Whyte, Ian D.

“Between 1860 and 1980 deforestation and other land use changes added between 80 and 150gt of Carbon to the atmosphere, about a third of the total Carbon dioxide released by human activities. Temperate areas provided the main source of Carbon dioxide from Vegetation changes in the late 19thc and early 20thc but, since the 1950s, tropical Forests have taken over, releasing two or three time as much Carbon as Forests in mid and high latitudes in the 1980s.” [193]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

There are a number of criticisms of the green propositions that northern Forests are flourishing and that northern Forests are preventing a global burning disaster not tropical Rainforests - which are believed to be in a steady state.

The Cosmetic Nature of America’s Efforts to combat Global Burning.

America’s Reforestation policies to combat global burning are not soaking up vast amounts of Carbon, “As grand as the Bush plan sounds, an additional 10 billion trees over 10 years would absorb only 1-3% of the CO₂ produced in the US during that same period. Considering that the country produces 1.3 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide a year - over 20% of the total that enters the global atmosphere - 10 billion trees seem to be a Band-Aid.” [194] ; “The United States’s “‘billion trees per annum’ carbon off-set forestry programme will (at best) sequester 2% of their annual CO₂ output concurrent with their 15% CO₂ emissions increase over the next 15 years.” [195]

Gabrielle Walker.

Walker’s article on the Carbon modelling consortium presents a number of solid criticisms of the consortium’s conclusion that america is absorbing vast amounts of Carbon, “Another concern is that some of the new results conflict with other measurements. The researchers found that continents in the southern hemisphere appeared to be emitting carbon, which conflicts with a paper .. reporting that latin american tropical forests seems to be absorbing large amounts of carbon. David schimel adds that the researchers used data from a time when the global carbon sink was fluctuating wildly. He is also dubious about the size of the reported sink. “It suggests that the forests are storing carbon at rates close to their net photosynthetic rate,” he says. “That’s just not credible.” Steve pacala of princeton university, a leading member of the carbon modelling consortium, admits that it’s hard to understand why american forests should take up so much carbon. He points out that there are many uncertainties; in particular, data for eurasia are more sparse than for america.” [196]

The Saw Tooth Graph of Increasing Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon and it’s Implications for Southern Forests.

The proposition that it is northern Forests which are helping to combat global burning derives, paradoxically, from roger revelle’s mauna loa measurements of the concentration of atmospheric Carbon. The graph of the upward trend of Carbon accumulation in the atmosphere also shows a regular, annual, saw tooth feature. What was happening was that each year in the spring and summer there was an increase in Photosynthesis, which decreased the concentration of atmospheric Carbon, whilst in the autumn and winter, decay and respiration increased the concentration of atmospheric Carbon. When revelle investigated this phenomenon further it was discovered that most of this see-sawing was being caused by northern Forests whereas the tropical Rainforests hardly contribute at all. There was a gradient running from the equator to the northern tundra along which this see-sawing feature became more and more prominent, “Northern Forests are of great significance in the annual transfer of the Carbon resources of the biosphere. Each year there is a spring growth spurt in the northern hemisphere, much of which occurs in the boreal Forest, which is so important that it affects the Carbon cycling in the atmosphere of the whole Planet.” [197]

These facts were then interpreted in ways which were highly favourable to northern governments. Forest scientists argued that the facts showed that tropical Forests were absorbing little atmospheric Carbon, thereby seeming to confirm their belief that these Forests were in a state of maturity whilst northern Forests were absorbing vast quantities of Carbon pollution which were being dumped into the atmosphere. It was suspected that the northern Forests might also be expanding, “Vladislav alexeyev calculates that siberia’s Forests absorb almost 10% of human-made emissions of CO₂. Rosanne d’arrigo put the total for all boreal Forests at a whopping 30%. [198]

This interpretation of tropical Forests is vulnerable over a couple of issues. Firstly, Rainforests don’t have seasons so it appears as if they are stable absorbing and releasing similar quantities of Carbon. And yet there is the possibility that, because the measurements used to draw up these estimates might not have been accurate enough, tropical Forests could be absorbing a steady quantity of Carbon from the atmosphere. Secondly, massive deforestation has been taking place in tropical Rainforests so how is it possible for them to appear to be Carbon neutral? It is possible then the destruction of tropical Rainforests is masking the fact that the surviving tropical Rainforests are absorbing considerable quantities of Carbon.

A couple of research teams have estimated that tropical Forests have been absorbing considerable amounts of Carbon, “A unique set of measurements has revealed the importance of forests in the global carbon cycle. Measurements made during TIGER show that forests in amazonia, cameroon and canada are all accumulating carbon, and at a scale far greater than anticipated: in amazonia alone the scale of the uptake is enough to account for the so-called ‘missing sink’” [199]

The Missing Carbon Sink.

Roger Revelle.

Revelle’s measurements of the concentration of atmospheric Carbon showed an upward, see-sawing, trend which was interpreted to mean that tropical Rainforests were in a mature state whilst northern Forests, despite being thousands of years old, were in their youthful stage absorbing vast quantities of Carbon. But revelle was also the discoverer of another major feature of the Earth’s Carbon spiral. He pointed out that oomans were dumping roughly 7.1gtC into the atmosphere; 3gtC remained in the atmosphere; 2-3gtC were absorbed by the oceans; whilst the rest disappeared. The Carbon unaccounted for was called the ‘missing Carbon’. At that time, the late 1950s, it was believed that the oceans were absorbing anthropogenic Carbon being dumped into the atmosphere and that the Earth’s Forests were playing virtually no such role because they were mature, so it is hardly surprising that no estimate was given of the amount of Carbon being taken up by Forests. Since then various attempts have been made to explain where this Carbon is going. In the 1990s these answers became entangled in the propaganda war over the importance of northern Forests in absorbing anthropogenic Carbon emissions. Many Forest scientists who believe that northern Forests are expanding and absorbing huge amounts of Carbon concluded that the northern Forests must be the ‘missing Carbon’.

The following sections outline the views of those who have contributed to the missing Carbon debate. Many of these quotations have already just been used. They are re-used here to emphasize the ‘missing Carbon’ issue and highlight their relationship to the propaganda about northern Forests.

Roger Sedjo - Resources for the Future - July 1992.

Roger sedjo argued, “The Forests of europe, north america and the former soviet union have expanded so much in the past four decades that they are countering the greenhouse effect, according to a washington think-tank ‘resources for the future’. Sedjo claims that his findings “go a long way towards explaining” the mystery of the missing Carbon sink. Now it seems this missing Carbon is accumulating in new temperate Forests close to the great power plants and highways where it is emitted.” [200]

WWF.

The world wide fund for nature argued, “Scientists have not yet balanced the modern carbon cycle. They know that some 5.5 billion tonnes of CO₂ (measured as Carbon) are released by fossil fuel burning and other industrial emissions. To this they add an estimated 1.6 billion tonnes from deforestation and other land use changes in the tropics. Of this total of 7.1 billion tonnes, some 3.3 billion tonnes remain in the atmosphere, and an estimated 2 billion tonnes are absorbed by the oceans. That leaves 1.8 billion tonnes. Though there remain considerable uncertainty, much of this currently appears to be absorbed by non-tropical forests in the northern hemisphere, through a mixture of new forest growth and possibly the fertilisation effect.” [201]

Carbon Modelling Consortium.

To try to locate the gap in the Carbon cycle involving the disappearance of 2 billion tonnes of C0₂ .. “a team of american researchers called the Carbon Modelling Consortium divided the world into four regions - eurasia, the southern continents and north america above and below 51N. They used models to work out how atmospheric C0₂ should be distributed between these regions, based on the known carbon sources and sinks and estimates of how air moves between these sites. To the researchers’ surprise, almost all the carbon was being taken up by north america south of 51N. They suspect that some of it is being absorbed by young trees in areas cleared in the victorian era that have since been reforested. The rest could be due to improved fire prevention. The u.s. pumps around 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. But a new report claims that the nation’s trees could be sucking up just about all of this pollution. ” [202]

TIGER.

This is one of the few research teams which have questioned the view that northern Forests may be the missing Carbon sink, “A unique set of measurements has revealed the importance of forests in the global carbon cycle. Measurements made during TIGER show that forests in amazonia, cameroon and canada are all accumulating carbon, and at a scale far greater than anticipated: in amazonia alone the scale of the uptake is enough to account for the so-called ‘missing sink’” [203] ; “Conventional knowledge suggests that Forests are in a steady state - that their uptake of Carbon from the atmosphere is balanced by losses from respiration and leeching. .. tiger researchers discovered that the Brazilian amazonia is not a steady state, but absorbs Carbon in quantities comparable to the ‘missing sink’.” [204]

Unknown Paper.

A paper .. “reporting that latin american tropical forests seems to be absorbing large amounts of carbon.” [205]

35: ‘Clearcutting the Taiga would combat Global Burning’.

Greens’ Proposition.

It has been pointed out that in the 1990s the over-industrialized countries changed their Forest propaganda to promote the view that northern Forests are flourishing and expanding. They argue that northern Forests may be absorbing so much atmospheric Carbon they could even be the missing Carbon sink. The over-industrialized countries now have evidence to show they have been carrying out massive Reforestation so they cannot be held responsible for global burning. Global burning sceptics have also started arguing that northern Forests are the most important Forests for stabilizing the climate and that their expansion shows that global burning poses no threat of destabilizing the climate.

The over-industrialized world has the world’s most corrupt and decadent governments. Correspondingly, scientists in the over-industrialized world are amongst the most corrupt - and Forest scientists aren’t any different. These scientists are so far away from being objective and impartial they might as well be prostitutes. Northern governments, and their livestock Forest scientists, were doubtlessly very satisfied with themselves for being able to, once again, put the blame for global burning onto third world countries chopping down their Forests. But, unfortunately, this isn’t enough for them. They seem to want it all. They are now changing their Forest propaganda yet again in order to justify the clearcutting of northern Forests.

Surely, it might be asked, if northern Forests are so important for helping to stabilize the climate won’t cutting them down destabilize the climate? Forest scientists now tell us this is wrong. On the contrary, cutting down northern Forests will be useful for countering global burning because they are absorbing too much solar energy. ‘Er, ah, but if that’s the case then surely when you argued in the 1990s that the northern Forests were expanding and helping to counter global burning then you must have been lying?’ ‘No, no, we weren’t lying, don’t be so paranoid, we’ve just acquired more sophisticated information’. Is it not truly amazing that when northern governments were accused of boosting global burning they suddenly found lots of Reforestation they never knew existed and proclaimed they had been helping to stabilize the climate then, once they had convinced everyone about what they were doing, they changed their position and argued there was a need to clear cut northern Forests in order to combat global burning.

Some greens argue that chopping down northern Forests would not boost global burning as would be the case with deforestation of tropical Forests. Indeed, greens believe that the deforestation of the taiga would help to reduce global burning. If anyone knows how this propaganda differs from that being put out by the logging industry then please let us know!

Green Proponents.

Bill Burroughs and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

In 1992 burroughs argued that, "The snow-covered forests of the northern hemisphere can absorb more sunlight during the winter months than the adjacent treeless snowy areas and are therefore warmer. Not only do the exposed surfaces of the trees absorb heat, but this heat also accelerates the melting of the snow that settles on them. The computer model used by the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder Colorado .. considered the impact of removing all of the forests north of 45 north and replacing them with bare soil. The amount of cooling was startling. Clearly, further deforestation at high latitudes in Eurasia and north America will cool the climate. Moreover these results predict that the removal of the boreal forests could be more damaging than the destruction of the tropical rainforests." [206] The message here is, ‘Save the Earth, clearcut the Forests.’

Bill Hare on the Ipcc.

“Other terrestrial feedbacks identified by the IPCC include:

* Effects of land-surface changes. Albedo changes from the replacement of tundra by forests in northern high latitudes with warming may amplify the initial greenhouse gas forcing.

* Plant physiological effects of CO₂ on climate.Reduction in stomatal conductance as CO₂ concentration increases could significantly enhance the surface warming over terrestrial areas as a consequence of reductions in evapotranspiration and increases in soil moisture.

* Carbon fertilization effect. Increases in CO₂ can enhance plant productivity, which is assumed to continue at a rate linked to the CO₂ concentration, and is a negative feedback. However the 1994 IPCC report concludes that "when the availability of water and nutrients is taken into account the fertilization effect is likely to be reduced; several model results suggest reduction by around a half".” [207]

Norman Moss on the Ipcc.

.. “the ipcc says, ‘Forests spreading into tundra in a warmer world would absorb a greater proportion of solar energy and increase the warming.” [208]

Peter Bunyard quoting Richard Betts.

Bunyard opposes Reforestation because he fears the Reforestation of the boreal Forests would boost global burning. He relies on evidence compiled by richard betts, “Richard betts from the hadley centre (suggests) more vigorous growth in high latitude, boreal regions (as a result of the increasing concentrations of Carbon dioxide) can accentuate warming by bringing about earlier snow melts, thus exposing the leaf-darkened surface to the sun. Should global warming cause the northwards spread of conifer forests that will bring about more warming.” [209]

Robin McKie quoting Richard Betts.

Mckie also quotes betts .. “planting trees that gobble up carbon dioxide is a dangerous game, as researchers at Britain's Hadley climate centre revealed. 'Yes, trees do soak up gases produced by factories but they also contribute to global warming,' said a meteorologist, Richard Betts. 'Trees have dark leaves and bark and stand out against light backgrounds, particularly in higher, snowy latitudes. As a result, they stop sunlight being reflected back into space. Our calculation show that in places like Canada and Siberia, planting new trees would actually increase global warming.'” [210]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

Greens Can’t prove such a Proposition.

In the past, greens accepted the view of northern governments that there had been an expansion of northern Forests and claimed that this was countering global burning by extracting Carbon from the atmosphere. Now northern governments argue, and greens agree with them, that the taiga Forests absorb more solar energy than snow covered ground and are warming the Earth. Greens now argue that Reforesting this area would be dangerous because it would increase global burning.

This green proposition cannot be proved. However, it can be argued that the conclusion is wrong since it is based solely on partial evidence. At present, not enough is known about the totality of the relationship between the taiga Forests and the climate. It has been pointed out earlier that global burning is composed of four components: the greenhouse effect, the Photosynthetic effect; the albedo effect; and the heat effect. The only way of being able to say scientifically whether the Reforestation of the taiga Forest would boost global burning is by assessing each of these components and then weighing them up to assess the dominant influence.

The Greenhouse Effect.

The taiga Forests release Carbon emissions through Forest fires, decay, and respiration. If there are few fires and the Forests are expanding then Carbon emissions will be less important than the Carbon absorbed through the Photosynthetic effect. This would help to reduce global burning. Reforesting the taiga would thus help to absorb atmospheric Carbon and thus combat global burning.

The Photosynthetic effect.

If the Taiga forests are expanding then they are absorbing more Carbon and more water vapour from the atmosphere and thus moderating global burning. Although considerable amounts of water vapour are absorbed by Forests during Photosynthesis it is commonly believed this does not reduce the Earth’s greenhouse effect to the same extent as the absorption of Carbon because the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is far greater than the amount of Carbon. During Photosynthesis, the proportion of water vapour extracted from the atmosphere is far smaller than the proportion of Carbon extracted from the atmosphere. However, there are commentators who believe that Photosynthesis does have a considerable impact on the concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere and thus the climate, “According to results published yesterday, Plants may respond to extra Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by conserving water. This would create a drier world, with fewer clouds and less rainfall, scientists said yesterday. Although the rainfall cycle depends on evaporation of seas and lakes, huge quantities of water are transpired through the leaves of plants. (In experimental, Carbon rich, atmospheres there was a reduction in) the transpiration of water by 9%. The implication is that there would be less water for cloud formation and a reduction of rainfall by 6%. This was the reverse of computer models, which suggested a warmer, wetter world.” [211]

The Albedo effect.

Taiga Forests may absorb more solar energy than snow covered land and thus warm the climate. However, the taiga Forest also releases water vapour, through respiration and evaporation, which creates clouds that reflect sunlight back into space thereby reducing global burning. Which of these effects is more predominant is not known.

The Heat effect.

As regards the heat effect, the greater the scale of the Taiga Forests and the greater their respiration, the more water vapour that is released into the atmosphere, the greater the heat released into the atmosphere. The release of water vapour warms the atmosphere but also creates clouds who albedo cools the Earth. The amount of water vapour released by northern Forests is nothing like on the same scale as in tropical Rainforests, so that the taiga is not covered by similar dense clouds as the tropical Rainforests. These clouds cool the Earth. Until scientists can determine how much water vapour is released and its contribution to cloud formation and thus the albedo effect, then it is not yet possible to determine the net effect of these two factors.

Overall Conclusion.

Greens’ proposition that the Reforestation of the taiga Forests would boost global burning cannot be proved. It is only when the four factors highlighted above have been measured and assessed that such a conclusion could be proved or not. It is wrong to allege that the Reforestation of the taiga Forests would boost global burning. There are commentators who believe that Reforestation would combat global burning, “Temperatures in western canada rose when Forests were cleared and have remained high, say two canadians. Trevor lewis and kelvin wang studied temperature data from boreholes to work out how surface temperatures had changed in the past. They found permanent increases of 1-2C at the times the Forests were destroyed. Climate models predict that deforestation warms the land, just as clearings within a moist tropical Forest feels stiflingly hot. However, no one had collected the data needed to resolve a dispute between the two main theories used in the models. If increased surface reflectivity after cutting is the main cause of warming, temperatures should fall again as weeds cover the ground. But lewis’s findings back the alternative theory - that the dominant cause of warming is disruption of moisture transport that cools humid forests, so the change lasts until the forest returns.” [212]

Greens Supporting the Logging Industry.

The Greens who oppose the Reforestation of the taiga Forest because this would boost global burning are implying that the deforestation of the taiga Forests would help to reduce global burning. This is a very convenient bit of propaganda for northern loggers. It is not often that greens demand ‘Log the Forests to combat global burning’ - all they have to do to pave the way for such propaganda is to promote organic pharming. Even more convenient when deforestation is deemed to be dangerous in tropical Rainforests. Especially convenient when propaganda has it that northern Forests had expanded considerably since the second world war - after all, the whole point of boasting about Reforestation is that it allows an increase in logging rates.

The issue of northern Forests has generated a number of ironies. In the second half of the 1990s, in an effort to avoid being blamed for global burning, northern countries announced an increase in the scale of their Forests. They now argue that deforestation would help to combat global burning. If this is the case, does this mean that the alleged extensive Reforestation of the northern continents played a part in boosting global temperatures? In effect, northern governments, having invented the Reforestation of their land to try and escape responsibility for global burning, have ended up providing the evidence of their own guilt!

36: ‘If we support Reforestation then America, Russia, and Canada, won’t need to make any further contribution to combating Global Burning which would be politically unacceptable to the rest of the World.’

Greens’ Proposition.

Some greens believe that if countries were allowed to offset Carbon emissions through Forests then countries such as america, russia, and canada, would not need to reduce their industrial Carbon emissions. Their Forests are so extensive they mop up all of their Carbon emissions. Thus america, the country releasing the greatest Carbon emissions, would not need to reduce its current Carbon emissions.

Green Proponents.

Steve Ellsworth, Greenpeace.

It is suspected that greens’ opposition to Reforestation derives from comments made in may 1991 by steve ellsworth, greenpeace’s atmosphere campaigner, “If accepted this proposal (Reforestation as a means of offsetting Carbon emissions) will let the US off the hook and allow business as usual throughout the world, exactly what the scientists warned against. The World Climate Conference would be seriously undermined.” [213]

Fred Pearce.

Ellsworth’s comment was picked up quickly by the politically conventional fred pearce, “Densely populated countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, could not grow enough trees to absorb all their present CO₂ emissions, even if every existing hectare was set aside for the purpose. Yet the countries with the worst records of CO₂ pollution, such as the United States, Canada and parts of eastern Europe, do have the land. The United States, despite being responsible for more than one-fifth of the world’s CO₂ emissions, could absorb every last tonne if one-third of its land were forested for carbon sequestration.” [214]

Arthur B. Robinson and Noah Robinson.

“Already, plant growth and diversity - from the forests and fields of North America to the rain forests of South America - have shown a marked increase. This is the result of carbon dioxide fertilization. Mankind is moving carbon from below-ground deposits of coal, oil, and natural gas into the atmosphere, where it is then used to make more plants and animals. Studies indicate that North American forests are growing so fast that they are storing all of the human-released carbon from North America. According to the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture, the total amount of large-tree standing timber in the United States alone has increased by 30 percent since 1950.” [215]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

The demand made in this work is not that countries should offset their “present CO2 emissions” nor their Carbon emissions from the start of climate negotiations i.e. 1990, but that they should balance their historical Carbon budget i.e. offset the Carbon emissions they have released during the industrial revolution. The proposal that all countries should offset only current emissions is clearly absurd since it would mean that brazil, which is currently the fourth worst polluter due to the burning of its Rainforests, would have to carry out the same scale of Reforestation as major loggers such as america! Such a proposal is grossly unjust since it does not take into account that over the last 200 years brazil has been a massive net Carbon importer whilst America has been a net Carbon exporter. It is time that america, and the other over-industrialized nations, paid off their historical Carbon debts and stopped sponging off the geophysiological resources of poor/industrializing countries.