60% Worse Than We Thought: IPCC Wrongly Estimates Logging Impact on Climate Change
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY on 08. 5.08
photo by Julian Robinson
One more example of how we’ve understimated climate change: New Scientist is reporting that researchers in Australia have found that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has wrongly estimated the carbon storage potential of pristine temperate forests. According to this data, intact forests store 60% more carbon than plantation forests.
Yup, Plantation Forests are Worse Than We Thought
From the original article:
[Brendan Mackey of the Australian National University] and colleagues used remote sensing and direct sampling to study eucalyptus trees at 240 sites across a 14.5-million hectare swathe of natural forest in south-east Australia.
Plugging the data into a computer, the team calculated that trees in areas untouched by logging store on average 640 tonnes of carbon per hectare, compared with an IPCC estimate for temperate forest of 217 tonnes.In total, trees in the region store the equivalent of about 25 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.
Climate Change Models Need to be Updated
What this makes clear is that more work needs to be done to assess just how much climate change models need to be tweaked. Mackey’s team will be next looking at whether other areas of intact temperate forest, such as those on the Pacific coast of the United States, have also had their carbon storage potential underestimated.
Deforestation accounts for an estimated 17.5% of global carbon emissions.
via :: New Scientist
Climate Change, Deforestation
New Google Earth Layer Shows Global Deforestation
Spending One Billion Dollars Could Slow Tropical Deforestation by One-Tenth, Reduce Carbon Emissions by Half a Billion Tonnes Annually
Biofuels Not Enough to Offset Damage Caused by Deforestation
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Great Debate Tackles Climate Change
- No One Else Is Reducing Emissions That Much So We Won’t Either: Australia’s Prime Minister
- Four Ways To Give The U.S. A 'Clean Slate'
- Sea Level Rise Predictions Too Low, No Abrupt Release of Methane: US Climate Change Science Program
Adspecs Eyeglasses Could Provide Sight for a Billion
|
ECO Pedal by Nissan: Tactile Feedback in Gas Pedal to Help you Save Gas
|
What is forgotten here is the carbon holding potential of what is made from the trees that are cut down. If the cut down trees are made into lumber, and you put this carbon (lumber) into a house, or a fence or funiture it is encapsulated untill relased, and yet I never see this included in the research.
We could live in one of the steel apartments that are displayed here often enough, but what do we make the steel with if you don't mine the iron or the coal to smelt it with?
I don't have all the answers, but I see figures tossed around (on drilling for new oil I hear 1% in 20 years, 10% in 10 years or any other figure that seems to support an argument) that don't seem to always stand up to scrutiny.