Planting Forests for Carbon Sequestration

[Judi Lynn]

From: John Gould, The Ecologist, More from this Affiliate
Published November 9, 2012 08:33 AM

Planting Forests for Carbon Sequestration

Imagine a forest landscape where every tree is aligned and equally spaced apart. A forest where there are no sounds, no undergrowth and a distinct lack of species. Could this be the fate of our environment as carbon forestry becomes a common way to offset greenhouse gas emissions? Or, could it supplement reforestation programs and slowly ease the biodiversity crisis?

Post-Kyoto there has been strong support for global emissions to be 'capped'. Key nations, including Australia, Norway and Japan, have already started to place a price on carbon, with internal stakeholders now having a legal obligation to pay for the greenhouse gasses they emit. One strategy that has been adopted by these 'compliance' markets — as well as many 'voluntary' markets — includes the purchasing of carbon credits that are linked with the forestry sector. Referred to as 'carbon forestry', a new forest is established on degraded land in order to sequester carbon from the atmosphere, thereby allowing an investor to offset their emissions output.

According to a 2011 report by the monitoring and analysis agency Ecosystem Marketplace over 30 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) was contracted across forest markets in 2010. The emergence of carbon forestry is particularly evident in Australia, where an estimated sixty five thousand hectares of forests have been planted for the purpose of carbon sequestration. Similarly, more than one thousand hectares of 'for purpose' woodland have been created in the United Kingdom through the Forestry Commission, one of the country’s largest land managers.

It is clear that carbon forestry provides a low-cost and low-risk means for investors to hedge their carbon responsibilities. Yet whether these increasingly prominent plantations enhance the aesthetics of the landscape, or potential for biodiversity within those landscapes is questionable.

More:
http://www.enn.com/climate/article/45196?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EnvironmentalNewsNetwork+%28Environmental+News+Network%29

[NoOneMan]

1. I am skeptical of any reforestry effort driven by for-profit industry

Are they worried about the ecosystem and biodiversity, or the largest quantity of trees they can purchase for the least amount of money, planted with the most efficient techniques.

Forests developed through a complex interaction of organisms over 3.5+ billion years. How can humans maximize carbon-capture effectiveness without even attempting to replicate the diverse and complicated systems we find in nature? A tree is more than a single organism in a vacuum. They depend on healthy soil, fertilized by a healthy ecosystem full of diverse animals and supplied by vast colonies of beneficial mycelium. A forest isn't simple a place where there are a lot of trees. A forest is a system in which trees and other wildlife flourish. How can we even effectively repair the earth if we are not focused on the actual system as a whole? We are always looking for the easy ways out.

It sound like this effort will produce Wal-Mart forests. Lots of trees with little substance. I will be very surprised if its carbon capturing abilities in practice match the amount of carbon they are supposed to be sequestering.

FYI: I am very pro tree planting and reforestation. It may be the only real "tool" humans have to easily combat climate change. Shifting agricultural dependence to woody perennials would also vastly help build resilience and transition society to a lower-energy world. But I don't see a one-size fits all cookie cutter forest approach as the necessary answer, especially when it is only being done in the spirit of enabling more production.

[CRH]

2. Plantation silviculture didn't work out so well for many in central america, ...

In the late eighties and nineties many 'environmentalist investors' bought into teak and other hardwood farms. The investments promised unrealistic returns, could be used in IRA portfolios, and gave those that wanted an alternative green investment, an option. Problem was most were scams, many people lost a sizable portion of their investments. Many of the new plantations were using marginal at best, land, and were poorly managed and maintained. None that I know of lived up to their production promises, and most were bankrupt and abandoned within twenty years.

The remnants of many are used now for barbecue charcoal. The jobs they were supposed to have brought to the host countries were short lived, and in many cases the worker taxes were left unpaid once the investment accounts were sold in full. Many plantations were abandoned once it was obvious projections and marketing guidelines could not be realized.

There are some other managed forests run by governments that accomplish sequestration with more efficiency. In Costa Rica the tree seedlings are given to those who can prove a viable reforestation project is realistic on their property. There remains good intentions in these programs. But in every commercial project I know of, most were scams, the remaining badly managed and ineffective to their purpose.

The other obvious question now that tipping points are being passed and the climates is changing, is how effective will silviculture be now that stable climate conditions can not be predicted for any duration. Reforestation is yet another area where the best time for it, might have passed.

[AverageJoe90]

3. Reforestation isn't the only tool we can use........

But it's a pretty damn cheap and very doable one. And, TBH, yeah, I agree with you on the cookie-cutter approach: it probably wouldn't work too well for the most part.

[CRH]

4. Actually in the sub tropics and tropics, ...

where deforestation is rampant it is probably best to replant the natural flora to stop erosion and sun baking, then let the reforestation happen though natural selection and diversity. Planned monocultures tend to need more water, attention and mechanization.

[AverageJoe90]

5. That actually sounds like a very smart idea. n/t