While this blog has explored a variety of radical and alternative options, I thought it was time to take a look at a more conservative and greener option: Afforestation. This process, of establishing forests in regions that were not previously forests, sequesters carbon in the biomass of trees. While oceans are considered to be large carbon sinks, forests are also capable of storing relatively large amounts of terrestrial carbon: Occupying one third of the earth, forest vegetation and soils contain approximately 60% of the total terrestrial carbon (Winjum, et al., 1992).
Forest management for carbon sequestration is a low cost, low technology option, which may not stop climate change but will help to mitigate global climate change while more long-term solutions are adopted. It is now being incorporated into policies in the US as forests are now being considered as a source of offsets in carbon markets. Forest management for carbon sequestration also provides an opportunity for land owners to gain a new source of income (Charnley, et al., 2010).
Moore, et al. (2010) argues that that out of the variety of Geoengineering options available, afforestation and forest management is the least risky and most desirable. Chemical carbon capture from air would require an energy source, while ocean fertilisation is less likely to be as effective as terrestrial carbon capture methods and will also be more risky. It is predicted that through the afforestation of regions, CO2 can be reduced by 45ppm by 2060. This may appear minimal but there are numerous other benefits of afforestation e.g. increases in ecosystem richness, water management and providing social amenities. Moreover, the incorporation of afforestation into the carbon markets has yet to be achieved as there are still several questions that need to be answered: What is the management technique that will ensure maximum carbon sequestration? Does this forest management conflict with other aims of forested regions? How do we ensure that all land owners follow the same management practices?
Overall, this option is by far the most safe and the most ‘green’. Consequently, it fits in with many government’s ‘no regrets’ approach to climate change. And despite the fact that it doesn’t reduce C02 emissions significantly, in comparison to other Geoengineering options, afforestation would make the world a much ‘greener’ place...so what is wrong with that?
No comments:
Post a Comment