Schlagwort: afforestation

Science-Rohatyn et al. (2022): Limited climate change mitigation potential through forestation of the vast dryland regions

Shani Rohatyn, Dan Yakir, Eyal Rotenberg, Yohay Carmel IN: Science Vol 377, Issue 6613, pp. 1436-1439, DOI: 10.1126/science.abm9684

Actual climatic benefits of forestation are uncertain because the forests’ reduced albedo can produce large warming effects. Using high-resolution spatial analysis of global drylands, the authors found 448 million hectares suitable for afforestation. This area’s carbon sequestration potential until 2100 is 32.3 billion tons of carbon (Gt C), but 22.6 Gt C of that is required to balance albedo effects.

LINK

NCX Completes the First Cycle of the Natural Capital Exchange

Loren Myers on ncx.com

NCX completed the first full cycle of the Natural Capital Exchange. 119 landowners across the southeastern United States participated in the project, electing to defer their timber harvest for one year. Using Basemap, the high-resolution forest map of the US, landowners were given an estimate of the amount of carbon sequestration potential on their property at the beginning of the project.

LINK

Dooley et al. (2022): Carbon removals from nature restoration are no substitute for steep emission reductions

Kate Dooley, Zebedee Nicholls, Malte Meinshausen IN: One Earth, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.06.002.

The authors estimate the global removal potential from nature restoration constrained by a “responsible development” framework and the contribution this would make to a 1.5°C temperature limit. They conclude that additional carbon sequestration via nature restoration is unlikely to be done quickly enough to notably reduce the global peak temperatures expected in the next few decades. Land restoration is an important option for tackling climate change but cannot compensate for delays in reducing fossil fuel emissions.

LINK

Jaschke and Biermann (2022): The policy discourse on negative emissions, land-based technologies, and the Global South

Gregor Jaschke and Frank Biermann IN: Global Environmental Change, Volume 75, July 2022, 102550, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102550

This article analyzes the nascent policy discourse on negative emissions with a focus on land-based technologies (afforestation and reforestation, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, biochar, soil carbon sequestration). The authors conclude that this policy discourse is largely centered in the Global North (mostly in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany), with only five organizations directly linked to the Global South. While the earlier policy discourse on negative emissions was linked to a more general “geoengineering” discourse, this link has loosened in the last years. Overall, in the documents that were studied, negative emissions technologies seem to become more accepted, and parts of the discourse shift towards deployment. 

LINK

Cooper et al. (2022): The life cycle environmental impacts of negative emission technologies in North America

Jasmin Cooper, Luke Dubey, Adam Hawkes IN: Sustainable Production and Consumption 32, pp. 880-894, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.06.010

The authors compare five NETs: afforestation/reforestation (AR), enhanced weathering (EW), mangrove restoration (MR), bioenergy and direct air capture with carbon storage (BECCS and DAC), using life cycle assessment to determine their environmental impacts (global warming, freshwater, toxicity etc.). If consistent removal of CO2 from the atmosphere is the goal, then AR and MR have the lowest environmental impacts. However, if large and quick CO2 removal is the goal then EW, DAC and BECCS have similar, if not lower, environmental impacts.

LINK

Trees aren’t a climate change cure-all: Two new studies on the life and death of trees in a warming world show why

by William R. L. Anderegg, The Conversation on Phys.org

„When people talk about ways to slow climate change, they often mention trees, and for good reason.[…] With companies increasingly investing in forests as offsets, saying it cancels out their continuing greenhouse gas emissions, that’s a multibillion-dollar question. The results of two studies published in the journals Science and Ecology Letters on May 12, 2022—one focused on growth, the other on death—raise new questions about how much the world can rely on forests to store increasing amounts of carbon in a warming future. Ecologist William Anderegg, who was involved in both studies, explains why.“

LINK

Fact sheet: Forest Carbon Removal

by Carbon180

Forests grow in rural and urban settings on public and private lands, bringing a suite of ecological benefits that include improved air and water quality as well as carbon storage. Roughly one-third of the US is forested, capturing nearly 16% of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions. Trees also provide economic co-benefits and local job opportunities, making them a win-win for communities and for climate.

LINK

Zeng & Hausmann (2022): Wood Vault: remove atmospheric CO2 with trees, store wood for carbon sequestration for now and as biomass, bioenergy and carbon reserve for the future

Ning Zeng, Henry Hausmann IN: Carbon Balance Manage 17, 2 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-022-00202-0

Wood harvesting and storage (WHS) is a hybrid Nature-Engineering combination method to combat climate change by harvesting wood sustainably and storing it semi-permanently for carbon sequestration. To date, the technology has only been purposefully tested in small-scale demonstration projects. This study aims to develop a concrete way to carry out WHS at large-scale.

LINK

Coupled Model Simulations of Carbon Dioxide Removal via Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement and Large-scale Afforestation and Reforestation

Hao-wei Wey, Tronje Kemena, David Keller, Andreas Oschlies IN: EGU General Assembly 2022, Vienna, Austria, 23–27 May 2022, EGU22-7662, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu22-7662, 2022.

…to be discussed at the EGU conference (Vienna, Austria & Online, 23–27 May 2022). „As part of the CDR Model Intercomparison Project (CDRMIP), we utilize here the land-ocean-atmosphere coupled FOCI-MOPS model to study the potential reversibility and impacts of different proposed CDR methods. FOCI-MOP is an integration of the marine biogeochemical model, Model of Oceanic Pelagic Stoichiometry (MOPS), in the Flexible Ocean and Climate Infrastructure (FOCI) ESM. Two CDR methods are studied under highly-idealized scenarios: a marine-based CDR of ocean alkalinity enhancement, and a land-based CDR of afforestation and reforestation, given their large theoretical mitigation potentials.“

LINK