[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Duurzaamlijst] COP-6 and Old Forests

Dear Climateers,

>From a dutch list about sustainable develpment I forward 
an article about using forests as carbon sinks, which can be 
considered relevant for COP-6 as discussedc on this list.

It states essentially, that old forests are better sinks then 
new forests, and that they should be protected by COP-6

The point is, that current protection is not sufficient to secure 
old forests against clearing, and using carbon credits for 

It is based on an article published in New York Times of 
sept 22, 2000 and research can be found in Science Magazin 
of september 22, 2000.

My summary of this report is, that living biomass is 
perfectly able to use sunpower (without any use of fossil fuels!)
to get CO2 out of the air. Part of it will be stored in its rootsystems 
deep into the soil. 

So clearing a forest will make these rootsystems susceptible for
all kinds of rotting processes. This will be a contribution to global 
warming up.

This means, that COP-6 should contain a paragraph, that any 
contribution to CO2 concentration into atmosphere should be
taxed/fined in such a way as to eliminate the incentive to clear
old forests.

For stimulating discussion I have formulated some prososal in 
a sequel to this forwarded message under the subject line
"COP-6 and a climate saving reafforestation strategy."

Warm regards,
Leonard Kater


Planting New Forests Can't Match Saving Old Ones in Cutting 
Greenhouse Gases, Study Finds

A new study has cast doubts on an important element of a proposed 
treaty tofight global warming: the planting of new forests in an effort 
to sop up carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping gas.
The research concludes that old, wild forests are far better than
plantations of young trees at ridding the air of carbon dioxide, 
which is released when coal, oil and other fossil fuels are burned.

The United States and other countries with large land masses want 
to use forest plantations to meet the goals of the proposed treaty. 
The study's authors say that any treaty also needs to protect old 
forests and that, so far there is no sign that such protections are 
being considered.
Without such protections, the scientists conclude, some countries 
could be tempted to cut down old forests now and then plant new 
trees on the deforested land later, getting credit for reducing 
carbon dioxide when they have actually made matters worse.

The analysis, published in the journal Science today 
(September 22, 2000 Anton) was done by Dr. Ernst-Detlef Schulze, 
the director of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in 
Jena, Germany, and two other scientists at the institute.
Several climate and forestry experts familiar with the work said 
the study provided an important new argument for protecting 
old-growth woods. And they say the study provides a reminder 
that the main goal should be to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 
at the source, smokestacks and tailpipes.
In old forests, huge amounts of carbon taken from the air are locked 
away not only in the tree trunks and branches, but also deep in the soil, 
where the carbon can stay for many centuries, said Kevin R. Gurney, 
a research scientist at Colorado State University. When such a 
forest is cut, he said, almost all of that stored carbon is eventually 
returned to the air in the form of carbon dioxide.
"It took a huge amount of time to get that carbon sequestered in 
those soils," he said, "so if you release it, even if you plant again, 
it'll take equally long to get it back."
Negotiators are to meet in November to settle on methods for 
staving off a predicted warming that could disrupt ecosystems, 
harm agriculture and cause sea levels to rise, eroding coasts.
The negotiations are taking place under the Kyoto Protocol, an 
agreement that was signed by more than 100 countries in 1997 
but has not yet been ratified. It sets goals for cutting greenhouse 
gas emissions starting in 2008 but includes few details on how 
to achieve them.

The United States, Canada, Russia and other countries have 
been pressing to achieve as much as half their greenhouse gas 
reductions not at the source but by using "sinks" like forests to 
remove carbon dioxide. 
In the last round of talks, which ended last week in Lyon, France, 
some countries were still seeking treaty language that could 
allow some new planting to occur on land that was recently 
cleared of old forest and get credit for greenhouse-gas reductions, 
said Mr. Gurney, who attended the talks as an observer.
David B. Sandalow, an assistant secretary of state who was 
the chief American delegate in Lyon, said that the treaty drafts 
so far could theoretically allow such a practice but that the 
United States was seeking to prevent this.
"We're committed to protecting old growth and finding ways 
to address this issue," Mr. Sandalow said.
The German study, together with other similar research, has 
produced a picture of mature forests that differs sharply from 
long-held notions in forestry, Dr. Schulze said. He said aging 
forests were long perceived to be in a state of decay that 
releases as much carbon dioxide as it captures.

But it turns out that the soils in undisturbed tropical rain forests,
Siberian woods and some German national parks contain 
enormous amounts of carbon derived from fallen leaves, 
twigs and buried roots that can bind to soil particles and 
remain for 1,000 years or more. When such forests are
cut, the trees' roots decay and soil is disrupted, releasing 
the carbon dioxide.
Centuries would have to pass until newly planted trees 
built up such a reservoir underground.
New forests are fine as long as they are planted on land 
that was previously vacant, Dr. Schulze said, adding, 
"but there has to be a focus on preserving the old growth."

De Duurzaamlijst: | Abonnement opzeggen? Stuur een E-mail aan:
voor nieuws,      | majordomo@ddh.nl en schrijf in het tekstdeel:
opinie en overleg | unsubscribe duurzaamlijst
Meer over de Duurzaamlijst op http://www.ddh.nl/duurzaam