<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi all<br>
<br>
Though the Audubon report makes some important points it is far too
simplistic and overstated, and even incorrect, in many aspects.<br>
<br>
For example, in its 'above ground/below ground' hypothesis it is
totally neglecting to include the vast amount of carbon stored in the
soil of mature natural forests as root systems proliferate and
trees/vegetation die and get subsumed into that forest floor. Nor does
it account for the massive amount of carbon permanently stored in large
mature trees, which is essentially 'below ground'.<br>
<br>
However, it would be totally legitimate to point out that although
mature forests store huge amounts of carbon that would otherwise reach
the atmosphere, forest maturity takes so long to develop that it won't
happen fast enough with current newly restored forest watersheds to
fully address the -immediate- climate crisis that is threatening us
over the next three decades. (So in the short term, indigenous prairie
restoration could give us more bang for the buck.) But, for long term
climate stability it is critical that we restore natural forests to a
massive degree; both in the tropics -and- temperate latitudes.<br>
<br>
The report also totally fails to account for an entire holistic cycle
of what a forest watershed accomplishes. Yes, temperate forests in
cooler climates do absorb heat, but in mountainous terrains they are
also critical to securing the soil and keeping water from rapidly
running off of higher elevations when there is no solid forest soil to
act as a sponge and stabilizer. So deforested highlands actually
promote -more- warming because without them there is no way to
stabilize the snow pack in those highlands. The snow then melts and
runs off. The mountains turn to hard pack desert and brushland, and
since the snow pack is gone, a vast reflector of heat back up into the
atmosphere is lost.<br>
<br>
So restoration of forests is vital to even short term climate crisis
solutions in that respect. Furthermore this water storage effect is
especially critical in -all- areas of the planet, to creating the
general sponge, wind break, and cooling effect that will ensure the
proper storage and preservation of water sources and snow pack that
would otherwise rapidly run off into the oceans. And of course, one of
the key crises that we are facing with climate change is dramatic water
loss and run-off. So restoring -all- forests, everywhere on Earth, is
absolutely -key- to addressing even the -immediate- climate crisis.<br>
<br>
Keep in mind that Audubon is a partly corporate funded, and very middle
of the road group that often puts out such short sighted analysis, and
sometimes even foolishly supports activities that are -bad- for the
environment.<br>
<br>
Still, the point about forest plantations is right on, and those
plantations will -increase- global warming if allowed into the equation
because they are basically fertilized, pesticided crops just like any
other crop, and lead to loss of strong forest soils and water/snow
retention as noted above; this because trees as crops deplete soil and
land stability just as any other mono-crops do, until finally crop
forest land can't support mature forests any longer and can even
permanently collapse to desert or other diminished flat land.<br>
<br>
peace<br>
<br>
Eric Brooks<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:susan_e_vaughan@juno.com">susan_e_vaughan@juno.com</a> wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20070925.132650.20010.1@webmail14.vgs.untd.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hello Everyone,
Just in case you thought trees would be a significant part of carbon sequestration programs ... The following is a review of an article that is in the current edition of Audubon.
Sue
A Critique of Tree Planting in Response to Global Warming
In "As Ugly As a Tree" in the September/October issue of Audubon, conservationist and author Ted Williams blasts the mass planting of trees as an offset to the production of carbon dioxide. For starters, most of the tree planting that is taking place as a response to global warming is the planting of monocultures; and monocultures, even of native species, prevent natural forests from growing on the given sites. Plantations do not harbor the diversity of species found in natural forests, and they are generally not sustainable, as they usually require heavy applications of fertilizers, pesticides, and insecticides.Â
Furthermore, although prevention of logging and restoration of cutover forests, preferably through allowing natural re-growth, can slow global warming, planting trees cannot sequester enough carbon to make a meaningful impact on climate change. Williams quotes Andy Stahl director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (FSEEE): there are two kinds of carbon on the planet, above ground carbon and below ground carbon, which is stored in fossil fuels. Above ground carbon cycles as vegetation grows, taking in carbon; and dies, releasing it. "Planting trees doesn't affect the amount of carbon above ground in any long-term sense; it just changes its location. We're screwing ourselves if we use tree planting to justify pumping carbon from underground."Â
In terms of carbon sequestration, restoring prairies appears to be more useful than planting forests, Williams states. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory has found through modeling that, north of Florida, trees "absorb more heat from the sun than surrounding low vegetation, particularly when it's covered with snow." Grassland and shrub lands sequester carbon in their extensive underground root systems, and they "reflect solar heat."Â
Mass tree planting is being promoted by industries heavily invested in fossil fuels as a means of greening their image. Individuals can usefully plant trees around their houses to provide natural cooling; and some forms of carbon offsetting--supporting energy conservation and renewable energy and assisting in prairie restoration, for example, "make excellent sense." However, Williams concludes that we should not allow ourselves to be taken in by industry's message that voluntary efforts alone can make a difference to climate change. Legislation will be necessary, and Williams asks for "mandatory and draconian caps of carbon emissions."Â
-----Original Message-----
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">From: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:susan_e_vaughan@juno.com">"susan_e_vaughan@juno.com"</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:susan_e_vaughan@juno.com"><susan_e_vaughan@juno.com></a>
Sent: Sep 24, 2007 11:39 AM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gravanis@earthlink.net">gravanis@earthlink.net</a>
Subject: Re: Trees and carbon offsets
Hi Ruth,
I went on line to look for this in the current edition of Audubon but could not find it. DO you have the link?
Sue
-- Ruth Gravanis <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gravanis@earthlink.net"><gravanis@earthlink.net></a> wrote:
I highly recommend this article in the current issue of Audubon magazine, Sept-Oct, 2007, page 44:
"As Ugly as a Tree" by Ted Williams
"Some carbon offsetting - that which supports energy conservation or renewable enery - makes excellent sense. But some doesn't, especially the wrong kind of tree planting - that is, most of it."
--Ruth
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
"I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara</pre>
</body>
</html>