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.� 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."� 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."� 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."� -----Original Message-----
From: "susan_e_vaughan@juno.com" <susan_e_vaughan@juno.com> Sent: Sep 24, 2007 11:39 AM To: gravanis@earthlink.net 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 <gravanis@earthlink.net> 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