Regreening the planet could cut as much carbon as halting oil use – report

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-cut-as-much-carbon-as-halting-oil-use-report

This study identifies 20 natural climate solutions, actions that conserve, restore, and improve land management actions which increase carbon storage and/or avoid greenhouse gas emissions across global forests, wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural lands. And these actions could amount to as much as 37% of all actions needed by 2030 under the Paris Accord. The study notes that most of these actions would cost less than 10$ per tonne of CO2 prevented/removed, although some would reach up to 100$ per tonne.

Climate Change is almost always going to be bad news, but this is an encouraging bit of information because it not only identifies a potential method for limiting the effects of climate change, but the method is also relatively cheap and would provide a whole host of other benefits to the local ecology.

 

Here is a link to the study: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/10/11/1710465114.full

 

Climate change or no, these are good policies. It's never good to wipe out ecosystems.

 

I agree. You don't have to be onboard with this Climate Change business to want to keep your water clean, your land free of litter, and to replace things like Trees as we deforest.
Just good common sense and stewardship.

 

The Earth has already seen a signifigant increase in global plant biomass growth since the 1980's.

The AGW models were wrong.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428



https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428/figures/1

(a) Observed (solid black line) and modelled (DGVM ensemble—mean (dashed black line) and s.d. (orange area)) changes in the atmospheric CO2 growth rate from 1960 to 2012. The vertical grey line (2002) indicates the point of structural change identified using a linear modelling analysis. The red lines indicate a significant increasing trend from 1959 to 1990 (solid red) and 1959 to 2002 (dashed red) (P<0.1), with no trend evident between 2002 and 2014 (blue). All trends are estimated using the non-parametric Mann–Kendall Tau trend test with Sen’s method. The grey area represents the underlying 5-year dynamic (mean±1 s.d.), estimated using SSA. (b) Fossil fuel emissions (black dashed line) and the fraction of CO2 emissions, which remain in the atmosphere each year (black dots, airborne fraction). Lines indicate significant long-term trends over the periods 1959–1988 (red, increasing) and 2002–2014 (blue, decreasing) at P<0.1. The red dashed line shows a slight increasing trend between 1959 and 2002 (P=0.1. The grey area represents the underlying 5-year dynamic (mean±1 s.d.), estimated using singular spectrum analysis.

Not to mention, we've already seen a major increase in plant life on this planet in the last 30 years.

We've had a global increase of 11% in plant life since 1982.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094

https://www.carbonbrief.org/rising-co2-has-greened-worlds-plants-and-trees

 

Yup. A warm planet has more available water, CO^2, and Life.

Earth's natural process convert CO^2 to Life.

CO^2 is how earth stores life between warm cycles.

 

Hmmmmm the old shell and pea game eh??

So the top link is legit and talks about increasing CO2 levels but the following two links are from denialist websites notorious for inaccuracies, cherry picking and flat out lies

Let us just look at a couple of countries

 

Only if allowed to and they are not cut down.

 

We could do bette

 

it is already happening
the earth is getting greener caused by
wait for it
global warming
the increase in temps caused more land to be able to support plant life and the increase of CO2 and rain fall in areas that didnt see much before are also contributors
you see a cycle here?
the increase of CO2 contributes to the increase in temps causes more plant growth which in turn absorbs the excess CO2 which then causes the climate to cool making the earth less green which then causes another build up of CO2 earth gets warmer gets greener and the cycle starts back over again
the earth has been regulating its temp this way for billions of years it knows what it is doing

 

All well and good. I would much rather have more trees than more people.

I don't buy into the thought that climate change is almost always going to be bad news. That's silly. We only say that because we resist change. Change is inevitable. The climate will change with or without us. As much as i prefer a colder planet warmer is better overall. I can't think of any crops that are grown on glaciers.

 

It's important that we do. In the US for example, we have more trees today than we did a hundred years ago.

The United States has the fourth largest forest estate of any nation, with 8% of the world’s forests or about 300 million hectares of forest, exceeded only by the Russian Federation, Brazil and Canada. With the automobile, rather than a horse drawn society, we no longer need vast tracks of acreage to grow hay. We grow more food on less land and we heat our homes with natural gas rather than wood.

 

or we could just spend $30 a person for people in third world countries to get tubal ligations and vasectomies.
(the countries with rapidly expanding populations that are spilling over into other countries)

The U.S. native population (that was here before 1970 I mean) is not growing. It would probably have contracted by a percent or two if it was not for other poorer parts of the world having limited opportunities for their people.
As we speak they are bulldozing forest land to make way for high density apartments and track homes for the rapidly increasing population where I live. Older people who've lived around here for decades are saying they don't see deer or owls anymore.

The Middle East is an example of desertification and what happens when you cut down all the trees because there are too many people. Civilization living there for so long depleted the land. It changes the climate and degrades the soil into poor quality so nothing can grow. Then that civilization regressed because it's basically sand. Lebanon, for example, used to have great tall cedar trees and flowing streams, a forest that stretched over a great area.

 

Oh for f..............

A this can only happen IF the trees are allowed to grow and not be cut down again
B only if all other things are equal like enough nutrient and rain this just MIGHT happen
And C it only happens with SOME plants not all

 

Why not works wide?

 

Yes and that is going to work in third world countries isn't it? They are cutting down trees in third world countries to make much needed money. What we should do is pay them for keeping the...... ooops carbon trading!

 

first of all the majority of plant bio mass on earth doesn't come from trees but smaller plants like grass and algae
an acre of grass lands absorbs more CO2 then an acre of a standard forest
second you think man is the only species that conducted deforestation?
the huge herbivore dinosaurs did a pretty good job of it them selves

 

Nope...........regrowth reduces CO2 levels quicker than old growth.

 

That's misleading because most of that forest is in the West, where there are lower levels of rainfall so the trees do not grow very fast and the forests are much less resilient to logging. Most of that forest land is not very commercially viable, because of the less valuable tree species found in that climate, and the slower rates of growth if they tried to replant new trees. A hectare of forest in one part of the country is not at all equal to a hectare of forest in another part of the country. Unfortunately most of the good quality forest was in the Northeast and got cleared out long ago, by agricultural settlement and later urban development.

A lot of the forest land in the West is pretty sparse and looks something like this:
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/EH37D9/a-s...te-lava-from-a-rock-fall-avalanche-EH37D9.jpg

So you can't judge by simple land area numbers.

 

Rising CO^2 levels, improved conservation awareness and earth's natural processes seems to be handling it nicely.

Earth's forests grew 9% in a new satellite survey .

A 9% bump in total global forest coverage is two-thirds the size of the entire Amazon.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/earths-forests-grew-9-new-satellite-survey

Europe and South America lost some ground, everywhere else gained, Africa and Asia especially, but also North America and Oceana.

We need to keep after it!

 

because new growth starts with grass and other small plants which an acre of absorbs more CO2 then a acre of a standard forest

 

Where? Certainly not Indonesia or many other third world countries

 

No it isn't.

Growth rates are more associated with the age of the forests than weather, mature forests grow slower than young ones.

https://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/research_papers/pdfs/scanned/OCR/ne_rp637.pdf

 

And two blades of grass are NOT going to scrub as much CO2 out of the air as a fully grown forest

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080910133934.htm

 

I couldn't find it the last time I looked, but I believe it was on NASA's sight. It showed the amount of oxygen being produced in the U.S. Midwest during growing season. It was orange, which meant it was converting huge amounts of CO2. Been saying this for several years. It would be great to have the forests back. Depends on rainfall, too, when talking about tree growth. I think this is normal earth science. If we plant a tree, and a small garden, we will do ourselves a great deal of good. You can even plant some nut trees in certain areas and sell some of them for a little extra boost to your conscience. You have to figure out what to grow. Blueberries are very good, as well as blackberries and raspberries. You'd have to have a lot to sell those, but you can have enough for a very nutritious treat for yourself. High in anit-oxidants, they can help you to fight off sickness. Fresh blueberries make delicious muffins for Sunday morning, or pies for after dinner. There are many benefits and ways to help out. And, they are worth the efforts. Of course, you can just send Al Gore a check every month.