The China Mail - Forests could absorb much more carbon, but does it matter?

USD -
AED 3.672971
AFN 70.234439
ALL 86.937282
AMD 389.250602
ANG 1.80229
AOA 914.999692
ARS 1112.4951
AUD 1.56343
AWG 1.8025
AZN 1.700226
BAM 1.730873
BBD 2.017072
BDT 121.373036
BGN 1.741485
BHD 0.376935
BIF 2971.869067
BMD 1
BND 1.295342
BOB 6.903052
BRL 5.662305
BSD 0.999022
BTN 85.476213
BWP 13.536656
BYN 3.268799
BYR 19600
BZD 2.006647
CAD 1.392225
CDF 2875.000504
CHF 0.831365
CLF 0.024535
CLP 941.510239
CNY 7.22535
CNH 7.24065
COP 4252.65
CRC 507.741801
CUC 1
CUP 26.5
CVE 97.58785
CZK 22.191982
DJF 177.719714
DKK 6.643785
DOP 58.730601
DZD 133.138988
EGP 50.617198
ERN 15
ETB 134.652913
EUR 0.890515
FJD 2.27125
FKP 0.749314
GBP 0.755285
GEL 2.755031
GGP 0.749314
GHS 13.186599
GIP 0.749314
GMD 71.507894
GNF 8651.169789
GTQ 7.68567
GYD 209.02022
HKD 7.77477
HNL 25.952624
HRK 6.709701
HTG 130.716062
HUF 361.21499
IDR 16552.7
ILS 3.581499
IMP 0.749314
INR 86.08255
IQD 1308.694094
IRR 42112.476319
ISK 130.640222
JEP 0.749314
JMD 158.546838
JOD 0.709297
JPY 145.800947
KES 129.119553
KGS 87.450326
KHR 4000.247803
KMF 433.499662
KPW 899.97622
KRW 1403.769858
KWD 0.30696
KYD 0.832563
KZT 515.932896
LAK 21589.616734
LBP 89507.00704
LKR 298.899504
LRD 199.799095
LSL 18.177353
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.60489
LYD 5.456211
MAD 9.228563
MDL 17.20688
MGA 4478.292231
MKD 54.807517
MMK 2099.569019
MNT 3574.066382
MOP 7.997522
MRU 39.598388
MUR 45.309898
MVR 15.41006
MWK 1732.384518
MXN 19.53043
MYR 4.290375
MZN 63.903848
NAD 18.177192
NGN 1610.129883
NIO 36.764478
NOK 10.43148
NPR 136.758309
NZD 1.694355
OMR 0.384955
PAB 0.999031
PEN 3.650339
PGK 4.145481
PHP 55.657002
PKR 281.155454
PLN 3.787975
PYG 7980.316929
QAR 3.641545
RON 4.557007
RSD 103.743235
RUB 82.500367
RWF 1429.614518
SAR 3.750885
SBD 8.350849
SCR 14.185029
SDG 600.502064
SEK 9.74195
SGD 1.300175
SHP 0.785843
SLE 22.72991
SLL 20969.483762
SOS 570.938008
SRD 36.257007
STD 20697.981008
SVC 8.741443
SYP 13001.877898
SZL 18.167175
THB 33.020106
TJS 10.315588
TMT 3.51
TND 3.000252
TOP 2.3421
TRY 38.728301
TTD 6.785586
TWD 30.274597
TZS 2705.000266
UAH 41.514198
UGX 3658.747052
UYU 41.727695
UZS 12896.202913
VES 91.098215
VND 25963.5
VUV 120.641282
WST 2.649696
XAF 580.528882
XAG 0.030824
XAU 0.000302
XCD 2.70255
XDR 0.718649
XOF 580.541727
XPF 105.548697
YER 244.498493
ZAR 18.221401
ZMK 9001.197857
ZMW 26.497099
ZWL 321.999592
  • RBGPF

    2.8600

    65.86

    +4.34%

  • SCS

    0.5700

    10.48

    +5.44%

  • RYCEF

    0.4300

    10.6

    +4.06%

  • GSK

    -0.3000

    36.87

    -0.81%

  • AZN

    -2.7700

    67.3

    -4.12%

  • RELX

    -0.8100

    54.06

    -1.5%

  • CMSC

    -0.0500

    22.11

    -0.23%

  • BTI

    -1.1500

    43.3

    -2.66%

  • RIO

    -0.8400

    59.18

    -1.42%

  • NGG

    -2.3900

    70.18

    -3.41%

  • CMSD

    -0.0800

    22.33

    -0.36%

  • VOD

    -0.1500

    9.25

    -1.62%

  • BCE

    0.9800

    22.23

    +4.41%

  • BCC

    2.4800

    89.58

    +2.77%

  • JRI

    -0.0760

    12.95

    -0.59%

  • BP

    0.4600

    28.59

    +1.61%

Forests could absorb much more carbon, but does it matter?
Forests could absorb much more carbon, but does it matter? / Photo: © AFP/File

Forests could absorb much more carbon, but does it matter?

Protecting forests globally could vastly increase the amount of carbon they sequester, a new study finds, but given our current emissions track, does it really matter?

Text size:

For Thomas Crowther, an author of the assessment, the answer is a resounding yes.

"I absolutely see this study as a cause for hope," the professor at ETH Zurich said.

"I hope that people will see the real potential and value that nature can bring to the climate change topic."

But for others, calculating the hypothetical carbon storage potential of global forests is more an academic exercise than a useful framework for forest management.

"I am a forester by trade, so I really like to see trees grow," said Martin Lukac, professor of ecosystem science at University of Reading.

However, he considers forest carbon potential calculations like these "dangerous," warning they "distract from the main challenge and offer false hope."

Crowther has been here before: in 2019 he produced a study on how many trees the Earth could support, where to plant them and how much carbon they could store.

"Forest restoration is the best climate change solution available today," he argued.

That work caused a firestorm of criticism, with experts unpicking everything from its modelling to the claim that reforestation was the "best" solution available.

Nodding to the furore, Crowther and his colleagues have now vastly expanded their data set and used new modelling approaches for the study published Monday in the journal Nature.

They use ground-sourced surveys and data from three models based on high-resolution satellite imagery.

The modelling approach is "as good as it currently gets," acknowledged Lukac, who was not involved in the work.

- 'Achieve climate targets' -

The study estimates forests are storing 328 gigatons of carbon less than they would if untouched by human destruction.

Estimates of the world's remaining carbon "budget" to keep warming below the 1.5C range from around 250-500 gigatons.

Much of the forest potential -- 139 gigatons -- could be captured by just leaving existing forests to reach full maturity, the study says.

Another 87 gigatons could be regained by reconnecting fragmented forests.

The remainder is in areas used for agriculture, pasture or urban infrastructure, which the authors acknowledge is unlikely to be reversed.

Still, they say their findings present a massive opportunity.

"Forest conservation, restoration and sustainable management can help achieve climate targets by mitigating emissions and enhancing carbon sequestration," the study says.

Modelling and mapping the world's forests is a tricky business.

There's the scale of the problem, but also the complexity of what constitutes a forest.

Trees, of course, but the carbon storage potential of a woodland or jungle is also in its soil and the organic matter littering the forest floor.

- Trees versus emissions? -

Ground-level surveys can offer granular data, but are difficult to extrapolate.

And satellite imagery covers large swathes of land, but can be confounded by something as simple as the weather, said Nicolas Younes, research fellow at the Australian National University.

"Most of the places where there is potential for carbon storage are tropical countries... these are places where there is persistent cloud cover, therefore satellite imagery is very hard to validate," he told AFP.

Younes, an expert on forest remote sensing, warns the complexity of the study's datasets and modelling risks introducing errors, though the resulting estimates remain "very valuable".

"It will not show us the exact truth for every pixel on Earth, but it is useful."

One objection to quantifying forest carbon potential is that conditions are far from static, with accelerating climate change, forest fires and pest vulnerability all playing a role.

And, for Lukac, whatever potential forests have is irrelevant to the urgency of cutting emissions.

The study's estimated 328 gigatons "would be wiped (out) in 30 years by current emissions," he said.

Crowther, who advises a project to plant a trillion trees globally, rejects an either-or between forest protection and emissions reduction.

"We urgently need both," he said.

K.Lam--ThChM