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

USD -
AED 3.672501
AFN 64.000052
ALL 81.197358
AMD 364.066319
ANG 1.790365
AOA 916.999774
ARS 1525.000898
AUD 1.438383
AWG 1.8025
AZN 1.704465
BAM 1.725719
BBD 2.018882
BDT 123.247965
BGN 1.683441
BHD 0.377906
BIF 3005.722202
BMD 1
BND 1.279885
BOB 12.063778
BRL 5.183402
BSD 1.002338
BTN 96.076978
BWP 14.120969
BYN 3.01672
BYR 19600
BZD 2.01597
CAD 1.424315
CDF 2312.495038
CHF 0.836375
CLF 0.024656
CLP 973.539953
CNY 6.70475
CNH 6.714101
COP 3314.79
CRC 457.846208
CUC 1
CUP 24.056893
CVE 97.29465
CZK 21.58325
DJF 178.497375
DKK 6.60147
DOP 59.602065
DZD 133.940995
EGP 51.992301
ERN 15
ETB 160.99988
EUR 0.88312
FJD 2.24875
FKP 0.753812
GBP 0.754325
GEL 2.595019
GGP 0.753812
GHS 11.732889
GIP 0.753812
GMD 74.000416
GNF 8750.000269
GTQ 7.658099
GYD 209.730789
HKD 7.846595
HNL 26.850145
HRK 6.6546
HTG 131.186306
HUF 323.547501
IDR 17952
ILS 3.06855
IMP 0.753812
INR 95.985504
IQD 1310
IRR 1693849.999896
ISK 120.989912
JEP 0.753812
JMD 158.635902
JOD 0.709052
JPY 158.295999
KES 129.709633
KGS 87.448703
KHR 4056.000101
KMF 434.999789
KPW 900.000318
KRW 1358.484957
KWD 0.3089
KYD 0.835337
KZT 440.918897
LAK 22440.000239
LBP 89549.999842
LKR 331.231884
LRD 171.401635
LSL 16.450172
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.604891
LYD 6.4159
MAD 9.723465
MDL 17.796797
MGA 4424.999837
MKD 54.331282
MMK 2099.783199
MNT 3598.053803
MOP 8.102072
MRU 40.084977
MUR 47.820549
MVR 15.459904
MWK 1735.99982
MXN 18.075735
MYR 4.087499
MZN 63.894034
NAD 16.459649
NGN 1327.110278
NIO 36.655019
NOK 9.630697
NPR 153.717739
NZD 1.77846
OMR 0.384509
PAB 1.002374
PEN 3.450503
PGK 4.444973
PHP 62.756498
PKR 277.050328
PLN 3.85302
PYG 5864.031411
QAR 3.645027
RON 4.6575
RSD 103.803969
RUB 83.373148
RWF 1475
SAR 3.780993
SBD 8.065041
SCR 14.585024
SDG 601.498309
SEK 10.01374
SGD 1.279395
SHP 0.754575
SLE 24.600496
SLL 20969.491881
SOS 571.483762
SRD 37.621498
STD 20697.981008
STN 21.675
SVC 8.77073
SYP 13002.000254
SZL 16.449742
THB 33.612502
TJS 9.232161
TMT 3.5
TND 2.97262
TOP 2.40776
TRY 49.034485
TTD 6.800164
TWD 31.922806
TZS 2640.003002
UAH 44.775489
UGX 3929.198542
UYU 40.386126
UZS 11820.000246
VES 859.100049
VND 25969.5
VUV 119.747847
WST 2.7762
XAF 579.288877
XAG 0.016302
XAU 0.000238595436
XCD 2.70255
XCG 1.806559
XDR 0.707052
XOF 579.288877
XPF 105.84944
YER 236.425006
ZAR 16.425675
ZMK 9001.19828
ZMW 19.596771
ZWL 321.999592
SSP 5712.591903
MXV 2.045685
  • RYCEF

    0.4000

    19.71

    +2.03%

  • CMSC

    0.0000

    20.4

    0%

  • BTI

    0.4200

    56.05

    +0.75%

  • BP

    0.2800

    44.43

    +0.63%

  • RBGPF

    1.6000

    67

    +2.39%

  • RIO

    -0.1500

    94.41

    -0.16%

  • AZN

    -0.4300

    166.15

    -0.26%

  • GSK

    0.4600

    49.7

    +0.93%

  • BCE

    -0.4100

    20.56

    -1.99%

  • NGG

    -0.2500

    75.24

    -0.33%

  • VOD

    -0.0400

    16.58

    -0.24%

  • RELX

    -0.4500

    33.07

    -1.36%

  • BCC

    -0.5500

    76.59

    -0.72%

  • CMSD

    -0.0300

    20.27

    -0.15%

  • JRI

    -0.2500

    10.77

    -2.32%

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