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

USD -
AED 3.67315
AFN 63.000145
ALL 83.20326
AMD 377.359858
ANG 1.790083
AOA 917.000243
ARS 1371.497767
AUD 1.445787
AWG 1.8025
AZN 1.677673
BAM 1.695925
BBD 2.012738
BDT 122.6148
BGN 1.709309
BHD 0.378095
BIF 2970
BMD 1
BND 1.284247
BOB 6.920712
BRL 5.232027
BSD 0.999302
BTN 94.168452
BWP 13.739161
BYN 3.001028
BYR 19600
BZD 2.009859
CAD 1.38398
CDF 2285.486468
CHF 0.79331
CLF 0.02331
CLP 920.550167
CNY 6.90915
CNH 6.915605
COP 3693.73
CRC 463.31745
CUC 1
CUP 26.5
CVE 95.615302
CZK 21.209305
DJF 177.956989
DKK 6.47094
DOP 60.249479
DZD 132.96384
EGP 52.698504
ERN 15
ETB 154.444897
EUR 0.86605
FJD 2.24825
FKP 0.747836
GBP 0.748501
GEL 2.695001
GGP 0.747836
GHS 10.925157
GIP 0.747836
GMD 73.502631
GNF 8760.497553
GTQ 7.644781
GYD 209.069506
HKD 7.825345
HNL 26.535612
HRK 6.525302
HTG 130.870053
HUF 335.87198
IDR 16916
ILS 3.125896
IMP 0.747836
INR 93.961303
IQD 1309.134109
IRR 1313150.000359
ISK 123.650012
JEP 0.747836
JMD 157.053853
JOD 0.70897
JPY 159.584502
KES 129.913081
KGS 87.449943
KHR 4001.873033
KMF 427.00008
KPW 900.057798
KRW 1505.859995
KWD 0.30722
KYD 0.832809
KZT 481.430095
LAK 21584.967179
LBP 89489.466313
LKR 314.289307
LRD 183.375896
LSL 17.096266
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.60489
LYD 6.38118
MAD 9.33009
MDL 17.552896
MGA 4164.896246
MKD 53.384543
MMK 2099.983779
MNT 3583.827699
MOP 8.05281
MRU 39.862126
MUR 46.629896
MVR 15.449943
MWK 1732.830385
MXN 17.76157
MYR 3.993995
MZN 63.901353
NAD 17.096266
NGN 1384.760231
NIO 36.775768
NOK 9.64715
NPR 150.669869
NZD 1.729675
OMR 0.384478
PAB 0.999298
PEN 3.458448
PGK 4.318362
PHP 60.15502
PKR 278.936182
PLN 3.70084
PYG 6540.378863
QAR 3.642984
RON 4.414295
RSD 101.718024
RUB 81.249664
RWF 1459.324231
SAR 3.751857
SBD 8.042037
SCR 13.849564
SDG 601.000201
SEK 9.398275
SGD 1.284035
SHP 0.750259
SLE 24.549695
SLL 20969.510825
SOS 571.106486
SRD 37.562017
STD 20697.981008
STN 21.245139
SVC 8.74425
SYP 111.44287
SZL 17.091497
THB 32.844022
TJS 9.563521
TMT 3.5
TND 2.939789
TOP 2.40776
TRY 44.362195
TTD 6.782836
TWD 31.893034
TZS 2570.058987
UAH 43.849933
UGX 3717.449554
UYU 40.512476
UZS 12171.952568
VES 462.09036
VND 26351
VUV 119.023334
WST 2.74953
XAF 568.80967
XAG 0.014499
XAU 0.000224
XCD 2.70255
XCG 1.80106
XDR 0.705441
XOF 568.807204
XPF 103.416132
YER 238.649803
ZAR 17.02005
ZMK 9001.201522
ZMW 18.762411
ZWL 321.999592
  • CMSC

    -0.1200

    22.79

    -0.53%

  • CMSD

    -0.0200

    22.66

    -0.09%

  • GSK

    -0.2900

    54.41

    -0.53%

  • AZN

    -2.9800

    184.16

    -1.62%

  • BTI

    -0.0300

    58.42

    -0.05%

  • RIO

    -1.9400

    85.6

    -2.27%

  • BP

    1.0000

    46.41

    +2.15%

  • BCE

    0.0100

    25.5

    +0.04%

  • NGG

    -1.8000

    82.49

    -2.18%

  • JRI

    -0.0150

    12.085

    -0.12%

  • VOD

    0.0000

    14.72

    0%

  • BCC

    -0.2500

    74.4

    -0.34%

  • RELX

    -0.4450

    32.025

    -1.39%

  • RBGPF

    -13.5000

    69

    -19.57%

  • RYCEF

    -0.6000

    15.3

    -3.92%

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