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

USD -
AED 3.672504
AFN 66.503991
ALL 80.629676
AMD 365.091035
AOA 917.000367
ARS 1491.937897
AUD 1.417435
AWG 1.80125
AZN 1.70397
BAM 1.691649
BBD 2.00813
BDT 123.418242
BHD 0.375989
BIF 2985.079791
BMD 1
BND 1.277602
BOB 11.849673
BRL 5.083304
BSD 0.997016
BTN 94.875232
BWP 13.457596
BYN 2.968819
BYR 19600
BZD 2.00519
CAD 1.39545
CDF 2262.50392
CHF 0.80949
CLF 0.023206
CLP 913.315746
CNY 6.747604
CNH 6.743285
COP 3142.844787
CRC 453.228387
CUC 1
CUP 26.5
CVE 95.372573
CZK 20.982104
DJF 177.546166
DKK 6.46804
DOP 58.20179
DZD 132.308956
EGP 49.631449
ERN 15
ETB 160.923669
EUR 0.86495
FJD 2.20855
FKP 0.74148
GBP 0.742583
GEL 2.610391
GGP 0.74148
GHS 11.700039
GIP 0.74148
GMD 73.503851
GNF 8756.649224
GTQ 7.607144
GYD 208.588851
HKD 7.84315
HNL 26.723176
HRK 6.518804
HTG 130.363707
HUF 314.060388
IDR 17801
ILS 2.99985
IMP 0.74148
INR 95.210504
IQD 1306.058902
IRR 1375550.000352
ISK 123.340386
JEP 0.74148
JMD 158.335856
JOD 0.70904
JPY 157.80604
KES 129.014401
KGS 87.450384
KHR 4049.647537
KMF 426.00035
KRW 1407.860383
KWD 0.30866
KYD 0.830861
KZT 467.275008
LAK 22510.919863
LBP 89282.792025
LKR 334.420274
LRD 179.959348
LSL 16.197552
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.60489
LYD 6.341738
MAD 9.29222
MDL 17.337716
MGA 4254.638239
MKD 53.215413
MMK 2099.549369
MNT 3595.852714
MOP 8.056654
MRU 40.080439
MUR 47.070378
MVR 15.450378
MWK 1728.841413
MXN 17.13645
MYR 4.090104
MZN 63.905039
NAD 16.197552
NGN 1364.860377
NIO 36.690741
NOK 9.51237
NPR 151.800372
NZD 1.701115
OMR 0.382693
PAB 0.997016
PEN 3.376465
PGK 4.406003
PHP 60.705038
PKR 276.796523
PLN 3.719205
PYG 5928.296501
QAR 3.644596
RON 4.536304
RSD 101.492021
RUB 81.598409
RWF 1466.072741
SAR 3.755591
SBD 8.065696
SCR 14.449077
SDG 600.503676
SEK 9.480804
SGD 1.278038
SLE 24.603667
SOS 569.822255
SRD 37.866504
STD 20697.981008
STN 21.191022
SVC 8.723782
SZL 16.194265
THB 33.050369
TJS 9.197509
TMT 3.51
TND 2.929032
TRY 47.697504
TTD 6.757774
TWD 32.250604
TZS 2639.622886
UAH 44.653894
UGX 3714.050945
UYU 40.133201
UZS 11924.058297
VES 755.762404
VND 26204.5
VUV 118.557141
WST 2.733716
XAF 567.363231
XAG 0.015731
XAU 0.00023
XCD 2.70255
XCG 1.796912
XDR 0.705618
XOF 567.363231
XPF 103.152705
YER 238.403589
ZAR 16.14632
ZMK 9001.203584
ZMW 18.818492
ZWL 321.999592
  • CMSC

    0.0240

    21.744

    +0.11%

  • RIO

    1.4500

    101.1

    +1.43%

  • VOD

    0.1900

    16.19

    +1.17%

  • BCC

    2.3400

    86.6

    +2.7%

  • RBGPF

    0.7600

    70.5

    +1.08%

  • RYCEF

    0.2300

    20.85

    +1.1%

  • RELX

    0.0485

    35.52

    +0.14%

  • NGG

    0.4700

    80.88

    +0.58%

  • CMSD

    -0.1600

    21.82

    -0.73%

  • BCE

    -0.0200

    22.75

    -0.09%

  • GSK

    0.7900

    52.96

    +1.49%

  • JRI

    0.1500

    12.81

    +1.17%

  • BTI

    0.6000

    59.33

    +1.01%

  • BP

    -0.6000

    41.63

    -1.44%

  • AZN

    1.4100

    161.42

    +0.87%

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