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

USD -
AED 3.673015
AFN 66.368333
ALL 83.534387
AMD 382.563278
ANG 1.789982
AOA 916.999859
ARS 1419.999484
AUD 1.529321
AWG 1.805
AZN 1.698148
BAM 1.691269
BBD 2.014078
BDT 122.093375
BGN 1.691692
BHD 0.376936
BIF 2945.37043
BMD 1
BND 1.302895
BOB 6.935257
BRL 5.296299
BSD 0.999991
BTN 88.640707
BWP 13.381932
BYN 3.408999
BYR 19600
BZD 2.011138
CAD 1.401795
CDF 2150.000106
CHF 0.8047
CLF 0.023973
CLP 940.470182
CNY 7.11935
CNH 7.121575
COP 3754.39
CRC 502.071065
CUC 1
CUP 26.5
CVE 95.35113
CZK 21.002502
DJF 178.068332
DKK 6.457695
DOP 64.285158
DZD 130.483978
EGP 47.2622
ERN 15
ETB 153.555832
EUR 0.86483
FJD 2.278501
FKP 0.760102
GBP 0.758655
GEL 2.705002
GGP 0.760102
GHS 10.939892
GIP 0.760102
GMD 72.999667
GNF 8680.162223
GTQ 7.665101
GYD 209.207807
HKD 7.773545
HNL 26.309873
HRK 6.515296
HTG 130.921292
HUF 331.689501
IDR 16689.9
ILS 3.23525
IMP 0.760102
INR 88.70835
IQD 1310.002508
IRR 42100.000076
ISK 126.440268
JEP 0.760102
JMD 160.955025
JOD 0.708994
JPY 154.0465
KES 129.140184
KGS 87.44966
KHR 4015.824632
KMF 421.000115
KPW 900.001961
KRW 1456.930262
KWD 0.30706
KYD 0.833355
KZT 523.888586
LAK 21713.752043
LBP 89548.343581
LKR 304.079003
LRD 182.99738
LSL 17.18586
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.60489
LYD 5.456542
MAD 9.257616
MDL 16.974948
MGA 4492.351329
MKD 53.207772
MMK 2099.688142
MNT 3580.599313
MOP 8.00633
MRU 39.7091
MUR 45.859741
MVR 15.40501
MWK 1733.987081
MXN 18.38222
MYR 4.159506
MZN 63.949813
NAD 17.18586
NGN 1436.393911
NIO 36.794272
NOK 10.119797
NPR 141.825131
NZD 1.771085
OMR 0.384498
PAB 0.999991
PEN 3.375101
PGK 4.221686
PHP 58.916499
PKR 282.744269
PLN 3.66145
PYG 7083.992702
QAR 3.644728
RON 4.397299
RSD 101.33519
RUB 81.238791
RWF 1453.463737
SAR 3.750643
SBD 8.230592
SCR 13.777359
SDG 600.498917
SEK 9.508905
SGD 1.30212
SHP 0.750259
SLE 23.201708
SLL 20969.499529
SOS 570.47241
SRD 38.496498
STD 20697.981008
STN 21.186257
SVC 8.749492
SYP 11056.839565
SZL 17.180758
THB 32.317023
TJS 9.264794
TMT 3.51
TND 2.952067
TOP 2.342104
TRY 42.2331
TTD 6.783061
TWD 30.971033
TZS 2454.963019
UAH 42.047803
UGX 3510.000778
UYU 39.786927
UZS 12014.769848
VES 228.193994
VND 26300
VUV 122.518583
WST 2.820889
XAF 567.235669
XAG 0.019788
XAU 0.000243
XCD 2.70255
XCG 1.802215
XDR 0.705459
XOF 567.235669
XPF 103.129513
YER 238.505413
ZAR 17.145697
ZMK 9001.197895
ZMW 22.624329
ZWL 321.999592
  • CMSC

    0.0400

    23.89

    +0.17%

  • SCS

    -0.0200

    15.74

    -0.13%

  • BCE

    -0.2500

    22.94

    -1.09%

  • CMSD

    0.0600

    24.16

    +0.25%

  • NGG

    -0.4200

    77.33

    -0.54%

  • BTI

    0.8300

    55.42

    +1.5%

  • AZN

    2.9000

    87.48

    +3.32%

  • BCC

    -0.8100

    69.83

    -1.16%

  • GSK

    0.7300

    47.36

    +1.54%

  • RIO

    0.9600

    70.29

    +1.37%

  • RBGPF

    0.0000

    76

    0%

  • RYCEF

    0.0200

    14.82

    +0.13%

  • JRI

    -0.0600

    13.68

    -0.44%

  • RELX

    -0.2400

    42.03

    -0.57%

  • VOD

    0.1200

    11.7

    +1.03%

  • BP

    0.5400

    37.12

    +1.45%

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