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

USD -
AED 3.672497
AFN 63.515562
ALL 83.12797
AMD 366.308748
ANG 1.790403
AOA 917.502526
ARS 1479.243508
AUD 1.450652
AWG 1.80125
AZN 1.69913
BAM 1.721352
BBD 2.010121
BDT 122.760077
BGN 1.69088
BHD 0.376429
BIF 2979.101666
BMD 1
BND 1.296498
BOB 6.896673
BRL 5.192678
BSD 0.998064
BTN 94.44464
BWP 13.654226
BYN 2.812785
BYR 19600
BZD 2.007217
CAD 1.42399
CDF 2268.9996
CHF 0.811755
CLF 0.023334
CLP 918.380371
CNY 6.790502
CNH 6.81023
COP 3444
CRC 454.317424
CUC 1
CUP 26.5
CVE 97.047175
CZK 21.331301
DJF 177.723992
DKK 6.579675
DOP 58.501509
DZD 133.465986
EGP 49.619801
ERN 15
ETB 160.903882
EUR 0.88015
FJD 2.244199
FKP 0.75995
GBP 0.758965
GEL 2.640308
GGP 0.75995
GHS 11.17849
GIP 0.75995
GMD 72.499188
GNF 8744.823823
GTQ 7.613096
GYD 208.766062
HKD 7.839705
HNL 26.705451
HRK 6.630796
HTG 130.494669
HUF 312.586503
IDR 17932.35
ILS 2.980591
IMP 0.75995
INR 94.51045
IQD 1307.42827
IRR 1375049.999937
ISK 126.919687
JEP 0.75995
JMD 157.189944
JOD 0.708969
JPY 161.8265
KES 129.502101
KGS 87.450051
KHR 4009.804482
KMF 434.000145
KPW 900.00035
KRW 1543.319738
KWD 0.30967
KYD 0.83172
KZT 485.697941
LAK 21907.234642
LBP 89385.366197
LKR 336.710086
LRD 181.790178
LSL 16.592853
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.60489
LYD 6.418764
MAD 9.383647
MDL 17.675508
MGA 4169.142012
MKD 54.229906
MMK 2099.534862
MNT 3583.823146
MOP 8.060817
MRU 39.906531
MUR 48.189494
MVR 15.449943
MWK 1730.58559
MXN 17.61135
MYR 4.113698
MZN 63.909781
NAD 16.592853
NGN 1370.599182
NIO 36.727204
NOK 9.860895
NPR 151.11027
NZD 1.772215
OMR 0.384507
PAB 0.998064
PEN 3.384879
PGK 4.378573
PHP 61.341026
PKR 277.579134
PLN 3.77293
PYG 6087.836648
QAR 3.628322
RON 4.607901
RSD 103.324981
RUB 74.901959
RWF 1466.108669
SAR 3.747299
SBD 8.051953
SCR 14.807516
SDG 600.000095
SEK 9.74825
SGD 1.296969
SHP 0.746601
SLE 24.860893
SLL 20969.503664
SOS 570.407629
SRD 37.460004
STD 20697.981008
STN 21.56282
SVC 8.732617
SYP 110.532098
SZL 16.590316
THB 33.4025
TJS 9.266854
TMT 3.5
TND 2.966907
TOP 2.40776
TRY 46.515095
TTD 6.767294
TWD 31.809504
TZS 2620.689008
UAH 44.799222
UGX 3682.450273
UYU 39.843337
UZS 12001.408203
VES 620.752985
VND 26330.5
VUV 119.820737
WST 2.777776
XAF 577.322754
XAG 0.017474
XAU 0.000251
XCD 2.70255
XCG 1.798715
XDR 0.718004
XOF 577.325295
XPF 104.963915
YER 238.624977
ZAR 16.55295
ZMK 9001.201282
ZMW 17.989791
ZWL 321.999592
  • CMSD

    0.0600

    22.02

    +0.27%

  • JRI

    -0.0600

    12.57

    -0.48%

  • BCC

    5.8600

    77.66

    +7.55%

  • CMSC

    -0.0450

    22.065

    -0.2%

  • NGG

    1.2600

    82.83

    +1.52%

  • RIO

    -1.5500

    94.03

    -1.65%

  • GSK

    -0.9800

    51.09

    -1.92%

  • BCE

    0.1600

    23.2

    +0.69%

  • AZN

    2.0000

    183.02

    +1.09%

  • RYCEF

    -0.1600

    18

    -0.89%

  • RBGPF

    0.0000

    61.3

    0%

  • BTI

    0.6500

    61.39

    +1.06%

  • BP

    -1.4700

    37.86

    -3.88%

  • RELX

    -0.0600

    31.15

    -0.19%

  • VOD

    -0.2400

    13.81

    -1.74%

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