Re: Pretty well-established thesis by now. It's why I keep plugging mass reforestation as one of the Archived Message
Posted by Garry on February 1, 2019, 2:32 pm, in reply to "Pretty well-established thesis by now. It's why I keep plugging mass reforestation as one of the"
From the BBC piece in the original post: "...Are there lessons for modern climate policy? Co-author Dr Chris Brierley believes there is. He said the fall-out from the terrible population crash and re-wilding of the Americas illustrated the challenge faced by some global warming solutions. "There is a lot of talk around 'negative emissions' approaches and using tree-planting to take CO₂ out of the atmosphere to mitigate climate change," he told BBC News. "And what we see from this study is the scale of what's required, because the Great Dying resulted in an area the size of France being reforested and that gave us only a few ppm. This is useful; it shows us what reforestation can do. But at the same, that kind of reduction is worth perhaps just two years of fossil fuel emissions at the present rate."..." This is what bothers me too in relation to the idea that massive reforestation can draw down enough CO2 to make a serious difference to the heating climate. Apart from all the deforestation, we've added huge amounts of greenhouse gases on top by burning the fossil deposits from much earlier periods. We need reforestation, agroforestry, permaculture for all sorts of reasons but of itself, it would only draw down a relatively small amount of CO2. At best, what?...maybe 50ppm at a guess.
|
|