BBC: Newly grown rainforests can absorb 11 times as much carbon from the atmosphere as old-growth forests, a study has shown.
The researchers have produced a map showing regions in Latin America where regrowing rainforests would deliver the greatest benefits.
However, they added that old-growth forests still needed to be protected as they locked away vast amount of carbon.
Details of the study have been published in the journal Nature. (read more)
13 comments:
I've read recent "studies" (for what that's worth) that claim to show that agriculture, especially tree growth seems to be showing that the increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere is growing plants much faster than in past centuries. Shhhhh. Lets keep it on the down low.
Does this mean that the rain forests are responsible for global warming?
Plants like CO2? Who knew.
they added that old-growth forests still needed to be protected as they locked away vast amount of carbon.
How about we lock away that vast amount of carbon in the form of furniture, flooring and other wood products?
Yeah. Because rainforests totally don't need to be cut down to grow all the meat that all these carbon-spewing, increasingly overpopulating people want to consume. Let's pretend the anti-sustainability mindset of the AGW deniers cares a whit for reforestation. We can dream, can't we?
It used to be that, the more impossible the dream, the more wonderful the payoff. Today's science deniers go full Monty and just actively work against the reality they say will lead to the right answer.
Show me a single AGW-denier who's doing a damn thing to find a way to replant rainforests, let alone doing it. You guys are just the height of political absurdity.
Rather than wasting money on boondoggles, why have North American and European do-gooders and greeners fund reforestation efforts in Amazonia. They can promote bio diversity (which is lost when forests are cut down) and over time many endemic plants and animals might return. Even if the carbon issues are over blown, this is guaranteed to help the environment and more trees are generally a good thing.
Because the Brazilian government wants to make money allowing more (financially) profitable ranchers cut them down and graze on that land. They've got their own Cliven Bundys also.
It's called carbon sequestration and it occurs in all kinds of places because, you know plants like CO2 as food? Duh.
"Yeah. Because rainforests totally don't need to be cut down to grow all the meat that all these carbon-spewing, increasingly overpopulating people want to consume. "
I'm really getting tired of people picking on Al Gore and his entourage. They do good work, so can they have freaking steak with a few world leaders for Christ's sake? And they only jet around to get their message out, because your chakra needs to see the world before it can save it. Now get on your skateboard and go pick up some groceries from the sustainable locally farmed organic liquor store.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Yeah. Because rainforests totally don't need to be cut down to grow all the meat that all these carbon-spewing, increasingly overpopulating people want to consume. Let's pretend the anti-sustainability mindset of the AGW deniers cares a whit for reforestation. We can dream, can't we?
It used to be that, the more impossible the dream, the more wonderful the payoff. Today's science deniers go full Monty and just actively work against the reality they say will lead to the right answer.
Show me a single AGW-denier who's doing a damn thing to find a way to replant rainforests, let alone doing it. You guys are just the height of political absurdity.
Sorry bro, but your shitting in the wrong yard. The anger, the lies, the truth. It was never in your favor. Ever.
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v525/n7568/full/nature14967.html
...more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true...
NOT in the rainforests.
Read carefully.
The greatest gains have been seen on the East Coast (with average volumes of wood per acre almost doubling since the '50s) which was the area most heavily logged by European settlers beginning in the 1600s, soon after their arrival.
I knew this and it's definitely good news but keep in mind: 100 years ago was 1915, when heavily polluting industries were just getting into full swing. If forestation increased to the point of being on par with the 1600s, or even the 1700s, then that would be even better.
There are definitely some small success stories here and there when it comes to sustainability and reverting to a safer environmental setting. But on the whole we're not doing enough to offset the amount of damage that's still there. On the east coast alone, you could count the number of Superfund sites that still need to be cleaned up, for one...
From MNN: One of the main reasons forests are recovering is the role of government, which now agrees that responsible management practices are important for future forest ecosystem health. In 1992, the United Nations adopted the "Forest Principles" which kicked off the latest round of modern sustainable forest management initiatives in the U.S. and abroad.
Imagine that.
Post a Comment