Expert view: as the CO2 absorption efficiency of trees declines over time “you’re going to have to keep planting more and more forests. That isn’t actually solving the problem.” Nature’s own carbon cycle isn’t easily manipulated.
– – –
Of all the solutions for a warming world, “plant more trees” seems pretty obvious, says Bloomberg News (via Phys.org).
But in New Zealand, which tested that premise by linking incentives for forestry development with its emissions trading scheme, the results have been more controversial and less effective than climate advocates hoped.
Now, after four years of frenetic planting, a prominent government watchdog has joined international agencies, industry groups and environmental advocates in calling for a radical overhaul, one that threatens a reversal of fortunes for investors in the recent forestry boom.
“Pine production and permanent forestry are legitimate land uses,” Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Simon Upton wrote in a report on land-use change, published May 22nd in Wellington. “But afforestation should not be incentivized by treating it as a cheap way to offset fossil fuel emissions.”
It is an aggressive challenge to one of the world’s most prominent campaigns for afforestation. Ingka Group, the largest global Ikea franchisee and a major investor in New Zealand forestry, said in an email that Upton’s advice is “significant, and we are closely reviewing the potential impacts,” adding that its long-term commitments in the country are unchanged.
Other forestry investors say the ongoing debates are sapping confidence in the market.
“While uncertainty remains, New Zealand is missing a significant opportunity to grow its forest estate,” said Phil Taylor, managing director of New Zealand forestry at Port Blakely, which owns 35,000 hectares of mixed species plantations. “It needs to be sorted out.”
Since 2019, the country has added 175,000 hectares (432,000 acres) of forests, almost all the fast-growing, carbon-sucking Pinus radiata pine, helping New Zealand make progress toward its 2050 net zero goal.
But the new growth has subsumed the nation’s farmland, the beef-and-sheep lobby says, undermining the meat-and-dairy industry. Increased waste from forestry—the logs, leaves and branches known as “slash”—more than doubled the damage of the flooding caused by last year’s Cyclone Gabrielle.
While those might be worthwhile trade-offs for significant long-term reductions in climate-warming CO2, the current system doesn’t really achieve that either, experts say.
Forests do absorb a lot of carbon dioxide, but their efficiency wanes over time. To achieve the same environmental effect over decades, “you’re going to have to keep planting more and more forests,” said John Saunders, a senior researcher at Lincoln University’s agribusiness and economics research unit. “That isn’t actually solving the problem.”
Full article here.
– – –
Image: Radiata pine, New Zealand [credit: forestenterprises.co.nz]
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
“That isn’t actually solving the problem.“
Believing there’s a solvable problem is the real problem.
Surely when a tree rots or is burnt it releases CO2 back into the atmosphere. So a forest is neutral and not a sink . So what do these experts think they are achieving? Against a non existent problem. Very sad l
Huh, “Believing there’s a solvable problem is the real problem” – THAT’s the stuff for Academics ( only !! ) – MATHEMATICS, in wherever it is found …. manipulating the Beams until an answer is found …. bit like Calculus: Easy one way but horrendous the other way around ( or blame my Teecher(s) – but they were OK ) Believing or just even SAYING / talking about Climate change as though it were factual, is the other problem …. Yin & Yan
More subsidy farming, if I don’t miss my guess.
Off topic, has anyone else come across this?
“‘You certainly don’t see this every day’: Ultra-rare backward-spinning tornado formed over Oklahoma”
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/weather/you-certainly-dont-see-this-every-day-ultra-rare-backward-spinning-tornado-formed-over-oklahoma
Huh, that goes within the realms of what I thought I knew / was taught about cyclone direction , water down the drain, etc …. all a POV from below or above. Whatever next? ‘……. was the result of a meteorological phenomenon gone wrong‘ Gone Wrong ?.
saighdear says:
Huh, “Believing there’s a solvable problem is the real problem”
No, believing man-made CO2 is any kind of a problem is the real problem!
oldbrew wrote that first,
Believing there’s a solvable problem is the real problem
I write again:
believing man-made CO2 is any kind of a problem is the real problem!
Catwezele666 wrote:
Off topic, has anyone else come across this?
“‘You certainly don’t see this every day’: Ultra-rare backward-spinning tornado formed over Oklahoma”
Thanks! No, I had not come across this story.
Agriculture, Carbon cycle, climate, Emissions, trees
In many cases, those who harvest trees, understand trees and plant the most trees to provide future harvests.
Preventing the cutting of trees to save to save the climate or planting trees to save the planet gain huge subsidies and the people who profit the most are people who know less than nothing about climate change or trees.
The Forrest fires that cause most damage are in government not managed forests and forests that are harvested and replanted and managed have much less fire damage.
Forests grow, get old, die, burn, and grow again, that is nature. If man wants to stop that natural cycle that has a fire cycle, man must harvest, clean up dead wood, replant, or have controlled burns when and where needed, when that is even possible. Fire is older and bigger than human influence, harm from fire has been reduced by human influence, valid data supports this. Humans build in places that have always burned from time to time. Some humans try to manage the threat from fire around where they live, some humans ignore the threat from fire around where they live. Many humans promote the threat from fire around where they live, much from not knowing that they are promoting harm. There are fires in warmer climates and there are fires in colder climates. Once started, fires provide their own energy, it takes a lot of water to matter, best responses come from nature, human efforts frequently are just to say we tried.
Modern fire theory is wait for and pray for every major fire and make the most political and financial gain from it!
The people doing the most firefighting may not agree,
I sense people upset that fossil fuel use and capitalism continue rather than any actual environmental issue.
How do they measure the actual effectiveness, you know, those silly scientific/engineering/financial requirements for decision making?
The responses here are somewhat naive
Of course it is technically true that initially planting trees will absorb CO2 and that, as the forest become established the CO2 in and out becomes net zero, but that isn’t the point.
The point is the money that you get for planting the trees, so in fact planting millions of trees has absolutely worked as planned, because the people doing it have got rich from the climate scam they organised. It’s very simple.
Surely a backward spinning Tornado will disappear up its own arse? Whatever, how do you like things on this blog?
The tornado comments are off-topic, but just as a footnote…
‘You certainly don’t see this every day’: Ultra-rare backward-spinning tornado formed over Oklahoma
Published May 2, 2024
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/weather/you-certainly-dont-see-this-every-day-ultra-rare-backward-spinning-tornado-formed-over-oklahoma
catweazle666 says:
Off topic, has anyone else come across this?
‘You certainly don’t see this every day’: Ultra-rare backward-spinning tornado formed over Oklahoma”
Interesting. Vortexes do what they do. The science is not settled!
Ultra-rare backward-spinning tornado formed
I have often wondered why they could never spin the other way.
Now I know, sometimes they can.
I have never heard of a hurricane or typhoon spinning the wrong way.
Maybe that is possible if a circulation formed between two major storms.
Just a thought and question.
The point is the money that you get for planting the trees, so in fact planting millions of trees has absolutely worked as planned, because the people doing it have got rich from the climate scam they organized. It’s very simple.
Even beyond that, they got subsidized for planting the trees and they also gained income from whatever they were doing that required carbon offsets.