Yet Another Handy Discussion Of Why "We'll Just Plant Trees!" Is Not A Climate "Solution"

[hatrack]

EDIT

The results of two studies published in the journals Science and Ecology Letters on May 12, 2022—one focused on growth, the other on death—raise new questions about how much the world can rely on forests to store increasing amounts of carbon in a warming future. Ecologist William Anderegg, who was involved in both studies, explains why.

What does the new research tell us about trees and their ability to store carbon?

The future of forests is on a knife’s edge, with a tug of war between two very important forces: the benefits trees get from increasing levels of carbon dioxide and the stresses they face from the climate, such as heat, drought, fires, pests, and pathogens. Those climate stresses are increasing a lot faster as the planet warms than scientists had expected. We’re seeing immense wildfires and drought-driven forest die-offs much sooner than anyone had anticipated. When those trees die, that carbon goes back into the atmosphere. We’re also seeing evidence that the benefits trees get from higher levels of carbon dioxide in a warming world may be more limited than people realize.

This tells us it’s probably not a great idea to count on forests for a widespread carbon sink through the 21st century, particularly if societies don’t reduce their emissions. Trees and forests do all sorts of other amazing things—they clean the air and water, and they provide economic value in terms of timber and tourism and pollination. So, understanding how they will grow matters for many reasons.

There’s an argument that, with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, trees will simply grow more and lock that carbon away. What did your study find?

Two key things affect tree growth: photosynthesis, which is how trees turn sunlight and carbon dioxide into food, and the process of cell division and expansion. There’s been a long-standing debate about which is the biggest driver of tree growth. A good metaphor here is a cart with two horses. The cart moving down the road is the tree growing, and there are two horses attached, but we don’t know which one is actually doing the work of pulling the cart. One horse is photosynthesis. That makes a lot of intuitive sense—it’s where all the carbon comes from for building cells. But we know there’s another horse—in order to grow more wood, trees have to grow layers of cells, and the cells have to expand and divide. That cell growth process is very sensitive to climate changes and tends to shut down when conditions are dry.

EDIT

What does this mean for the use of carbon offsets?

Together, these studies suggest that the benefits carbon dioxide has for growth won’t be nearly as large as people thought, and the risk of climate stress, particularly wildfire, drought, and insects, will be much larger than people anticipate. That has huge implications for using forests as carbon offsets. So far, carbon offset protocols and markets have not really grappled with this updated scientific understanding of the risks that forests face from climate change. This tells us that climate policymakers and offset developers need to be very careful about how they count on forest offsets to deliver benefits.

EDIT

https://www.fastcompany.com/90752162/trees-arent-a-climate-change-cure-all

[KPN]

1. Yup. We are in a loop. Carbon offsets are not necessarily

a solution.

Good article. Thanks for posting here.