Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘deforestation’

Even as we struggle with heat waves, hurricanes, floods, wildfires, drought, and rising sea levels are as a result of climate change, the potential to sequester carbon in forests and soils offers hope. Humans have caused climate change by burning fossil fuels and disrupting the balance of nature, but there is an opportunity to restore these natural systems for carbon sequestration. Since we already used the carbon budget to keep global temperature increase to 1.5 degree Celsius, an action is needed to not only eliminate emissions but to recapture carbon dioxide that has already entered the atmosphere.

By stopping deforestation, and restoring degraded forests and soils we can combat climate change while improving biodiversity, soil productivity, and food security. Implementing better land management practices could be an important strategy to store carbon in the ground and lowering carbon emissions. Thus, curbing the rate of deforestation and improving land management and agricultural techniques should be a priority for policymakers at the federal and state levels in order to slow climate change, which has posed a significant threat to U.S agriculture.

Deforestation:

Forests are one of the largest carbon sinks and are currently absorbing and storing 450 billion tons of carbon. Forests are not only important in storing carbon, but they also play a significant role in preventing floods, supporting wildlife, moderating extreme temperature, presenting cultural values and providing recreation. However, after the industrial revolution, people started cutting down and burning trees for construction, shipbuilding, and energy producing, which resulted in turning a large amount of carbon back into the atmosphere. Human activities are the main reason for releasing carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere, including through deforestation.

Between 2001 and 2017, 5.57 gigatons of carbon (Gt) was released into the atmosphere as a result of tree cover loss in the United States. The U.S is cutting trees to make wood chips and wood pellets and export them from ports in the Southeast to Western Europe. Last year, Southern U.S. was identified as the largest exporter of wood pellets in the world as a result of a 70 percent increase in wood pellet exports from Southern. In 2017, the U.S lost 2.3 million hectares (Mha) of forest equivalent to 175 metric tons (Mt) of CO₂ emissions. Continued deforestation will neutralize all climate action efforts and strategies.

Afforestation and Reforestation Opportunities:

Afforestation is the process of planting forests in areas that have never been forested, while reforestation is the recovering of forests in areas where forests were destroyed.  Reforestation and afforestation could make an important contribution to curb climate change and to improve the quality of air if managed appropriately. Thus, afforestation and reforestation are identified as negative emissions options since they are able to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.  Afforestation, reforestation, and improving land management and conservation practices as a means of solution for removing CO2 from the atmosphere have several benefits to the society and environment. Planting new trees and recovering forests protects against soil erosion, helps retain soil moisture, increases biodiversity, and controls flooding. Also, these efforts can enhance agricultural productivity and develop resilient food systems. Moreover, planting trees has lower cost and environmental impacts compared to other negative emission technologies such as Bioenergy Carbon Capture & Storage.

Enterprise 50 Year Tree Pledge Surpasses 12 Million Plantings, 100 Reforestation Projects.Photo by Eterprise holdings

Afforestation and Reforestation:

The main problem is that planting forests is not an instant solution, since it takes time for seedling trees to be matured. Also, if afforestation is not properly managed, it can result in a reduction of local biodiversity, the modification of particular biomes, the introduction of non-native and potentially invasive species, and lost revenue from agriculture. Native grasslands that are altered to forests may not contain the same habitat for local species, and ill-managed reforestation efforts may result in the production of a monoculture (the practice of growing a single tree species) that lacks not only plant diversity but reduces the number of available habitat types for forest inhabitants. In addition, the application of nitrogen fertilizers would have several negative impacts on the environment. The production of nitrogen fertilizer releases a group of potent greenhouse gases known as nitrous oxides, along with CO2. Nitrogen pollution is identified as a threat to the biodiversity of species and biodiversity loss is a major environmental challenge

Soil Carbon Sequestration Opportunities:

Soil is a major sink of carbon and can store twice as much CO2 than is in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, farming currently plays a significant role in releasing a large amount of carbon into the atmosphere. As a result of an increase in the global population and the demand for food, commercial planting with the use of nitrogen fertilizer has increased, and frequent harvesting has resulted in reduced carbon levels in the soil. However, there are several land management practices which help promote inappropriate farming techniques. “Soil Carbon Sequestration” is one of the techniques which implements as a tool to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and store it in the ground. Thus, soil as a carbon sink can play a vital role in agricultural strategies to curb climate change and offset greenhouse gas emissions.

Agriculture, forestry and other land use techniques that store CO2 in the ground offer an opportunity to mitigate climate change. Farmers can help soil hold more CO2 by making sure crop residue and animal manure re-enters the soil. However, the amount of carbon that soil can hold depends on several factors such as types of soil, regional climate, and characteristics of soil microbes. Healthy soils with more organic matter can store carbon while providing agricultural and environmental benefits. Soil carbon storage directly benefits farmers by improving soil fertility, reducing erosion and increasing resilience to droughts and floods.

Conservation practices such as agroforestry, no-till agriculture, planting cover crops, forest farming, and silvopasture all increase the amount of carbon that can be sequestered in the soil.

  • In agroforestry, crops are planted between rows of trees while the trees mature. The system can be designed to produce fruits, vegetables, grains, flowers, herbs, bioenergy feedstocks, and more. Agroforestry helps improve land productivity with several potential benefits for the communities such as reducing soil erosion, increasing plant growth, climate change adaptation, and increasing food security.
  • “Forest farming” also is a way to grow food, herbal, botanical, or decorative crops under a forest canopy that is managed to provide ideal shade levels as well as other products.
  • “Silvopasture” integrates trees with livestock and their forages on one piece of land. The trees provide timber, fruit, or nuts as well as shade and shelter for livestock and their forages, help animals from the hot summer sun, cold winter winds, or a heavy rainfall.

Soil Carbon Sequestration Challenges:

Land Management Techniques: Forest farming & Agroforestry methods to keep CO2 in the ground & improve soil fertilizing

The main problem is that the initiatives are all voluntary and have not been adopted on a large scale. Farmers are experiencing several barriers in the way of implementing smart agriculture. For example, tilling the soil is a traditional practice for controlling weeds, and shifting to no-till technique requires changing farm equipment and using other weed-control methods. Therefore, farmers have to encounter with the high costs of altering farm equipment and the risk of lower yields in the short-term.  Furthermore, the benefits of soil carbon-rich take a long time to be viable and the long-term benefits of healthier crops and resilient communities are spread among societies. Thus, incentives and subsidies play a vital role in encouraging farmers to invest in cultivating healthier soils and split costs of shifting to new techniques since implementing the sustainable land management practices is critical to curb climate change and keep CO2  in the ground.

However, in the Midwest, for instance, around 50% of U.S farmland is operated by renters, and around 80% of agricultural land is owned by a non-farming landlord. Therefore, it would be difficult to encourage investments in soil health because renting tenants face short-term costs but might not receive the long-term benefits. Thus, policy-makers should provide tax incentives and subsidies for renters and non-farming landlords to be able to apply the land management practices. Since enhancing soil carbon by practicing land management techniques can prepare us to be well adapted for the negative impacts of climate change on the agriculture industry, there is an imperative need to invest in this solution and develop more helpful regulations to improve farmland productivity and communities’ resiliency.

Overall, fixing these barriers need providing the greatest financial and technical assistance and improving research and development (R&D) efforts as well as increasing private partnerships and offering incentives for farmers and renters. Improving the land management practices and the climate-smart agriculture is required a coordination and integration between various sectors dealing with climate change, agricultural development, and food security at the national, regional and local level. Local governments can provide tax credits for private companies to invest in different types of research with an emphasis on supporting soil carbon storage and to encourage them to offer useful consultant for farmers.

In Conclusion:

Well-managed natural systems carbon sequestration projects, along with the arrangement of sustainably produced timber, agriculture, and energy will produce numerous benefits including additional income for rural development, improve communities’ resiliency, and promote conservation programs. In order to improve climate change mitigation and sustainable development programs, governments must carry out the resolution of sustainability practices and oversee the implementation of these practices. The success of carbon sequestration projects will depend on the high carbon prices and aggressive emission reduction goals. Also, the political willpower plays an important role in prioritizing forestry activities and land management practices as part of mitigation portfolios. Care should also be taken to avoid unintended environmental and socioeconomic impacts that could threaten the overall value of natural systems carbon sequestration projects.

CASE STUDIES: (more…)

Read Full Post »

By Kirsten Bokenkamp

From office paper, to toilet paper, paper towels, paper coffee cups, newspapers, paper bags, magazines and catalogs, notebooks, napkins, and packaging, we cannot escape our dependency on paper products. Check out some of these crazy facts related to paper manufacturing and use:

  • Deforestation causes more global warming pollution than all forms of transportation combined.  A single forest tree absorbs 26 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, an acre of trees can remove 2.4 to 5 tons of carbon dioxide per year, and there are 728 million forested acres in the United States that remove more than 1.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year.
  • 50-75% of the pulp used to make toilet paper comes from old growth forests, which are valuable ecosystems and also play a huge role in absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere.
  • Americans consume more paper than any other country on earth. Each American, on average, uses 741 pounds of paper per year.  Furthermore, The United States is the largest market for toilet paper, and only 2% of sales are from 100% recycled toilet paper.
  • In addition to contributing to the detriments of deforestation, the pulp and paper industry is the third largest industrial emitter of global warming pollution (coming in after the chemical and steel industries). To make things worse, CO2 emissions from the paper industry are expected to double by 2020.
  • 36% of the average landfill is comprised of paper. Americans discard 4 million tons of office paper each year, which is enough to build a 12-foot wall from Los Angeles to New York City.
  • The pulp and paper industry is the single largest industrial consumer of freshwater.

As last week’s blog recommended, there is a lot we can do to reduce our use of paper: reusing shopping bags, printing on both sides, refusing junk mail, using cloth napkins, reusing coffee cups, and by buying products with less packaging.  But, sometimes, even when we are doing all of these things, it is still easy to forget the most simple of tasks: buying recycled paper products, especially toilet paper!

Sure, it is not as fluffy – but let’s not exaggerate – the recycled stuff does the trick and it is far from sandpaper.  And, wouldn’t you rather have a future where we have curbed climate change, still have forests, and have clean water to drink?  I don’t mean to sound extreme – but that is what we are dealing with. I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: as consumers we have tremendous power to change the world.  The day we no longer demand the plushy, soft, and tree-killing kind of toilet paper, the market will no longer produce it. So next time you are faced with the choice – make the earth friendly one. I’m sure your skin will forgive you. If you are having trouble taking the plunge, just think that if every household replaced just one roll (500 sheets) of virgin fiber toilet paper with a 100% recycled one, we would save 423,900 trees!

Buying recycled office paper is also important. Ask your manager to green-up the office! How much of a difference can it make? According to the Public Works Department of San Mateo County, California:

Every 20 cases of recycled paper saves 17 trees, 390 gallons of oil, 7000 gallons of water, and 4100 kwh of energy. It also eliminates 60 pounds of air-polluting emissions and saves 8 cubic feet of landfill space.

While it is not always the first thing on our minds as we strive to green-up our lives, buying recycled toilet paper is an important step.  In addition to saving old-growth forests, it gives recycled newspaper and office paper an afterlife to look forward to.  In addition to 100% recycled, also buy the brand with the highest percentage of post-consumer material and make sure the bleaching process is elemental chlorine free.  Check out one of the many buyers guides here.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

burger1

For years fast food restaurants have been our nation’s go-to source for cheap, quick food we can eat on the run or take home to the family to avoid cooking dinner for the night.  I am betting that almost every person reading this blog has or will eat a product of the fast food faction at some point this week.  Well, thinking about our fan base…maybe not.  According to a 2004 study by the International Trade Leader, Americans are ranked number one when it comes to the purchasing of convenience meals—spending a total of $148.6 billion, more than our spending on higher education.  Among the top ten nations listed, the United States is responsible for almost two-thirds of the total spending on fast food meals.  Aside from the commonplace debate about whether to buy organic or conventional fruits or vegetables, there are an overwhelming amount of other choices made every day that can ultimately have both personal and global consequences.  What many people don’t realize is that our national diet may not only affect our waist sizes, but it may also lead to environmental, political, cultural, social and ethical repercussions.

People are now, more than ever, beginning to value those things in life that can be obtained fast, cheap, and easy—including the food we eat.  In the past five years, the fast food nation as we know it grew unexpectedly.  There is one major contributor, responsible for about 80% of this growth.  Two words: drive through.  Recently, our country has seen a rapid increase in the amount of drive-through lanes at fast food institutions.   More than half the money spent at fast food restaurants is received through a drive-through window from a customer tucked behind the steering wheel and hopefully a seatbelt.  Today, 90% of the 13,000 McDonald’s restaurants in the United States have a drive-through lane; Starbucks has picked up the pace and added drive-through lanes to many of their stores across the country; and one fast food business called Good to Go has 14 drive-through lanes at their Houston location alone.

Now, I would like to do something a little different here.  I am going to talk my way through a normal visit to a local fast food place—starting from the time you start your engine to the time you eat the last fry.

So, let’s say you are jonesing for a cheeseburger and french fries.  You decide to take a break from your television marathon and go to the nearest fast food joint to get some food.  You hop into your Ford Focus and drive about seven or so minutes to the restaurant (making the entire trip a total of 15 minutes, minus the time spent in the drive-thru lane).  It takes about 8000 litres of air, weighing almost 12 kg, to burn one litre of gasoline or diesel. Furthermore, for every litre of petrol you burn, you emit 2.5 kg of carbon dioxide.  Aside from carbon dioxide, our cars also emit carbon monoxide, lead and hydrocarbons while we are driving through the act of petrol combustion.  This has lead many to believe that driving a car is probably the most polluting act an average citizen can commit in their lifetime.  In recent years, emissions from passenger vehicles in the United States have increased thanks to the increase in vehicle usage and the nationwide preference for larger vehicles.  An average new vehicle in 2003 consumed far more fuel than its counterpart in 1988. So, what can you do?  Like Kirsten said in an earlier blog entry—drive less.  Both local and global pollution would be reduced if each car-driving person pledged to use their car 30% less starting immediately.

Since you just ran out of the house and you are still wearing your pajamas, you decide to order from the drive-through lane to avoid the embarrassment and save some time.  You pull into the line and notice four other cars in front of you—all burning around the same amount of petrol and releasing carbon dioxide into the air.  Many believe that avoiding the drive-through lane and parking your car is the greenest thing to do.  On the contrary, some researchers in Canada have claimed that a parking-only restaurant produces 20% more smog pollution and 60% more greenhouse gases than a restaurant with a drive-through lane due to the stopping and restarting of cooled-down vehicle engines.

Finally, you pull up to the speaker box and place your order—a cheeseburger with everything on it, an order of french fries, and a small coke.  When it comes to fast food restaurants, up to $1,000 a month can be spent on electric bills for one location alone.  Air conditioning and lighting account for 25% to 40% of the electrical spending, while refrigeration shares the majority with other expenses including powering the speaker box and indoor cooking appliances.

You drive forward to the drive-through window and wait patiently for your food.  One of the most overlooked energy users at fast food restaurants are the drive-through windows themselves. The window is oftentimes left open unnecessarily during the drive-through process, letting air-conditioned air escape.  The employee appears in the window and hands you your order.  Your total is $6.99.  You give them cash, they give you change, and you take a peek inside the paper bag to make sure everything is there.  You see your cheeseburger wrapped in paper and your fries sitting in its cardboard packaging, along with some napkins and a few packets of ketchup.  You grab your drink and take a sip of the coke from the straw protruding from the paper cup.  In general, fast food outlets are our country’s primary source of urban litter, which includes the paper, plastic, and Styrofoam packaging material.  The most abundant type of litter (not counting cigarette buds) is Styrofoam, which becomes a permanent fixture in our environment when littered.  Moreover, plastic is the largest source of marine debris.  In some areas of the Pacific Ocean plastic has become so concentrated, there is six times more plastic than there is plankton.  These materials from fast food restaurants have become a huge burden on the local communities.  Less than 35% of the waste from fast food businesses is diverted from landfills.  Every year millions of pounds of food packaging waste litter our roadways, clog our landfills, and spoil our quality of life.  Food packaging takes up 15% of landfills.  About three-fourths of all food packaging come from forests, with half of landfill waste being made of either paper or wood.  The Southern forests of North America supply 60% of United States and 15% of global paper demands. This demand for wood and paper products has led to deforestation, resulting in a total decline from 356 million acres in colonial times to 182 million acres today.

You give your thanks and drive off.  As you drive you start nibbling on some fries because they taste better when they’re hot.  In order to fry these delicious pieces of potato, fast food institutions use fryers, which ultimately requires a lot of oil and energy to operate.  There is now a new generation of fryers that supposedly allow restaurants to cook the same amount of product with approximately 40% less oil.  Furthermore, these low oil volume fryers use about 4% less energy than their standard counterparts.

Once you get home you turn the television back on and sit down to eat your meal.  You bite into your cheeseburger and slurp some of your coke.  According to the Economist, Americans eat as many as three burgers a week for a total of 150 burgers every year.  Believe it or not, the cheeseburger has its own footprint and global warming impact.  There is a ton of energy cost associated with a common cheeseburger, including what it takes to grow the feed for the cattle for beef and cheese, growing the produce, storing and transporting the components, as well as actually cooking the burger.  The total greenhouse gas emissions that arise every year from the production and consumption of cheeseburgers are roughly equal to the amount emitted by 6.5 million to 19.6 million SUVs.

Bon appetit.

This blog entry isn’t meant to scare anyone out of eating a cheeseburger or prevent anyone from going to a fast food restaurant.  It is meant to provide you with information on topics you may not know about, help you to open your eyes, and get you to think about the things you do everyday that can ultimately affect the world and the people around you.

Until next time.

Ashlie Lynn Chandler

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »