The China Mail - Forests could absorb much more carbon, but does it matter?

USD -
AED 3.672983
AFN 72.000016
ALL 86.650027
AMD 390.940256
ANG 1.80229
AOA 917.494877
ARS 1121.845706
AUD 1.554521
AWG 1.8
AZN 1.693234
BAM 1.720686
BBD 2.017877
BDT 121.428069
BGN 1.721096
BHD 0.372726
BIF 2930
BMD 1
BND 1.312071
BOB 6.906563
BRL 5.809252
BSD 0.999437
BTN 85.314611
BWP 13.77569
BYN 3.270808
BYR 19600
BZD 2.007496
CAD 1.381645
CDF 2876.999933
CHF 0.808745
CLF 0.02506
CLP 961.650057
CNY 7.303759
CNH 7.31082
COP 4277
CRC 502.269848
CUC 1
CUP 26.5
CVE 97.390528
CZK 21.6775
DJF 177.720265
DKK 6.47322
DOP 60.500912
DZD 131.144916
EGP 50.399702
ERN 15
ETB 133.023649
EUR 0.86684
FJD 2.28525
FKP 0.752396
GBP 0.746025
GEL 2.745008
GGP 0.752396
GHS 15.559716
GIP 0.752396
GMD 71.501565
GNF 8655.500959
GTQ 7.698128
GYD 209.656701
HKD 7.759125
HNL 25.850255
HRK 6.542701
HTG 130.419482
HUF 353.009748
IDR 16851
ILS 3.718675
IMP 0.752396
INR 85.12025
IQD 1310
IRR 42125.000155
ISK 125.789755
JEP 0.752396
JMD 157.965583
JOD 0.709301
JPY 140.195989
KES 129.850416
KGS 87.233497
KHR 4014.99997
KMF 433.502337
KPW 900
KRW 1422.685053
KWD 0.30664
KYD 0.832893
KZT 523.173564
LAK 21687.498074
LBP 89600.000254
LKR 298.915224
LRD 199.974981
LSL 18.856894
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.60489
LYD 5.46983
MAD 9.275025
MDL 17.289555
MGA 4552.892736
MKD 53.55177
MMK 2099.693619
MNT 3567.319696
MOP 7.990393
MRU 39.435529
MUR 44.550244
MVR 15.39346
MWK 1735.999994
MXN 19.67059
MYR 4.380498
MZN 63.904971
NAD 18.856894
NGN 1605.590163
NIO 36.775056
NOK 10.341635
NPR 136.503202
NZD 1.662262
OMR 0.38501
PAB 0.999437
PEN 3.763025
PGK 4.133235
PHP 56.683504
PKR 280.59797
PLN 3.700944
PYG 7999.894426
QAR 3.640601
RON 4.312302
RSD 103.137317
RUB 81.031244
RWF 1415
SAR 3.752013
SBD 8.326764
SCR 14.23696
SDG 600.528417
SEK 9.507775
SGD 1.304435
SHP 0.785843
SLE 22.774981
SLL 20969.483762
SOS 571.498224
SRD 37.149782
STD 20697.981008
SVC 8.745073
SYP 13001.857571
SZL 18.81958
THB 33.127495
TJS 10.733754
TMT 3.5
TND 2.987995
TOP 2.342104
TRY 38.248965
TTD 6.781391
TWD 32.491801
TZS 2684.999977
UAH 41.417687
UGX 3663.55798
UYU 41.913007
UZS 12915.000042
VES 80.85863
VND 25905
VUV 120.966311
WST 2.777003
XAF 577.111964
XAG 0.03068
XAU 0.000288
XCD 2.70255
XDR 0.709959
XOF 574.999834
XPF 102.775029
YER 245.249914
ZAR 18.666745
ZMK 9001.193331
ZMW 28.458439
ZWL 321.999592
  • CMSD

    -0.1400

    21.82

    -0.64%

  • RBGPF

    63.5900

    63.59

    +100%

  • SCS

    -0.3400

    9.42

    -3.61%

  • RYCEF

    0.0200

    9.31

    +0.21%

  • CMSC

    -0.1100

    21.71

    -0.51%

  • BCC

    -2.6700

    90.8

    -2.94%

  • BCE

    0.3400

    22.38

    +1.52%

  • RELX

    -0.1300

    52.07

    -0.25%

  • RIO

    0.3000

    58.47

    +0.51%

  • JRI

    -0.2700

    12.13

    -2.23%

  • GSK

    0.5200

    36.45

    +1.43%

  • NGG

    0.7900

    72.9

    +1.08%

  • AZN

    -0.6900

    66.9

    -1.03%

  • VOD

    -0.0800

    9.23

    -0.87%

  • BTI

    0.1800

    42.55

    +0.42%

  • BP

    -0.2400

    28.08

    -0.85%

Forests could absorb much more carbon, but does it matter?
Forests could absorb much more carbon, but does it matter? / Photo: © AFP/File

Forests could absorb much more carbon, but does it matter?

Protecting forests globally could vastly increase the amount of carbon they sequester, a new study finds, but given our current emissions track, does it really matter?

Text size:

For Thomas Crowther, an author of the assessment, the answer is a resounding yes.

"I absolutely see this study as a cause for hope," the professor at ETH Zurich said.

"I hope that people will see the real potential and value that nature can bring to the climate change topic."

But for others, calculating the hypothetical carbon storage potential of global forests is more an academic exercise than a useful framework for forest management.

"I am a forester by trade, so I really like to see trees grow," said Martin Lukac, professor of ecosystem science at University of Reading.

However, he considers forest carbon potential calculations like these "dangerous," warning they "distract from the main challenge and offer false hope."

Crowther has been here before: in 2019 he produced a study on how many trees the Earth could support, where to plant them and how much carbon they could store.

"Forest restoration is the best climate change solution available today," he argued.

That work caused a firestorm of criticism, with experts unpicking everything from its modelling to the claim that reforestation was the "best" solution available.

Nodding to the furore, Crowther and his colleagues have now vastly expanded their data set and used new modelling approaches for the study published Monday in the journal Nature.

They use ground-sourced surveys and data from three models based on high-resolution satellite imagery.

The modelling approach is "as good as it currently gets," acknowledged Lukac, who was not involved in the work.

- 'Achieve climate targets' -

The study estimates forests are storing 328 gigatons of carbon less than they would if untouched by human destruction.

Estimates of the world's remaining carbon "budget" to keep warming below the 1.5C range from around 250-500 gigatons.

Much of the forest potential -- 139 gigatons -- could be captured by just leaving existing forests to reach full maturity, the study says.

Another 87 gigatons could be regained by reconnecting fragmented forests.

The remainder is in areas used for agriculture, pasture or urban infrastructure, which the authors acknowledge is unlikely to be reversed.

Still, they say their findings present a massive opportunity.

"Forest conservation, restoration and sustainable management can help achieve climate targets by mitigating emissions and enhancing carbon sequestration," the study says.

Modelling and mapping the world's forests is a tricky business.

There's the scale of the problem, but also the complexity of what constitutes a forest.

Trees, of course, but the carbon storage potential of a woodland or jungle is also in its soil and the organic matter littering the forest floor.

- Trees versus emissions? -

Ground-level surveys can offer granular data, but are difficult to extrapolate.

And satellite imagery covers large swathes of land, but can be confounded by something as simple as the weather, said Nicolas Younes, research fellow at the Australian National University.

"Most of the places where there is potential for carbon storage are tropical countries... these are places where there is persistent cloud cover, therefore satellite imagery is very hard to validate," he told AFP.

Younes, an expert on forest remote sensing, warns the complexity of the study's datasets and modelling risks introducing errors, though the resulting estimates remain "very valuable".

"It will not show us the exact truth for every pixel on Earth, but it is useful."

One objection to quantifying forest carbon potential is that conditions are far from static, with accelerating climate change, forest fires and pest vulnerability all playing a role.

And, for Lukac, whatever potential forests have is irrelevant to the urgency of cutting emissions.

The study's estimated 328 gigatons "would be wiped (out) in 30 years by current emissions," he said.

Crowther, who advises a project to plant a trillion trees globally, rejects an either-or between forest protection and emissions reduction.

"We urgently need both," he said.

K.Lam--ThChM