From the NATURE CONSERVANCY and the “beating natural climate change over the head with nature department”…comes this odd press release along with a “we hate cars” graphic. On the plus side, at least they aren’t proposing taxes that will accomplish nothing but line the pockets of special interests.
New study finds nature is vital to beating climate change
Washington DC, USA and London, UK, 16 October 2017 – Better stewardship of the land could have a bigger role in fighting climate change than previously thought, according to the most comprehensive assessment to date of how greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced and stored in forests, farmland, grasslands and wetlands using natural climate solutions.
The peer-reviewed study, led by scientists from The Nature Conservancy and 15 other institutions , and published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, expanded and refined the scope of land-based climate solutions previously assessed by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). The findings are expected to bolster efforts to ensure that large scale protection, restoration, and improved land management practices needed to stabilize climate change are achieved while meeting the demand for food and fiber from global lands.
Accounting for cost constraints, the researchers calculated that natural climate solutions could reduce emissions by 11.3 billion tonnes per year by 2030 – equivalent to halting the burning of oil , and offering 37% of the emissions reductions needed to hold global warming below 2 degrees Celsius by 2030. Without cost constraints, natural climate solutions could deliver emissions reductions of 23.8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, close to a third (30%) more than previous estimates .
Mark Tercek, CEO The Nature Conservancy said: “Today our impacts on the land cause a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions. The way we manage the lands in the future could deliver 37% of the solution to climate change. That is huge potential, so if we are serious about climate change, then we are going to have to get serious about investing in nature, as well as in clean energy and clean transport. We are going to have to increase food and timber production to meet the demand of a growing population, but we know we must do so in a way that addresses climate change.”
Christiana Figueres, convener of Mission 2020 and former head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said: “Land use is a key sector where we can both reduce emissions and absorb carbon from the atmosphere. This new study shows how we can massively increase action on land use – in tandem with increased action on energy, transport, finance, industry and infrastructure – to put emissions on their downward trajectory by 2020. Natural climate solutions are vital to ensuring we achieve our ultimate objective of full decarbonisation and can simultaneously boost jobs and protect communities in developed and developing countries.”
The Biggest Natural Climate Solution: More Trees
According to FAO, 3.9 billion hectares or 30.6% of total land area is forest. The researchers found that trees have the greatest potential to cost-effectively reduce carbon emissions. This is because they absorb carbon dioxide as they grow, removing it from the atmosphere. The results of the study indicate that the three largest options for increasing the number and size of trees (reforestation, avoiding forest loss, and better forestry practices) could cost-effectively remove 7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide annually by 2030, equivalent to taking 1.5 billion gasoline-burning cars off the roads.
Restoring forests on formerly forested lands, and avoiding further loss of global forests, are the two largest opportunities. Success depends in large part on better forestry and agricultural practices, particularly those that reduce the amount of land used by livestock. Reducing the footprint of livestock would release vast areas across the globe for trees and can be achieved while safeguarding food security. Meanwhile, improved forestry practices across expanded and existing working forests can produce more wood fiber while storing more carbon, maintain biodiversity, and help clean our air and water. The researchers found that the top five countries where forests could reduce emissions the most are Brazil, Indonesia, China, Russia and India.
The Vital Role of Agriculture
According to FAO, agricultural lands cover 11% according of the world’s surface, and changing the way we farm these could cost-effectively deliver 22% of emissions reductions according to the study, equivalent to taking 522 million gasoline cars off the road. Smarter application of chemical fertilizers (Cropland Nutrient Management), for example, improved crop yields while reducing emissions of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Other effective interventions include planting trees among croplands and improved management of livestock.
Dr. Ibrahim Mayaki, former Prime Minister of Niger and CEO of NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa’s Development), said: “Since COP 21 in December 2015 in Paris, the major role of agriculture and forestry to combat climate change has been clearly recognized. As developed countries put more emphasis on mitigation, developing countries try to adapt their agriculture to a changing world. This new study underlines the importance of nature, and especially trees and soils, as support for carbon sequestration through the cycle of plants based on photosynthesis. Promoting carbon sequestration in soils, with adapted agricultural and forestry practices, could lead to win-win solutions on mitigation, adaptation and increase of food security. Those are the triple objective of the “4 per 1000″ Initiative already supported by 250 countries, organizations and institutions. We know what to do, now it’s time to act!”
Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever, said: “Climate change threatens the production of food staples like corn, wheat, rice and soy by as much as a quarter – but a global population of nine billion by 2050 will need up to 50% more food. Fortunately, this research shows we have a huge opportunity to reshape our food and land use systems, putting them at the heart of delivering both the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the Sustainable Development Goals.”
The Coastal Carbon Sink
Wetlands are less extensive than agricultural or forest lands, covering 0.7 – 0.9 billion hectares or 4% – 6% of the land surface of the Earth, but they hold the most carbon per acre and offer 14% of potential cost-effective natural climate solutions. Avoiding the draining and conversion of peatlands, is the largest of these opportunities. Peatlands are estimated to hold one quarter of the carbon stored by the world’s soils, yet approximately 780 000 hectares (1.9 million acres) are lost globally each year, in particular for palm oil cultivation. The researchers found that their protection could secure a store of 678 million tonnes of carbon emissions equivalent a year by 2030 – comparable to removing 145 million cars from the streets.
Dr. William H. Schlesinger, Professor Emeritus of Biogeochemistry and former president of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, said: “This study is the first attempt to estimate systematically the amount of carbon that might be sequestered from the atmosphere by various actions in forestry and agriculture, and by the preservation of natural lands which store carbon very efficiently. The results are provocative: first, because of the magnitude of potential carbon sequestration from nature, and second, because we need natural climate solutions in tandem with rapid fossil fuel emissions cuts to beat climate change.”
Expanding Public and Private Sector Climate Action on Land
While the study highlights the potential of natural climate solutions as a major solution to climate change, renewable energy, energy efficiency and clean transport together receive about 30 times the investment .
Justin Adams, Global Lands Managing Director, The Nature Conservancy, commented: “Just 38 out of 160 countries set specific targets for natural climate solutions at the Paris climate talks, amounting to 2 gigatonnes of emissions reductions. To put this in context, we need 11 gigatonnes of reductions if we are to keep global warming in check. Managing our lands better is absolutely key to beating climate change. The PNAS study shows us that those responsible for the lands – governments, the forestry companies and farms, the fishermen and property developers – are just as important to achieving this as the solar, wind and electric car businesses.”
###
For case studies and more information please visit: https://global.nature.org/initiatives/natural-climate-solutions/ncs-case-studies
Oh no! Those trees will take up the room we need for our solar panel farms. (Sarcasm)
Sarcasm works best when it’s true!
You have reminded me of the bizarre scheme to create a chemical process to harness sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water to a synthetic bio-fuel. These people seriously thought it might be better than coppicing trees for bio-fuel.
Don’t worry. They’ll plant those white spinny trees along with the solar plants.
LOL
Spot on! Let us leave it to nature!
Nature started it and nature will finish it.
All we have demonstrated over the millennia is that when we think we can do better than natural forces, we come up short or have gotten it wrong…again.
“bigger role in fighting climate change than previously thought” – these guys are optimists. I could not find any trace of a “previous thinking”.
CO2 at 406 ppmv in the present atmosphere is already doing much of the greening of the good Earth already and will insure that plant based photosynthesis will continue rapidly as well. If we compared Earth today as compared to just 20,000 years ago at the peak of the last ice age, things look pretty good compared to then.
It doesn’t hurt to be good stewards of the planet, so ensuring we have forests and natural ecosystems that partake in the carbon and CO2 mass balance is only common sense. As long as it doesn’t become an obsession that does something else more harm.
Interesting Carbon cycle data-point from OCO-2 (which has been hard to find to date – I have looked several times but finally ended up here where the good maps show up.)
https://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/gallerydataproducts/#gallery
Have a look at July 18 2016 to Aug 2, 2016. The northern hemisphere vegetation has reduced CO2 by a large amounts from the winter peaks (it actually goes slightly lower into early August. BUT now, the southern oceans are out-gassing CO2 and the numbers are the highest on the planet at this time (and slightly higher a few weeks earlier. I don’t think you have seen this before. It is certainly not in any OCO-2 animations.
You’d have to be more discerning than I am to see a human footprint on that map. It appears that latitude and land affect concentrations more than populations do.
Actually Mike, If you look real close you can see the footrint.
It is a Right Foot with the Heel in Ecuador,the tip of the Big Toe in San Francisco, and the little toe in Florida.
Agreed. But instead of letting nature take its course, maybe having the population naturally decrease via better family planning, as the Chinese were able to do with great success (and a few problems) will result in less land needed for cattle, less immigration of low impact third worlders who become big impact immigrants, etc, etc, etc. Saves all of the Eco tax crap too.
Thank you Bill.
Here is an earlier CO2 animation that shows similar results.
Regards, Allan:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/10/polar-sea-ice-changes-are-having-a-net-cooling-effect-on-the-climate/
[excerpted}
…
All this is of considerable academic interest to me, but my core conclusion remains unchanged: Climate change is natural and cyclical, and CO2 is an insignificant driver of global warming.
I think it is safe to conclude that the sensitivity of Earth’s temperature to CO2 is insignificant.
Further, we cannot even say for certain that humankind is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2 – it is possible that this too is largely natural.
The AIRS CO2 animation is worth watching, at
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4
Best, Allan
How about the change in the isotopic composition in atmospheric CO2? I think it is a pretty clear indication of its source (fossil fuels).
Last week, someone posted an estimate of global CO2 emission rates, and the minimum and maximum CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa for the past seven years (2010 – 2017).
If it is assumed that the concentration measured at Mauna Loa was evenly distributed throughout the earth’s atmosphere, a mass balance shows that about 47% of the human CO2 emissions from 2010 to 2017 were removed from the atmosphere by natural forces (photosynthesis, absorption by oceans, conversion to carbonates by marine organisms, etc.).
There are also natural sources of CO2 (outgassing from warm oceans, cellular respiration of animals) which were at least partially balanced out by natural CO2 sinks.
If the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere continues to rise, the removal rate by photosynthesis should also increase until an equilibrium is reached (CO2 emission rate = removal rate), since numerous studies have shown that plant growth rates increase with atmospheric CO2 concentration. In this high-CO2 green future, the earth will produce more food than it does now, probably more than enough to support 9 billion people.
Matheus, how do you tell if a Carbon13 atom came from this season’s vegetation or from 100 million year old fossil fuel vegetation. You have been sold a bill of goods. The vegetation carbon cycle has been increasing as CO2 has increased so the Carbon 13 argument is not a logical conclusion. The change in CO2 before 1950 was mostly natural. Since 1950, well we have been adding a lot.
The source of increasing atmospheric CO2 is a bit of a red herring* argument that distracts from the key issue:
The sensitivity of climate to increasing atm. CO2 (aka “ECS”) is clearly too low to cause catastrophic global warming. Global warming alarmism is a costly fiction that has squandered many trillions of dollars of scarce global resources.
The results of increasing atm. CO2 are entirely beneficial for humanity AND the environment:
1. Atm.CO2 is not too high, it is clearly too low for optimal plant/crop growth – 1000-2000ppm would be much better than the current ~400ppm.
2. IF increasing atm. CO2 causes any measurable warming, it will be small and beneficial to humankind and the environment.
3. The world is clearly colder than optimum for humanity, and a slightly warmer world should reduce Excess Winter Mortality and increase longevity of the human species worldwide.
4. Therefore, CO2 abatement programs are utter nonsense, the product of venal and under-heated minds.
Back to the red herring for a moment: Some parties say the “mass balance argument” proves that fossil fuel combustion is the primary cause of increasing atm. CO2. Others point out that seasonal sources and sinks of CO2 dwarf the manmade CO2 component, and they are correct, as the CO2 animation shows. Personally, I am an agnostic on this “cause”question, despite the repeated attempts by mass balance proponents to bludgeon me into agreement – the question is interesting but not critical to this debate.
Regards, Allan
Bill, you don’t get C13 from 100 million year old deposits. That’s the whole point.
Mark W…what Flora does not use C13?
Mark W…what Flora does not use C13?
Bill, where do you get these OCO-2 results?
First link in the comment above.
So let’s do a “marginal benefit” approach. Where do you get the best bang per buck on improving actual quality of life and ag management:
1) Backpacker style stoves for the 1B people using open fires for cooking – reduce smoke inhallation, reduce deforestation, and reduce the amount of time people spend collecting wood
2) Put a greenhouse on the back of Nat Gas power plants – cheap CO2 for plants, improved yield and reduce “emissions,” improve certainty around more delicate crops (strawberries, arugula, etc.)
3) Improve open grazing practices – air delivered nutrients for grasslands, water for cattle, improve yield of marginal grassland for meat without encroaching on productive farmland
4) Stop burning food – end ethanol subsidies (actually, end food subsidies altogether in advanced countries)
Between these four you can probably reduce wood burn by at least 50% and reduce farm land by ~20% without touching production quantities, and grasslands are then closer to “natural”
99 percent agreement. I just don’t think we need more arugula.
First time I ever tried arugula I thought “uh, that’s disgusting. What is this I’m eating?” Somebody told me it was arugula. Ever since then I’ve done my best to avoid it. If its a leafy green in a salad and isn’t baby spinach or lettuce it doesn’t go in my mouth.
Seriously, I understand why desperate people would eat it in the wild if they were starving, but why in heaven’s sake do we farm it on purpose? Kale I’m looking at you too.
Hey now! Kale can be quite good in a greens combination where you want something with a bit of spice to it. Stuffed ham would not work without it. (The stuffing is cabbage, kale, onions and lots of red pepper. De-bone a whole corned ham and soak it in water (overnight is good – too salty otherwise), stuff the greens mixture into the cavity, slice pockets in the meat and stuff those full of the greens mixture too, wrap the whole thing in cheesecloth and boil for 6ish hours (depending on size of ham).)
That said, I don’t know why people insist on trying to use kale in salads, Yech!
“Stop burning food”
It is only food if there is an animal to eat it!
In the case of feed corn ethanol, the excess energy is processed out leaving animal food.
Just for the record, E-10 was to show we could find an alternative source of transportation fuel not reduce ghg. Indiana farmers love it California hates it.
Chadbe sounds more like a UC Berkeley grad and city slicker than a Purdue alumni with good education.
http://www.altenesol.com/what-is-ethanol-and-how-is-it-made
Just to backup your statement…but…
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi54-nMhfrWAhXJylQKHdPkCcgQFgg7MAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.cornell.edu%2Fstories%2F2001%2F08%2Fethanol-corn-faulted-energy-waster-scientist-says&usg=AOvVaw0hLM92W4sN8uWtlFnrPO3j
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi54-nMhfrWAhXJylQKHdPkCcgQFgiHATAP&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffuelfix.com%2Fblog%2F2011%2F05%2F13%2Fcorn-based-ethanol-the-real-cost%2F&usg=AOvVaw3AlfKvbCi2aBRiZuHfmV44
But they don’t want “closer” to nature. This is all in Agenda 21/30 – complete with maps. They want vast tracts of land totally “wild’ with no human use. This was part of Obama’s reasoning for setting aside unnecessarily large areas.
‘Natural’ forest management is doing just great! When the feds stopped most logging, they let Nature manage the forest. So, we have had years of huge expensive forest fires. Of course forest fires only produce the good CO2, not the bad CO2 that cars produce. Idiots, Democrats, Environmentalists, but I repeat myself!
Problem is, nature does not care. If you leave fuel, nature burns it along with anything people put in the way.
Nature is ‘Climate Change’!
One day these people will realise there isn’t a problem and their never was a problem, but I suppose they will have to continue with this silly research to make sure their grant money keeps coming in.
Let’s see the car graphic used on the carbon footprint of the advocacy groups and their jet set funders.
Would “natural forest management” mean the methods that have led to massive forest fires spewing out tons of CO2?
When a Marxist (Christiana Figueres) speaks of “massively increase action on land use” the alarms should go off.
Yes, Christiana Figueres is seeking control over all the vegetation on Earth.
If we want to increase the forests, we should pump more CO2 into the atmosphere. More CO2 will also help feed nine billion people.
All these catastrophic effects alamists claim are going to happen are just figments of their imagination. Earth history demonstrates there is no runaway greenhouse effect associated with CO2. The Marxists are using a non-existent problem to advance their totalitarian goals.
These people are simply incurable! Plant life all over the planet has spoken (via satellite) – they want MORE cars emitting CO2 not fewer. And the trees most certainly don’t appreciate being chopped down for solar and wind farms either. (They told me so!)
There’s always a common theme In the pronouncements by the “Green Blob”: the curtailment of individual freedom and choices.
particularly those that reduce the amount of land used by livestock. Let the Plebes eat the Gruel we offer. Easier to mix in the Soylent Green when the time comes.
Avoiding the draining and conversion of peatlands Don’t Drain Our Swamp.
My take is that Christina will want the US to pay for a mass tree planting program in Brazil, Indonesia, China, Russia and India.
Best get POTUS onto this right away….
My take is that Christina will want the US to pay for a mass tree planting program in Brazil, Indonesia, China, Russia and India.
Best get POTUS onto this right away….
Does that mean the vast tracts of the Scottish highlands, owned and run by wealthy landowners and kept devoid of trees to allow the release of farm bred Grouse for the purposes of shooting them for sporting profit, will be turned over to forests?
In my best Shrek accent “Like that’s ever gonny happen”
All this tree growing will doubtless be at the expense of the poverty stricken.
Anyone think the energy budgets presented by environmentalists closely resemble federal government accounting practices?
The first two are equal to more cars on the earth.
Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever, said: “Climate change threatens the production of food staples like corn, wheat, rice and soy by as much as a quarter – but a global population of nine billion by 2050 will need up to 50% more food. Fortunately, this research shows we have a huge opportunity to reshape our food and land use systems, putting them at the heart of delivering both the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the Sustainable Development Goals.”
Did these geniuses ever look to see that higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere lead to increased crop yields, and make food plants more drought-resistant?
Also, if temperatures went up slightly in cold areas at the edge of being suitable for farming (for example, in Canada or Russia), a slightly longer growing season could also increase production and decrease losses to late frosts in spring or early frosts in autumn.
Ben & Jerry’s, Feb.24, 2015
Re: Ben & Jerry’s and Unilever
‘How Ben & Jerry’s is Fighting Global Warming’
Includes: “Offsetting in Reforestation”
http://www.benjerry.com/values/issues-we-care-about/climate-justice/fighting-global-warming
Congressional Record, Jan.21, 2015
114th Congress 1st Session
Issue: Vol. 161, No. 10 – Daily Edition
Subjects include: Remarks on Climate change and Keystone XL
[{ Page s318 }] – [{ Page s320 }], Senator Sanders
[{ Page s325 }] – [{ Page s326 }], Senator Whitehouse
Other Senators remarks and other topics also included.
Congressional Record, Jan.21, 2015
114th Congress 1st Session
Issue: Vol. 161, No. 10 – Daily Edition
Subject, Senate Bill includes: Remarks on Climate change and Keystone XL
[{ Page s318 }] – [{ Page s320 }], Senator Sanders
[{ Page s325 }] – [{ Page s326 }], Senator Whitehouse
Other Senators remarks and other topics also included.
https://www.congress.gov/congessional-record/2015/1/21/senate-section/article/s311-1?r=78
Public information
Try: Keystone Pipeline Act, Jan.21, 2015
http://congress.gov/congressional-record/2015/1/21/senate-section/article/s311-1?r=78
Dow, 10-13-2017
Paul Polman, Unilever: Short biography.
http://www.dow.com/en-us/about-dow/our-company/leadership/paul-polman
Ben & Jerry’s, Dec.15, 2016
What is “Intersectionality” and Why Does it Matter So Much Now
Annie Leonard the executive director of Greenpeace and an independent member of the Board of Directors.
http://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/2016/intersectionality-matters
Greenpeace
Short biography
Annie Leonard, Executive Director, based in San Francisco, Calif.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/bios/annie-leonard
How?
Currently population exceeds 7.5 billion, so adding 1.5 billion is an increase of only 20%. Yet the CEO of Unilever says that 20% increase will require 50% more food? Am I missing something?
Now I know a fair percentage of the current 7.5 billion are malnourished. But I also know that a lot of that is caused by such things as a lack of refrigeration, lack of transportation, civil unrest, ethanol production, etc. So even if we stamp out malnutrition and increase population by 20%, I don’t see it amounting to a 50% in needed food production.
Facts and logic! How dare you!! /sarc
Billions of tons of food is destroyed because it doesn’t meet the perfect size, shape or color that the store’s want to put on their shelves every year. Many crops are pre-bought by canning, packaging and corporations that sell the products or the companies own the field’s they farm and ranch…that’s where name brand products come from. They pick out the imperfect and make mulch, sell as feed to livestock or just destroy them. Some of this is by government regulations that control production amounts like for Rasins here in the USA that started with the Farm Act. Blighted crops are destroyed or in cases like Yellow Berry Wheat are used for livestock feed here in the USA… But other countries don’t have those regulations. When you look at “organic” food’s or farmers market locally grown crops you see misshapen and discolored fruits and vegetables that would have been destroyed by corporations that are under regulations they or the government set.
What is Paul Polman doing in an article on the Nature Conservancy. As stated Polman is the CEO of Unilever which happens to be one of Europe’s largest consumer goods company. (As an aside; Unilever owns Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream.) Polman took home almost $10,000,000 in executive compensation which, boo boo, was down from his virtual $12,000,000 compensation a couple years ago. What advantage does the Paris Climate Farce afford Unilever because I wonder why he’d (as stated elsewhere) be supporting it otherwise. CEOs of investor owned companies do not endorse anything at all unless it’s to the advantage of the investors. I wouldn’t accept anything said until I knew what that was.
Coming to a country near you: massive land grabs via regulations put in place to “combat” climate change. Indigenous peoples worldwide forces off the land, largely via corruption of local politicians and police. All financed by charitable donations by well meaning people.
http://redd.unfccc.int
REDD+ global land grab.
Just what the world needs- another United Nations environmental program to spend money jetting people around the world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by minor amounts.
Letting those developing countries actually develop out of poverty would reduce starvation, malnourishment, population growth, and carbon dioxide emission.
The purpose behind this “scientific” research is to underpin the regulations required to take control of trillions of acres of land worldwide.
Absolutely. With more regulations upon the citizens and fines for noncompliance. Those area’s will become “Wilderness” area’s protected by the government that they not be disturbed.
U.S. Senate / Sen. Whitehouse, R.I., Press Release, Jan.9, 2015
Re: Canadian tar sands letter.
https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/sen-whitehouse-urges-state-department-to-reject-keystone-xl-pipeline
The fact that the Earth has become greener because of the increasing CO2 in the environment is totally lost in the mind’s of these people. They are advocating reducing fossil fuels use by creating more “Green Energy” and “Renewable Energy” (that requires fossil fuels to make them) and then simultaneously increasing Flora that will “Sink” the CO2 at a faster pace. Hypocrisy at it’s best. These alarmists just don’t get the clues that Flora thrive in a higher CO2 environment than we have. That if they reduce CO2 in the environment by creating more flora than the environment can sustain, it creates a flora starvation condition that leads to more combustible conditions.
Global Warming is the only option for a greener and healthier environment. But CO2 has very little effects on warming or climate change when evidence of the last 20 year’s of increased CO2 has not caused global warming to the degree AGW alarmists have said it would. The only real evidence is that CO2 increase has been greening the Earth slowly and it would be greener now if not for the War against Carbon Dioxide that has reduced it’s output.
This demonizing of Carbon Dioxide is really hypocrisy of the alarmists ideologies. When they forced the Anti-Smog campaign to reduce Carbon Monoxide and it created the conversion to Carbon Dioxide in industries and automobiles we got cleaner air and higher CO2 outputs. When the Alarmist pushed for more “Greener Energy” it required more Fossil Fuels to create them and maintain them and reduced the flora sinks in the area’s where they were erected…thereby adding much more CO2 to the environment since their start some 40 year’s ago…longer going back to Hydroelectric and Nuclear Plants that requires lots of Fossil Fuels and cement in their manufacturing. The hypocrisy is staggering.
Oh good. Fantasy pie-in-the-sky “solutions” to a fantasy “problem” which will cost a fortune and require running roughshod over democratic principles,. What’s not to like?
+406
Tyranny through regulation. It worked in the EU where a secretive trade commission has become the true government, with the EU Parliament serving as a figurehead. This model is being expanded worldwide to capture global land and water rights in the name of “saving” the planet. That piece of land you think you own. How you can use it – that will be decided by someone else. What you thought was an asset suddenly becomes a liability and you end up forced off the land to escape the regulatory burden.
Yes Fred, absolutely and it already happens in EU agriculture, certainly UK farming.
Its now nearly impossible to not fall foul of the conditions by which UK farmers can claim their subsidy payments, and when you do, the ‘penalty’ is doubled or tripled according to how big it was. The trigger points get lower every year.
The trouble comes in that, because of the well up-to-speed cronyism of the farm-machinery, feed, chemical and financial industries, the hapless farmer suffers a cash-flow crisis and is bankrupt. Just for cutting a hedge a day early or late or spreading manure at the ‘wrong’ time or wrong place on what was supposed to be *his* farm.
They (dairy farmers at least) have taken the hint and are just walking away – witness the skyrocketing price of butter in Europe right now. Talk of a genuine shortage by Christmas.
Just as folks are starting to work out that butter is way better for their health than vegetable oil. So they go back to eating margarine and die….
Human’s are not like Turkey’s that margarine was invented to feed. Who actually eats enough margarine to die from it?
“Its now nearly impossible to not fall foul of the conditions by which UK farmers can claim their subsidy payments, ”
you say that as if it were a bad thing.
if the dairy industry is subsidy farming just like a solar or wind farm then it is fitting that it fail and sooner is better.
If you are talking natural mechanisms the ocean is the biggest carbon dioxide sink. And unlike forests which burn or die and slowly rot (both put the CO2 back in the atmosphere), the oceans can tie up CO2 in carbonate rock. My only reservation using the oceans in this way is that it may be more beneficial to leave the CO2 in the atmosphere.
CO2 is indeed being constantly locked up in carbonate rocks. Question – does anyone know the rate at which this is occurring on a worldwide basis? How much CO2 has been locked up since the start of the last ice age? The reason for asking these questions is that it is entirely possible that the global stock of CO2, primarily in the oceans but also in the atmosphere, may be significantly less than at the start of the last ice age, in spite of all the CO2 which our industrial civilization has created. If this is the case, then it is quite possible that land life may not survive the next ice age, which is due any time now.
When the atmospheric CO2 level went down to about 185 ppm in the last ice age, plant life barely survived. What will the CO2 level be at the depth of the next ice age?
Also, how much CO2 was released afterwards by the melting of the majority of the Ice it was trapped in…where today’s scientists get their data from the ice cores. With nearly 20,000 year’s of melting happening before concept of measuring CO2 in the Ice was created. Logic tends to say that the melting of the Ice created a rapid increase of freed CO2 into the environment and the subsequent greening that followed.
I think that the only purpose of mankind on this Earth is to release all that CO2 stupidly buried by plants in fossil fuels, so we can go though another cycle for it. All the rest we have done will get lost in digital rust and will disappear swallowed by a subduction plate.
(half sarc/)
“… Avoiding the draining and conversion of peatlands, is the largest of these opportunities. Peatlands are estimated to hold one quarter of the carbon stored by the world’s soils, yet approximately 780 000 hectares (1.9 million acres) are lost globally each year, in particular for palm oil cultivation. The researchers found that their protection could secure a store of 678 million tonnes of carbon emissions equivalent a year by 2030 – comparable to removing 145 million cars from the streets ….”
=======
Mmmm … What is the palm oil used for?
Sarcasm noted…LOL.
It would be nice if environmental groups refocused on real pollution and land abuse, instead of this insane obsession with CO2 emissions …
Could this be a stab at trying to save face as the end of CAGW is approaching?
Amazingly if CO2 was the driver of CAGW. They’re endeavors would increase CO2 in the environment if they do what they’re preaching. Science shows that CO2 is reduced when summer melts the Ice in the northern hemisphere and the flora comes out of their dormancy. Then as the ice increases the flora goes back into dormancy where the CO2 starts to increase again. Thus the cycle exponentially increases the CO2 from the added flora created during the warming goes to cooling as it dies.
johchi7,
That is just half the equation. As the northern hemisphere sink shuts down each year, the ocean-dominated southern hemisphere just begins warming – out-gassing CO2 as it does so. So the major sink shuts down just as the major natural source cranks up.
Which is why for most of my life I have been a strong supporter of advancing global warming to reduce the global Ice and create a more Tropical Earth. Since all weather is created by the temperature variations and the larger the variations the stronger the storm’s. The warmer the global temperatures are the reduction of storms would occur and a Tropical Earth would become greener with more rain as precipitation as ice precipitation reduces. That when and if there comes a massive volcanic event the Earth would be better off too. The exponentially increasing population of flora and fauna by the exponentially increasing CO2 would feed eachother their requirements for life. Deserts devoid of most life now would become greener. And yes, coastal area’s would be reduced in the process. The CO2 locked in the ice would be freed and the Ocean’s diluted with fresher water reducing some of that “acidification” that has been screamed about. More Oxygen would be created by the increasing Flora. Obviously muxh more that I have no time to put here now. But the gist of it is a healthier environment.
Not just a stab at saving face, but, as George Lawson notes above, an attempt to keep the silly grants going. This is encouraging, because it looks like an attempt at shifting the ground of debate, and so acknowledging the imminent collapse of the CAGW scam. If they can make themselves look to be managing something so nebulous as land (and sea), perhaps this is a camouflage behind which they can retire to their pensions.
Loved that OCO gallery that Bill pointed us to, go see if you see what I see.
Which is; that high CO2 levels in the atmosphere, basically and simply put, follow the sun.
OCO is seeing high CO2 when the sun is high in the sky, totally obvious for the Northern Hemisphere.
And there is my baby – the CO2 is coming from the dirt, aided and abetted by the farmers.
It reaches its highest (OCO goes red at 410ppm+) in April May June, exactly when there is s a lot of bare dirt lying around and only small juvenile plants to absorb the CO2
Surely CO2 should be highest in mid winter, whenm most heating and electricity is being used and when the plants are all dormant. OCO says that IT IS NOT.
The bright sun (brightest on June 21 obviously) is sterilising the dirt: killing soil bacteria and oxidising them.
Also, the farmers will have spread the bulk of their annual spread of nitrogen fertiliser. The soil bacteria not killed by the sun will be working at a Herculean rate chewing up whatever there is of soil organic matter there is in the soil. (Nearly 6 decades of farming from me and I’ve seen it happening)
But the small plants cannot soak up all that CO2 or nitrogen fert and both effectively float away to places that can – the tropical forests.
Especially the nitrogen. It rains out, feeds the forest floor and you see the CO2 go off the scale over the forests at that time of year. Also releases the soil nutrients from the mineral dirt and away grows the forest – Global Greening.
And because nitrogen is THE Liebig Limiting Nutrient, very small amounts of it have HUGE effect. Exactly why urea, ammonia and ammonium nitrate are such effective ‘fertilisers’
See these numpties.
Even if you don’t swallow my assertion that CO2, SOx and NOx will be atmospheric coolants simply by virtue of their high molecular weight and hence high heat conductivity, what about the NOx, now supposed to be 300 times stronger than CO2 (??????)
Surely, and the whole reason why farmers use the nitrogen in the springtime, is that NOx is fantastically water soluble.
So we hear volcanoes cool because they emit SOx and it nucleates (water based) aerosols that block the sun.
But NOx will do the same, I’d venture that NOx is even more water soluble than SOx
Question, what is that ‘pollution haze’ we see in endless pictures if cityscapes
Photochemical smog we’re told, NOx reacts with O2 to make ozone using UV as its energy source.
But anyway, isn’t NOx a brown colour, why is city smog always grey?
Maybe the smog is diesel soot, or woodstove smoke or simply dust blown up by moving traffic or any combination but is it not possibly the aerosol you’d get from mixing water vapour with NOx?
No greenhouse gassing there, volcanic aerosol cooling in fact.
A wonderation for today..
Could NOx be capable of catalysing its own production, is it doing it already and the haze we see in cityscapes is actually what is stopping a positively fed back run-away?
Because some NOx, when hit by a solar UV photon, will break open an O2 molecule and may/does create ozone.
Now then, ozone is fantastically angry and unhappy stuff – it spontaneously falls apart creating an oxygen radical that will/can oxidise almost anything. Can it oxidise diatomic nitrogen?
Is that what’s happening in big cities where traffic and burning stuff generally creates NOx, it takes in solar energy to create ozone that can then make more NOx?
The only thing stopping it running away is maybe the limited UV reaching the ground or that the NOx being created is ‘soaked up’ by any water vapour there is around and THAT creates the smog (tiny NOx nucleated water droplets) we see?
Peta wrote:
“Which is; that high CO2 levels in the atmosphere, basically and simply put, follow the sun.
OCO is seeing high CO2 when the sun is high in the sky, totally obvious for the Northern Hemisphere.
And there is my baby – the CO2 is coming from the dirt, aided and abetted by the farmers.
It reaches its highest (OCO goes red at 410ppm+) in April May June, exactly when there is a lot of bare dirt lying around and only small juvenile plants to absorb the CO2.”
Cue Ferdinand and the Mass Balance Argument in 3, 2, 1…
Peta, you may know that there is a baseline increase in atm. CO2 of ~2 ppm/year, but within that increase there is a clear signal that the rate-of-change dCO2/dt varies closely with global temperature T and its integral CO2 LAGS temperature T by ~9 months. Here is an approximation of the dCO2-vs-T relationship::
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah5/from:1979/scale:0.22/offset:0.14
I wrote the original paper on this observation in 2008 and it was repeated by others such as Humlum et al in 2013. The climate science community has been largely reluctant to discuss it until very recently, because it apparently overheats their already-fevered craniums. 🙂
It’s almost as if how humans change their use of the land has an impact on the climate…..go figure.
Stabilize climate Change? What does that even mean? Certainly nothing related to reality. The climate has always changed and always will. We have absolutely no control over that.
We must remember that all of these papers are not about the Earth we know and love. They are about a very simple, virtual world where CO2 molecules in the air magically control the climate with great precision. When we start discussing these papers as if they may apply to the real world, we are going down the rabbit hole with Alice and having tea with mercury snorters.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/peat-and-repeat-rewetting-carbon-sinks/
Here’s another take on thing’s like peat moss. That they say the Methane produced is outweighed by the CO2 sink. Really?
‘More trees’.
Translation: destroy the logging industry. In Oregon, they did it to ‘save the spotted owl’. Saving the planet might help wipe the practice out worldwide.
How many targeted industries is that, now?
If we wipe out all of those cars, what are the extra couple of billion people going to drive?
With respect to the Nature Conservancy claims, they are late to the party. The major impact of land use change on the carbon budget has been well known for many years. Most notably, consider the ongoing work of Roger A. Pielke, Sr. and, independently, Richard A. Houghton. In his most famous graph (Annual Net Flux of Carbon to the Atmosphere from Land-Use Change: 1850-2000), Houghton estimated carbon flux to the atmosphere due to land use change. (I already hear the knee jerk “carbon is not CO2”, but CO2 is only one form of carbon in its lifecycle. You can’t talk CO2 without talking about carbon in all of its terrestrial forms) So here’s my point. For CAGW believers (I’m not one), even if you think carbon from CO2 is a problem, ignoring land use change is a MAJOR blunder.
As of about 2010, it was estimated that human activity since 1850 had released 436 Petagrams of carbon to the atmosphere (154 Pg from land use change; 282 Pg from combustion), but, natural sequestration had recaptured 60% of that, so the net increase had been only 174 Pg. CO2 rose from 280 to about 400 ppm during this same period. So if the world practiced modern land use practices as is done in the U.S., which has been a net carbon sink for over 100 years due to improved land use practices, the net carbon flux to the atmosphere would have been only 174 – 154 = 20 Pg. The net CO2 increase of 120 ppm (from 280 to 400 ppm) would have been limited to only 120 ppm x 20/174 = 14 ppm. We’d be under 300 ppm, an insignificant change, and we would not be having this conversation about greenhouse gases at all!
I would even conjecture that healthy land use practices, along with greening due to CO2 and natural warming, would be able to completely offset (sequester) emissions from fossil fuel combustion.
So the CAGW alarmists have completely misplaced their emphasis. Instead of depriving world economies of life-giving fossil fuels, they should be focusing on reversing the ravages of poor land use practices in developing countries.
Where are the real problems happening? Tropical Asia, Latin America, and tropical Africa. Not North America, Western Europe, Australia or New Zealand.
However, this does not fit the CAGW meme of Western eco-guilt. To them, surely everything must be our fault, and combustion of fossil fuels provided by those evil big energy companies in our evil capitalist societies offers the CAGW simpletons an easy target.
So back to this news release. If land use is so important, then (1) major research funding should be funneled in that direction and (2) the culpable parties are the developing and 3rd world countries. But the story did not name the culprits because it isn’t the “West.” They kept saying “if we.” Furthermore, since it doesn’t fit the narrative, research on land use change is suppressed, with most early work having gone practically dormant.
As long as they aren’t actively cutting down trees, forest regrowth is capable of taking care of itself.
So one of the bottom lines of this report is we need to reduce the number of ungulates, aka, cows, bison, wildebeest, etc. The environmentalists cannot get over people cutting down forest for agriculture especially grazing. Once upon a time I was at a cocktail party held in conjunction with a international resource management conference held at a major university. We had several scientists there from Brazil. A group of PhD graduate students were wandering the party meeting people. They approached the Brazil scientists and as soon as they found out where the scientists were from they started loudly berating them for cutting down the rainforest. The response from one of the scientists was amazing and a lot of fun. He appeared to get very angry, stepped forward in their faces and said, “How dare you criticize my country for developing land when your people clear cut the largest temperate forest in Europe and most of North America.” The graduate students sputtered and stammered and said, “what big forest? Where is he talking about?” One of my friends leaned forward and said, “actually Europe clear cut a couple of times. Heck Napoleon cut all the trees down just be build a fleet to defeat the English and that was in the 19th century” They continued to sputter and stammer. We walked away all chuckling to ourselves. Note a couple of these graduate students were working on atmospheric science. A bigger note, the Brazilian scientists besides his normal research was also on an advisory board on how best to manage and conserver the Amazon rainforest.
…Mark Tercek, CEO The Nature Conservancy said: “Today our impacts on the land cause a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions…”
Funny. Never hear that from the consensus crowd. Evil oil, evil coal, evil industry, and evil cars…
Did I miss only pound puppies for adoption? The is just the latest iteration of the Deep Greens . It will be added to the 8th grade science curriculum ASAP.
They neglect to mention cycling because they don’t really want to want to reduce GHG emissions. Bikes and bikelanes don’t generate the cash that windmills and electric cars do. I don’t expect anyone to give up their car, but if you beleive the climate hype you can’t ignore the most efficient form of transportation there is.
Climate change IS natural.
Someday, fashion will change, and they’ll be forced to admit…..well, they won’t admit they were wrong.
Years ago in Sacramento, Ca I was at a talk by a city official who’s name and position I don’t remember claimed we would all have to give up our cars and use mass transit well except except for the government people like the mayor and himself who’s jobs were so important they needed to keep their cars…
The Nature Conservancy is the only environmental group that have done volunteer work for. I like getting out and doing physical work.
In the big picture of things, climate changer is not even on my list. PV and wind turbines are not a very good solutions for anything.
On the other hand, if the things you are making better just happen to reduce ghg emissions why not point that out to the one issue crowd.