
From a Georgia Tech Press Release:
Reducing Greenhouse Gases May Not Be Enough to Slow Climate Change
Georgia Tech City and Regional Planning Professor Brian Stone publishes a paper in the December edition of Environmental Science and Technology that suggests policymakers need to address the influence of global deforestation and urbanization on climate change, in addition to greenhouse gas emissions.
According to Stone’s paper, as the international community meets in Copenhagen in December to develop a new framework for responding to climate change, policymakers need to give serious consideration to broadening the range of management strategies beyond greenhouse gas reductions alone.
“Across the U.S. as a whole, approximately 50 percent of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes (usually in the form of clearing forest for crops or cities) rather than to the emission of greenhouse gases,” said Stone. “Most large U.S. cities, including Atlanta, are warming at more than twice the rate of the planet as a whole – a rate that is mostly attributable to land use change. As a result, emissions reduction programs – like the cap and trade program under consideration by the U.S. Congress – may not sufficiently slow climate change in large cities where most people live and where land use change is the dominant driver of warming.”
According to Stone’s research, slowing the rate of forest loss around the world, and regenerating forests where lost, could significantly slow the pace of global warming.
“Treaty negotiators should formally recognize land use change as a key driver of warming,” said Stone. “The role of land use in global warming is the most important climate-related story that has not been widely covered in the media.”
Stone recommends slowing what he terms the “green loss effect” through the planting of millions of trees in urbanized areas and through the protection and regeneration of global forests outside of urbanized regions. Forested areas provide the combined benefits of directly cooling the atmosphere and of absorbing greenhouse gases, leading to additional cooling. Green architecture in cities, including green roofs and more highly reflective construction materials, would further contribute to a slowing of warming rates. Stone envisions local and state governments taking the lead in addressing the land use drivers of climate change, while the federal government takes the lead in implementing carbon reduction initiatives, like cap and trade programs.
“As we look to address the climate change issue from a land use perspective, there is a huge opportunity for local and state governments,” said Stone. “Presently, local government capacity is largely unharnessed in climate management structures under consideration by the U.S. Congress. Yet local governments possess extensive powers to manage the land use activities in both the urban and rural areas.”
The Environmental Science and Technology article is available at http://pubs.acs.org/journal/esthag.
For more on land use change in the USA, see this NASA resource
“”” (PDF)
Article Tools
Save to My Folders
Download Citation
Alert Me When Article is Cited
Post to CiteULike
E-mail This Page
Submit an E-Letter
Get Permission
View PubMed Citation
Related Content
Similar Articles In:
Science Magazine
ISI Web of Science
PubMed
Search Google Scholar for:
Articles by Fan, S.
Articles by Tans, P.
Find Citing Articles in:
ISI Web of Science (352)
HighWire Press
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Scopus
My Science
My Folders
My Alerts
My Saved Searches
Sign Out
More Information
More in Collections
Atmospheric Science
Related Jobs from ScienceCareers
Atmospheric Science
——————————————————————————–
Science 16 October 1998:
Vol. 282. no. 5388, pp. 442 – 446
DOI: 10.1126/science.282.5388.442
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Reports
A Large Terrestrial Carbon Sink in North America Implied by Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon Dioxide Data and Models
S. Fan, M. Gloor, J. Mahlman, S. Pacala, J. Sarmiento, T. Takahashi, P. Tans “””
So check out this paper; and then tell me that the USA is the world’s biggest polluter.
I believe it has been long established that there are vastly more trees in the USA than there were here when the pilgrims first stepped ashore on Plymouth Rock; or wherever it is that history says they did.
But hey; I’m all in favor of planting trees; I just think people should put them up or take them down wherever that seems feasible and desirable to do.
I noticed in that MaCintyre Lindzen piece with the flick about Finland; there was a shot of somebody extracting a bored core from a tree.
What an image that was; a perfect illustration of how a failure to observe the Nyquist Sampling Theorem, leads to flse information being gathered.
That tree core sample was a puny representation of what the entire volume of that mass of wood looks like inside ; but it will go down in the record books, as being quite typical of what the rest of the tree looks like; let alone the rest of the forest. Yes it truly is analagous to putting a finger up in the air to sense which way the wind is blowing.
there was a really good article recently in energy and environment its in the november journal yearly round up and in it an articl claims that we have converted 40 percent of the worlds ice free land for agricultural puproses when this is though about in conjunction with the above article then it easy to see how inflated temps are less likely than ever before to be associated with carbon dioxide.
Emerging Threats to Human Health from Global Environmental Change
full access Samuel S. Myers, Jonathan A. Patz
Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol. 34: 223-252 (Volume publication date November 2009): this is the article different journal
Frank Miles (10:53:48), you say:
Numbers, dear friends, numbers … think about them. Tune up your bad number detectors, mine starting ringing like crazy when I read this. Is there any possible way that 40% of the ice free land is dedicated to agriculture when we have the Amazon forest and the Sahara desert and all the rest of the unused land on the planet?
The premier resource for this question is the GAEZ study done by the UN FAO. Going back to it, I find that it gives the following numbers:
Forest 21.2%
Desert and barren 20.9%
Woodland 14.5%
Grassland 13.6%
Mosaics 8.5%
Cropland 8.3%
Ice and cold desert 5.9%
Lakes and rivers 3.3%
Irrigated 3.0%
Wetland 0.7%
Urban 0.2%
Cropland, including both irrigated and unirrigated and assuming that the mosaics are 50% cropland, is about 15% of the ice-free land area of the planet.
I urge everyone to read the study. Among other things, it shows that:
• There is more unused potential rain-fed cropland in Africa than cropland being used in Europe.
• There is more unused potential potential rain-fed cropland in South America than cropland being used in North America.
• There is enough unused potential potential rain-fed cropland in the Sudan to feed every person in Africa.
Numbers …
Thanks, Willis (Willis Eschenbach (11:48:48)). My BS alarm began going off as soon as I read 40% too. Looks like a phony number to me as well.
What do you think the difference is between cropland and irrigated? They both sound like cropland to me. It isn’t that important though because with urban at 0.2%, cropland at 8.3% and irrigated at 3% humanity’s footprint on this planet is pretty damned small at 11 1/2%.
woodNfish (12:19:14), you ask:
Both are cropland, and the GAEZ report distinguishes between rainfed cropland and irrigated cropland. It is of interest because there is more cropland which is not currently being used, and to determine how much, it is necessary to distinguish between potential rainfed cropland and potential irrigated cropland. Part of this is involves analyzing currently used rainfed and irrigated cropland.
The GAEZ study should be required reading for people who are interested in resources and how they are used.