Now according to this press release from UC Irvine, green spaces in cities are bad for the planet….but wait, what about the UHI offset? Can I buy grass credit certificates?
Urban ‘green’ spaces may contribute to global warming, UCI study finds
Turfgrass management creates more greenhouse gas than plants remove from atmosphere
— Irvine, Calif., January 19, 2010 —
Dispelling the notion that urban “green” spaces help counteract greenhouse gas emissions, new research has found – in Southern California at least – that total emissions would be lower if lawns did not exist.
Turfgrass lawns help remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and store it as organic carbon in soil, making them important “carbon sinks.” However, greenhouse gas emissions from fertilizer production, mowing, leaf blowing and other lawn management practices are four times greater than the amount of carbon stored by ornamental grass in parks, a UC Irvine study shows. These emissions include nitrous oxide released from soil after fertilization. Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas that’s 300 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, the Earth’s most problematic climate warmer.
“Lawns look great – they’re nice and green and healthy, and they’re photosynthesizing a lot of organic carbon. But the carbon-storing benefits of lawns are counteracted by fuel consumption,” said Amy Townsend-Small, Earth system science postdoctoral researcher and lead author of the study, forthcoming in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
The research results are important to greenhouse gas legislation being negotiated. “We need this kind of carbon accounting to help reduce global warming,” Townsend-Small said. “The current trend is to count the carbon sinks and forget about the greenhouse gas emissions, but it clearly isn’t enough.”
Turfgrass is increasingly widespread in urban areas and covers 1.9 percent of land in the continental U.S., making it the most common irrigated crop.
In the study, Townsend-Small and colleague Claudia Czimczik analyzed grass in four parks near Irvine, Calif. Each park contained two types of turf: ornamental lawns (picnic areas) that are largely undisturbed, and athletic fields (soccer and baseball) that are trampled and replanted and aerated frequently.
The researchers evaluated soil samples over time to ascertain carbon storage, or sequestration, and they determined nitrous oxide emissions by sampling air above the turf. Then they calculated carbon dioxide emissions resulting from fuel consumption, irrigation and fertilizer production using information about lawn upkeep from park officials and contractors.
The study showed that nitrous oxide emissions from lawns were comparable to those found in agricultural farms, which are among the largest emitters of nitrous oxide globally.
In ornamental lawns, nitrous oxide emissions from fertilization offset just 10 percent to 30 percent of carbon sequestration. But fossil fuel consumption for management, the researchers calculated, released about four times more carbon dioxide than the plots could take up. Athletic fields fared even worse, because – due to soil disruption by tilling and resodding – they didn’t trap nearly as much carbon as ornamental grass but required the same emissions-producing care.
“It’s impossible for these lawns to be net greenhouse gas sinks because too much fuel is used to maintain them,” Townsend-Small concluded.
Previous studies have documented lawns storing carbon, but this research was the first to compare carbon sequestration to nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions from lawn grooming practices.
The UCI study was supported by the Kearney Foundation of Soil Science and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Paul Vaughan (22:06:06) :
Trees are better.
Not on tramlines they’re not!
Anyway, if they’re worried about the fuel consumption and co2 emissions of mowers compared to the co2 absorption of the grass, the answer is obvious.
Fit scythes to the tramcar wheels.
This would have the added benefit of discouraging jaywalkers crossing between trams, or at least make sure they didn’t do it more than once.
‘leaf-blowing’ is a turfgrass management practice?
I must have really lost the plot because I thought it had something to do with, well, leaves, and that leaves can settle on other parts of the landscape than turfgrass lawns.
However as the authors point out, things might well be different in Southern California, never having been there I honestly wouldn’t know.
As long as the Kearney Foundation of Soil Science and the U.S. Department of Agriculture think they got their moneys worth here I guess everyone can be happy.
@ur momisugly Espen (22:30:56) :
Oh, THEY have done it some hundreds of million years ago. All the trees were buried and then – THEY vanished without a trace. It didn’t work for long. WE now dig out that coal and… 😉
There was a similar study here in NZ that presented the case that an SUV had a bigger carbon footprint than a dog.
Being green has never been stranger…
I thought that the benefit of urban planting (from a greenhouse perspective, to say nothing of quality of life issues) was to reduce the heat effect of all the concrete and therefore reduce the costs of having to air-condition a building.
I read a few years back that having proper rooftop gardens could reduce the temperature by a couple of degrees F, which makes quite a difference to energy costs and efficiency.
Presumably the same applies to green spaces, in which case a study which looks only at the prospect of storing carbon in grass and soil completely misses the point.
(Of course, this assumes you believe in the whole concept of UHI, which is blindingly obvious to anyone who lives in a city, but not so obvious to someone who is trying to show that his temperature measurements are unaffected by UHI.)
This article was posted in the humor section of UCI’s paper, right?
stumpy (23:53:03) :
“Should I tarmac my lawn to save the planet?”
Spokane, WA has a program that pays you ($100 credit to your water bill, I think) to remove a largish section of your lawn, in order to save water. I expect tarmac would work just fine to get that credit.
Get a goat. End of problem.
All life is bad for the planet.
We have to act according to the precautionary principle so…..!
Luke (22:08:28) :
Sheep you darn fool!
No, you can win against these loons. They’ll just remind you that sheep fart and emit dreaded methane
“Sheep you darn fool!”
No sir, they are already onto that. In New Zealand, where sheep are plentiful, the plan was to tax the carbon emissions of sheep with what became known as a “fart tax”. Seriously. I believe they backed off under the resulting derision, but last I heard at Copenhagen the NZ Government proposed a multinational effort spending megabucks on research into ways to reduce the CO2/methane content of farm animal emissions. How over the top is that? No doubt these same people have in mind banning the world’s consumption of beans next.
Just as I predicted a few days ago, the IPCC is eating crow…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7031403/UN-climate-panel-admits-mistake-over-Himalayan-glacier-melting.html
UN climate panel admits ‘mistake’ over Himalayan glacier melting
The United Nations’ climate science panel has admitted that it made a mistake by claiming that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.
20 Jan 2010
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made the assertion two years ago, saying it was based on detailed research into the impact of global warming. Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, the IPCC’s vice chairman, conceded last night that it was an error and would be reviewed. However, he said that the mistake, included in its 2007 assessment global warming, did not alter the broad picture of man-made climate change. He told the BBC: “I don’t see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report. Some people will attempt to use it to damage the credibility of the IPCC; but if we can uncover it, and explain it and change it, it should strengthen the IPCC’s credibility, showing that we are ready to learn from our mistakes.”
The IPCC admitted that the prediction was based on a report written in a science journal and even the scientist who was the subject of the original story admits it was not based on fact. The article, in the New Scientist, was not even based on a research paper – it evolved from a short telephone interview with the academic.
Dr Syed Hasnain, an Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, said that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped.
The IPCC’s reliance on Hasnain’s 1999 interview was highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview. Mr Pearce said he called Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine. He said that Dr Hasnain made the assertion about 2035 but admitted it was campaigning report rather than an academic paper that was reviewed by a panel of expert peers.
Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Prof Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas. When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was “very high”. The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%. The report read: “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.”
However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is two to three feet a year and most are far lower.
Eyes start glazing over……………………………….
Climate Resistance pulls together the IPCC glacier story and similar scaremongering based on flimsy/no evidence by Oxfam, as part of looking at the incestuous merry-go-round of disinformation amongst the media, NGOs, political bodies etc.
Well worth a read.
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2010/01/the-ipcc-and-the-melting-glaciers-story.html
“The popular view of the climate debate and politics is that the IPCC and scientists produce the science, which politicians and policymakers respond to, encouraged by NGOs, all reported on by journalists. But as the case of the glacier and North African water studies show, this is a misconception. Science, the media, government, and supra-national political organisations do not exist as sharply distinct institutions. They are nebulous and porous. They merge, and each influence the interpretation and substance of the next iteration of their own product. The distinction between science and politics breaks down in the miasma.”
Just confirms my thoughts that ‘greens’ are really bad for the environment and should be eradicated ASAP :-))
Indiana Bones (23:49:01) :
What remains shocking is the way the AGW campaign ran itself straight into totalitarian socialism. They dropped any pretense of real science back with “The debate is over,” claim. By throwing the real science under the bus, the alarmists allowed the marxist faction access to their formidable PR machine.
I couldn’t agree more….
As a young kid growing up, I remember seeing this sort of thing go on in communist block countries and thinking to myself, wow I’m really lucky to have been born in the free world….I wonder what it must feel like to have to live under those circumstances day after day?… Well, I think I’m finding out!!
Lunacy absolute Lunacy……the people coming up with this crap are like elitist party members, paid well by the gov to toe the party line ALL AROUND THE WORLD!….oh my g-d how could it get so far?
How can people be so gullible?
I REALLY don’t want to believe what I just wrote….but man, I’m running out of scenarios!
“Rod (00:37:24) :
No sir, they are already onto that. In New Zealand, where sheep are plentiful, the plan was to tax the carbon emissions of sheep with what became known as a “fart tax”. Seriously. I believe they backed off under the resulting derision, but last I heard at Copenhagen the NZ Government proposed a multinational effort spending megabucks on research into ways to reduce the CO2/methane content of farm animal emissions. How over the top is that? No doubt these same people have in mind banning the world’s consumption of beans next.”
In the land of the long white cloud, sheep out number people by about 15 – 1. It was labelled a far tax, aimed at cattle too, but it was to do with the ordinary burps, not bottom burps/farts, that was the concern. I understand there is still work going on studying the effects of reduced emissions from alternate feed. In both cases completely stupid ideas.
“Andy in Christchurch NZ (00:05:46) :
There was a similar study here in NZ that presented the case that an SUV had a bigger carbon footprint than a dog.”
No, it was the other way. Your lowly family dog produced more emissions that a SUV driven for 10,000kms. The story had a heading something like, eat your family dog to save the planet. Another silly article about saving the planet by reducing CO2 emissions.
Still no-one hass yet shown how a tax will save the planet from significantly more dangerous threats than CO2 “pollution”.
Rapidly losing the will to live here in the UK, I am rather alarmed at the 10%-30% range quoted for carbon absorbtion. That’s a pretty big error margin in anybody’s book. If I quoted fees with that sort of range I wouldn’t get very far!
Apologise for repeating this extract from an 1865 account of the land clearance for cotton and rice production in Brazil. The extract is from a book on slavery but this extract happens to be very relevant in this case:
“…These mounds of branches are again burned, and the result is a sad and devastating scene! Centuries-old tree trunks which two months before had produced a cool, crisp atmosphere over a broad stretch of land, lie on the surface of a field ravaged by fire and covered with ashes, where the slaves are compelled to spend twelve hours under the hot sun of the equator, without a single tree to give them shelter.
This destruction of the forests has exhausted the soil, which in many places now produces nothing but grasses suitable for grazing cattle. The temperature has intensified, and the seasons have become irregular. The rains at times damage the crops, and at other times there is not rain at all. The streams and certain shallow rivers, such as the Itapucuru, have dried up or have become almost unnavigable, and lumber for building has become very rare, or is only found at a great distance from the settlements.”
The continued fixation with CO2 means that the clearing of forests or land drainage or any kind of vegetation, will be measured by it’s CO2 output. This is madness.
The aviation industry, which is much maligned by certain individuals that consider themselves ‘green’ has spent considerable effort training pilots to avoid the pitfalls of fixation, conformity, and authority. There are other pitfalls but these can be the most deadly.
But the goat has an end, and that creates another problem — “stepping in it.” (As Mencken pointed out a century ago in a critique of Veblen’s sheep-for-lawns suggestion.)
will this be the start of the progessed-green movement , the real fellow yellows ?Co2-free urban dwellers ?Has this been a government study ? Should they be prepared to spend the taxpayers money on real good jokes?
I was serious about the goat. My dad (RIP) had several acres of property and he hated mowing the lawn. It started with a goat. He went to the local livestock auction and bought one. It was awesome .. at first. First thing the goat ate every single dandelion in the yard. The lawn looked great. But then the goat started climbing on the cars and stuff. One day it climbed onto the car parked near but not in the garage and then onto the roof of the garage. Dad didn’t notice and went on an errand. He came back and parked in the garage and the goat was stranded on the roof for a while.
Then the goat started getting more aggressive as it got older (it was a male). One day Pop was sitting in the hammock and the goat didn’t like it for some reason. He (the goat) took a running start and butted Pop right in the rear end where it was sagging down in the hammock.
End of goat.
After that, Pop had a better plan. Buy a lamb at the auction every spring, they graze the lawn all summer and are butchered and frozen in the fall. No sheep to feed over the winter, Grass stays cut. Not a bad way to keep the lawn in shape if you live in a rural area. You need to watch your step but it’s no worse than having a dog, really.
The stupidity of the human animal knows no bounds.
This is a science study? It sounds like a new specialty in the field of accounting. Before you know it, the Finance & Accounting departments of businesses will have positions for GHG Accountancy. Now I wonder why productive enterprises are moving to places like India and China…
As long as this free government money is passed out to any idiot with an idiotic idea, we’ll continue to hear these idiotic assumptions.
STOP the MADNESS…. it’s time to shut down 99% of the federal government.
Time to put a fence around D. C. and take our country back.
tallbloke (23:54:35) :
Dear Mr. tallbloke,
It has been brought to our attention that you are not fully convinced of the merits of our decision to plant trees on tramlines.
We wish to point out to you that we have carried out an exhaustive review of the peer-reviewed literature but have found NO studies supporting your assertion.
Our project is robust and as such we plan to continue and you may expect to see the startling results in the fullness of time.
We are however most impressed with your idea to fit scythes to the trams. Such a move will definitely reduce the size of jay-walkers footprints…. ahh, sorry…. carbon footprints.
Yours etc,
1) grass is good because it absorbs noise, making cities more pleasant.
2) grass absorbs those particle emissions that are still one of the unsolved environmental problems. We do not want to make it worse.
3) grass is, ehh, nice?
4) What was the carbon footprint from making this study, assuming that the researchers live on an average American footprint. How does this compare to the south californian grass turfs? They must have missed this aspect in their study 😉