Unintended Consequences

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

By Paul Homewood

Two news reports from the BBC in the last few days, which rather complement each other:

Leading researchers have condemned attempts to change the way carbon from trees will be counted in Europe.

The scientists fear that millions of tonnes of CO2 from forests will disappear from the books if the changes go ahead.

Trees are important carbon sinks as they soak up about 10% of Europe’s emissions every year.

But some countries want to cut more trees down in future without counting the resulting loss of carbon.

Europe’s forests have been increasing for the last century, and over the last 10 years the equivalent of 1,500 football pitches of trees have been added every day.

However accounting for carbon contained in trees is a fiendishly difficult task. Forests can both soak up and emit carbon depending on how old they are, and how they are managed and harvested.

As the European Union tries to put in place wide-ranging plans to restrict future carbon emissions, officials want to ensure that accounting for the impact of forests on the atmosphere should be based on sound science.

To this end they want to cap the use of forestry at the levels seen between 1990 and 2009. If countries want to harvest more trees in future than they did during this period, the loss of carbon would count towards the country’s overall emissions.

However several countries including Austria, Finland, Poland and Sweden want a change in these rules so that increased harvesting in the future should not be penalised.

The Finnish government says that it plans to increase tree harvesting by almost a quarter before 2030. The Finns argue that they should not have to account for these extra emissions, since the country’s forests will still absorb more carbon dioxide than they release.

Industry supporters argue in favour of a more "flexible" approach. They say that Europe’s forests have increased because of investment from businesses that want to be able to exploit the resource. Putting in place rules that leave trees standing forever won’t benefit anyone, they say.

But researchers in the field are very anxious about the proposed changes. Around 40 forestry experts from across the world have signed a letter arguing that if the rules are amended, it would "hide" roughly 300 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year – equivalent to two-thirds of France’s annual emissions.

"What the countries are arguing is that they should be able to use the forests in what they call a sustainable way," said Prof Joanna House from the University of Bristol, UK, and a former lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"But it doesn’t account for what’s happening right now. If you are increasing the harvest rate, you will have less of a stock of carbon in the trees and soils."

http://ift.tt/2ruqJY4

The whole system of accounting for carbon dioxide emissions from land use changes and forestation is a notoriously complex one, which is open to abuse.

While the UK will doubtlessly measure religiously every molecule of CO2 emitted, other countries will look after their own interests.

Ironically, of course, much of the forests due to be chopped down will end up being burnt in power stations.

Meanwhile, the BBC also report on how the Amazon Basin could be permanently damaged by the construction of hydro electric dams:

The Amazon basin could suffer significant and irreversible damage if an extensive dam building programme goes ahead, scientists say.

Currently, 428 hydroelectric dams are planned, with 140 already built or under construction.

Researchers warn that this could affect the dynamics of the complex river system and put thousands of unique species at risk.

The study is published in the journal Nature.

"The world is going to lose the most diverse wetland on the planet," said lead author Prof Edgargo Latrubesse, from the University of Texas at Austin, US.

http://ift.tt/2rrzLsS

What these two stories have in common is how the obsession with climate change is creating perverse consequences for the environment.