Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe outpouring of greenhouse gases from North America far outstrips the ability of the continent's fields, forests and wetlands to absorb all the carbon in the atmosphere, and the United States alone remains the world's largest emitter of climate-warming carbon dioxide, scientists reported Wednesday.
All told, the burning of fossil fuels by the United States, Canada and Mexico releases nearly 2 billion tons of carbon each year into the atmosphere, and the United States accounts for 85 percent of that total, says the report by the Climate Change Science Program, a research effort by government and private scientists sponsored by the Bush administration.
Until now, many scientists had thought the continent holds enough vegetation to absorb most of the carbon dioxide emissions, but the new report refutes that assumption and warns that the disparity is increasing.
The entire continent accounts for 27 percent of all the carbon dioxide emissions in the world, says the report, but China, where more and more coal-burning power plants go online every year, is already forecast to soon become the world's worst emitter.
"This is the first systematic assessment of America's contribution to the carbon budget in the context of global climate change, and it tells us what we really need to know," said Christopher B. Field of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford.
Field is the lead author of a section of the report that deals with the carbon cycle - a kind of balance sheet calculating how much climate-changing gas is emitted by North American power plants, vehicles and industry and how much is absorbed by the forests, crops, soils and surrounding ocean waters that constitute what scientists call the carbon sink.
"By burning fossil fuel and clearing forests, human beings have significantly altered the global carbon cycle," Field said.
As a result, he and his colleagues who drew up the report calculated that the continent emits more than three times the amount of carbon dioxide than its varied sinks are capable of absorbing. All the rest stays in the atmosphere and creates the heat-trapping greenhouse effect that has been warming the planet for the past century.
"The conversion of fossil fuels to energy, such as electricity generation, is the single largest carbon contributor, with transportation second," the report said.
As for the lagging ability of forests, parks, soils and green croplands to absorb the carbon, the report is highly pessimistic about the future.
"Carbon absorption by vegetation, primarily in the form of forest growth, is expected to decline as maturing forests grow more slowly and take up less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere," the experts said.
Wildfires that strip vegetation from huge swaths of land also reduce the ability of the carbon sink to function, and Field noted that last month's forest fires in Southern California that blackened 740,000 acres in five counties will have a significant impact on the state's future ability to absorb its output of greenhouse gases - despite California's leadership in green technology and in curbing carbon dioxide emissions.
"That land may recover in 10 or 20 years, and plants may return" Field said, "but there are more wildfires every year, and we haven't prevented them."
As climate continues to warm and droughts increase all across North America, widespread vegetation would die off and leave the bare land useless for absorbing carbon, the report noted.
In Washington last January, House and Senate Democrats accused the Bush administration of censoring the findings of scientists working on an earlier report for the same climate change program, and some of the program's scientists said they had been asked to delete reference to global warming or climate change in their findings.
From his own experience and discussions with colleagues working on the new report, none of that happened this time, Field said. The words "warming" and "climate change" appear in the report's summary released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The full report is available at:
links.sfgate.com/ZBOV
© 2007 The San Francisco Chronicle
7 Comments so far
Show AllThe concept is somewhat narrow when it doesn't include the amount of oxygen produced by that same habitat and the amount of oxygen which is burned by industrialized processes. The number one priority, although no one seems to recognize or acknowledge it, is the amount of oxygen produced by the biomass and the amount burned during an equal period. If the biomass can only filter one third of the co2 of an industrialized country then the amount of oxygen produced by an industrialized country is comparative. That means that fully industrialized countries are burning oxygen produced by the biomass of other nations. Until the real problem is properly enunciated there will never be optimum solutions.
If you could find an honest physicist in these days you would learn that the impossible concept of "greenhouse gases" causing "global warming" is an impossibility unless there is sufficient blanket coverage to shroud the whole planet, continuously. To believe that co2 pollution can somehow trap heat in but not keep it out in the first place is a stupid assumption. The spotty and local Co2 pollution on this planet cannot act as a one-way valve. Period. So, where to look for the answer to the obvious distress that our atmosphere is suffering? The only answer is the low oxygen content which we see manifested in the holes in the ozone layer which allow more of the sun's energy to enter the atmosphere. For a clue: look at where the placement of the holes in the ozone are usually situated over the arctic region and see also that the arctic region is the most rapidly transfoming environment in the world.
If you don't recognize the relationship between the biomass's oxygen production and it's co2 absorption capability then any discussion on the matter is just blowing wind. Unless, of course, you think oxygen just grows on trees.
This article gave me an immediate idea: what if a treaty were to be forged that required nations to tie their carbon emissions to their lands' ability to absorb the carbon emitted? Bear in mind, the idea is only 45 seconds old in my mind, but imagine the consequences and ask yourself if fairness can be wrought from such a crude idea?
Obvious first-thought ramifications: northern hemisphere "first-world" nations would be hard-pressed to reforest their countries to accommodate the emissions they put out, while southern hemisphere "second-" or "third-world" nations (I personally abhor such classifications, because every nation on the planet comprises a mixture of behaviors and activities, but for expedience sake, I'm willing to use them here) would see the unleashing of industrial development (fueled no doubt by multinational corporations' shifting of manufacturing) to build up to the limits of their ecosystems' capacity.
It could be done in a sensible manner (not that I have high hopes of our species suddenly becoming collectively sensible, but nevertheless...) if fair trade, the quashing of World Bank-type arrogance, geopolitical sensitivity, and climatological understanding were to guide the process.
The key concept would be "balance." In all things.
Anyone care to flesh out some ideas here? I really wanna talk about this, and from what I've been reading for the past year, this is a very good place to have this discussion.
Don't worry about nature. If worse comes to worst then the oxygen will return with the new growth and fix the ozone layer and after that the weather will moderate. Too bad there won't be any humans here to see it. But at least whatever sentient species evolves in the future will have much archaeology to entertain them.
Hi jld,
If it is any comfort, I talk about your issue all the time, and I am asked to speak to groups fairly often. Also, as you may know, according to World Bank and World Health Organization figures, it would cost 1/3 of the U.S. military budget, or 1/6 of the world's military budget, to eradicate world poverty and disease, and to restore the earth's resources, including the forests and range lands. Perhaps we'll get there. No country that spends half of its tax dollars on the military, as we do, can sustain itself for long. As our present system implodes, perhaps we'll have the opportunity to use these dollars to recreate a healthy world.
I have put this out many time before, but seemingly without takers. Yes, we need to cut down on carbon emissions. Yes, we need to use renewable energy. Yes, overpopulation is a major factor. Yes, yes, and yes.
But when will ANYONE talk openly about how much damage the military does - with the wars and the research into new weapons for wars. This comes directly from www.HAARP.net - read it and weep: http://www.earthpulse.com/src/subcategory.asp?catid=1&subcatid=1
"During the 1980's, rocket launches globally numbered about 500 to 600 a year, peaking at 1500 in 1989. There were many more during the Gulf War. The Shuttle is the largest of the solid fuel rockets, with twin 45 meter boosters. All solid fuel rockets release large amounts of hydrochloric acid in their exhaust, each Shuttle flight injecting about 75 tons of ozone destroying chlorine into the stratosphere. Those launched since 1992 inject even more ozone-destroying chlorine, about 187 tons (!!!!), directly into the stratosphere (which contains the ozone layer)."
Add to the shuttle missions (which everyone thinks is great because we are 'conquering' the last frontier - more war-speak) the testing of newer and bigger bombs, the use of the older and smaller (ha!) bombs in the ME, the endless sorties flown by military types .. the list just goes on and on.
Please, some scientist, can't you carve out how much of the damage is due directly to the military (not only of this nation but of all nations) and the perpetual creation / maintenance of war?
starofthesea: I call on my angels, too. But if you look into HAARP and what is being done to the upper atmosphere in the name of 'security', I think our heavenly angels already have their hands pretty full.
10,000 years ago, the sandy Sahara was covered with trees. Then a king came along and demanded that the people construct for him a lasting legacy. Successive royal generations also demanded that tombs be built, and so the desecration of the Saharan forest began. Today, man struggles to keep the pyramids from crumbling into the surrounding sands. The king's legacy remains, but it is nothing constructed of human hands.
A couple of months back, on a beautiful Northern California day like today, I took a drive with a friend through Marin and Sonoma counties. Starting on the "Redwood Highway", we soon departed the highway, and made our way out to the coast. We passed miles upon miles, of rolling hills, covered in cows. There were no trees.
I mentioned to my friend that these hills were once covered in forests not cows. "Oh, Ramsay, you don't know that, maybe the hills have always been like that. And besides it's a beautiful day isn't it?"
California has only 5% of it's original forests. They were chopped down enough generations ago that no one realizes they ever existed.
The solution is obvious. Reduce your consumption of cows, and cow products, and replant the damn hills. Use imminent domain if you have to, if it works so great for building baseball stadiums, it will do wonders for the environment.
Peace,
Ramsay