EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Destroying Wetlands Could Unleash "Carbon Bomb"
WASHINGTON - The world's wetlands, threatened by development, dehydration and climate change, could release a planet-warming "carbon bomb" if they are destroyed, ecological scientists said on Sunday.
Wetlands contain 771 billion tons of greenhouse gases, one-fifth of all the carbon on Earth and about the same amount of carbon as is now in the atmosphere, the scientists said before an international conference linking wetlands and global warming.
If all the wetlands on the planet released the carbon they hold, it would contribute powerfully to the climate-warming greenhouse effect, said Paulo Teixeira, coordinator of the Pantanal Regional Environment Program in Brazil.
"We could call it the carbon bomb," Teixeira said by telephone from Cuiaba, Brazil, site of the conference. "It's a very tricky situation."
Some 700 scientists from 28 nations are meeting this week at the INTECOL International Wetlands Conference at the edge of Brazil's vast Pantanal wetland to look for ways to protect these endangered areas.
Wetlands are not just swamps: they also include marshes, peat bogs, river deltas, mangroves, tundra, lagoons and river flood plains.
Together they account for 6 percent of Earth's land surface and store 20 percent of its carbon. They also produce 25 percent of the world's food, purify water, recharge aquifers and act as buffers against violent coastal storms.
Historically, wetlands have been regarded as an impediment to civilization. About 60 percent of wetlands worldwide have been destroyed in the past century, mostly due to draining for agriculture. Pollution, dams, canals, groundwater pumping, urban development and peat extraction add to the destruction.
IMAGE PROBLEM
"Too often in the past, people have unwittingly considered wetlands to be problems in need of a solution, yet wetlands are essential to the planet's health," said Konrad Osterwalder, UN Under Secretary-General and rector of United Nations University, one of the hosts of the meeting.
So far, the impacts of climate change are minor compared to human depredations, the scientists said in a statement. As is the case with other environmental problems, it is far easier and cheaper to maintain wetlands than try to rebuild them later.
As the globe warms, water from wetlands is likely to evaporate, rising sea levels could change wetlands' salinity or completely inundate them.
Even so, wetland rehabilitation is a viable alternative to artificial flood control for coping with the larger, more frequent floods and severe storms forecast for a warmer world.
Northern wetlands, where permanently frozen soil locks up billions of tons of carbon, are at risk from climate change because warming is forecast to be more extreme at high latitudes, said Eugene Turner of Louisiana State University, a participant in the conference.
The melting of wetland permafrost in the Arctic and the resulting release of carbon into the atmosphere may be "unstoppable" in the next 20 years, but wetlands closer to the equator, like those in Louisiana, can be restored, he said.
Teixeira admitted wetlands have an image problem with the public, which is generally well-disposed to saving the rainforest but not the swamp.
"People don't have a good impression about wetlands, because they don't know about the environmental service that wetlands provide to us," he said.
Editing by Alan Elsner
© 2008 Reuters
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

26 Comments so far
Show AllThe damage done by Katrina would have been much less severe had those wetlands to the south not been drained. Swamps may look like wastelands. They are not.
America's plan: Create a worldwide depression, thus reducing industry (with help from oil depletion)thereby lowering CO2 emmissions. Secondly, a strategic nuclear winter to shade the earth from too much sunlight. And lastly, make everyone a Christian.
In BC, Canada, a huge bog (Burns Bog)is threatened with extinction as a road is built to accommodate trucks distributing goods from Asia via Deltaport - soon to be expanded. The Gateway road ( how innocent sounding names are) which will also twin a bridge across the Fraser River to get this --help climate change by stopping cars from idling on the bridge! Never mind that the bridge will encourage more people to drive to work and that no one will be able to afford Asian goods in the future. All part of our politician's Green agenda to make BC the greenest province. The bog is the largest bog in Canada near a large population, and hence an important carbon sink.
I wonder who will have the honour of being the content of the nuclear winter? Let's see, how about...
well, huntz, my guess is an American city will host a "dirty bomb", courtesy of the shadow government and the missing bomb from North Dakota.
It will be blamed on Iran, or the Hitler de jure, and Americans will be whipped into a blood-thirsty frenzy, wild-eyed for revenge.
Then other countries will be bombed, Armageddon will ensue and the christians think they will be raptured.
Whoops!
It is said that not only Katrina was made worse by lack of wetlands, but that the tsumani that hit Dec. 2006, would have been lessened by the mangroves that were removed to make shrimp farms.
Ever wonder why shrimp, which used to be a luxury, is now ubiquitous?
A 'dirty bomb' won't make a nuclear winter. A 'dirty bomb' is just a regular ol' bomb, but with nasty radioactive stuff packed in around it. That then gets spread over the area when the bomb goes off. Nasty stuff, but it can't make a 'nuclear winter' which is the result of the debris from the huge Hydrogen fusion bombs getting tossed by the explosions up into the upper reaches of the atmosphere.
Actually, my feeling is a 'dirty bomb' would end up looking a lot like what the US does when it used DU munitions and that nasty uranium is spread around the target area.
There are places where wetlands could be restored or built to provide environmental benefit and flood control. Along the Mississippi river would be a good place to look for opportunities. Yet another area where we refuse to do what we easily can do to make things better.
Greener
I think you are right. If God will not provide a rapture, we yankees will make our own. It is the American way.
Didn't you hear? The Rapture occurred at the Millenium New Year (the bogus 2000 one, not the real 2001 one) just like they predicted. Everyone whom the Christian God deemed worthy was "called home" then! Everyone still here, from Pat Dobson to you and me, was left behind in Hell. Hah!
Say it ain't so! I missed the rapture? Again? Shit, last time it happened I was sleeping, and no one had the decency to wake me. That's it, I'm not missing the next one, anyone know when it is? Is there a height restriction or something like that? Please, any help on how to get raptured would be appreciated. I'll put a good word in for you if I'm picked. Anyone? Hoarding rapture info is a sin, so lets have some before it's too late. I wonder what kind of food they serve on the rapture flight? MMMMMM Yummy.
Greed has it's own self destruct mechanism built in. There is little left to do except watch it work.
Not to nitpick, but it's CO2, not "carbon". The problem is not little flakes of graphite being released into the atmosphere. We don't call water "oxygen", or use "sulfur" as lazy shorthand for sulfuric acid.
It seems that the wide spread use of" Peat moss"in our gardens is not a good thing.
Hi ~SAMPSON~ Good comments about dirty radioactive bombs and the subject of "DU".
Many do not realize that a bunker buster DU bomb holds near 2,000 pounds of DU and there are "(five billion)" microscopic specks of deadly DU poison in a cupfull of exploded or burned DU. A single speck can kill any living thing, plants or animals and will stay deadly for over four billion years.
And DU does (not stay in the area) where it explodes or burns, it blows in the wind and circles the globe.
http://www.libertyforlife.com/military-war/wmd.html
I found this link as well that explains March 2001 environmental intelligence on this inportant wetland.
The Mesopotamian Marshlands:
Demise of an Ecosystem
http://www.grid.unep.ch/activities/sustainable/tigris/mesopotamia.pdf
Hi ~VA GREEN~, I don't understand your comment about carbon and Co2. I understand "carbon sinks", such as wetlands and swamp bogs sequester Co2 from the atmosphere and they are termed "carbon sinks". Once that "carbon" is released into the atmosphere as a gas, it is termed methane gas and that is 25 times as potent as a Greenhouse gas as Co2 is.
Is that incorrect?
KEM PATRICK : You seem to know a bit more on this subject than I do, based on the links below, would it be possible to drill for methane and liquify it like we do natural gas? From all that I've read so far in these posts, there is far more methane than oil. If cars can run on propane why not methane? If electrical power stations can run on natural gas why not methane? Instead of fearing the methane bomb, we use it and reduce it.
What boils my blood is watching al gore get mega rich on his carbon offset scam, those at the top will get rich on carbon cap and trade taxes while the poor get poorer, China the worlds number 1 polluter can give Costa Rica some money for their carbon credits while pumping all the pollution into the atmosphere they want what a joke.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6638705.stm
Scientists in Brazil have claimed that a major source of greenhouse gas emissions could be curbed by capturing and burning methane given off by large hydro-electric dams.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/New-Dams-Would-Burn-the-Methane-from-the-Bottom-of-the-Reservoirs-54607.shtml
a Brazilian team at National Space Research Institute (INPE) has found a way to cut off methane emission from hydro-electric dams, a main source of this gas, by capturing and burning it.
The methane-produced energy could supplement the energy delivered by the dam turbines.
If could be mined ~WOLF 123~ but it's extremely hazardous to do so and also very hazardous as a fuel for vehicles due to it's extremely high explosive nature, a far lower flash point than gasoline for example and methane is a colorles and odorless gas. There are power plants which use methane for fuel, that taken from land-fills in areas such as Staten Island.
Also there is so much methane in the Arctic, (over 400 gigatons,) and far more than that in the ocean's sea beds, we could not possibly mine and burn enough to make ANY difference when global warming and the subsequent thaw of the Arctic allows it to release. Then too, burning methane will not help with our global warming issue.
Our ONLY hope is to try to reduce global warming by cutting off the use of coal, which is a "HOPE" only, as I don't see that will not ever be done in time to stop the Arctic's thaw. It is now estimated the Arctic will be (ice free) within five years or less. ___ Oh-oh,___ this wetlands issue is very minor in comparrison.
KEM PATRICK July 22nd, 2008 4:25 pm
OK, now you are starting to sound like me- " It looks good on paper BUT won't work in real life".
I don't usually use wikipedia, not since I've come across so many errors but this is about the only thing I could find without a bunch of chemical mumbo jumbo symbols (the best I got in H.S. chemistry was a D+).
Fuel
For more on the use of methane as a fuel, see: natural gas
Methane is important for electrical generation by burning it as a fuel in a gas turbine or steam boiler. Compared to other hydrocarbon fuels, burning methane produces less carbon dioxide for each unit of heat released. At about 891 kJ/mol, methane's combustion heat is lower than any other hydrocarbon; but a ratio with the molecular mass (16.0 g/mol) divided by the heat of combustion (891 kJ/mol) shows that methane, being the simplest hydrocarbon, produces more heat per mass unit than other complex hydrocarbons. In many cities, methane is piped into homes for domestic heating and cooking purposes. In this context it is usually known as natural gas, and is considered to have an energy content of 39 megajoules per cubic meter, or 1,000 BTU per standard cubic foot.
Methane in the form of compressed natural gas is used as a fuel for vehicles, and is claimed to be more environmentally friendly than alternatives such as gasoline/petrol and diesel.[who?] Research is being conducted by NASA on methane's potential as a rocket fuel. One advantage of methane is that it is abundant in many parts of the solar system and it could potentially be harvested in situ, providing fuel for a return journey. [1]
Now if this article is true (something you would know more than me), replacing coal fired electrical plants with methane fired plants sounds a lot better than a nuke (the by product which must be safely buried for a gazillion years), methane releases less CO2 than coal which would cut down on carbon emissions and we would get the same or better energy output.
To change from coal to methane all that is needed is to change out the burner, you don't have to build a brand new plant (would be nice though).
I know you like solar and wind etc. but the infrastructure and the energy out put is not there yet. With all the methane there is drilling for it would be like drilling for natural gas, the impact on the environment would be a lot less than bulldozing a mountain to get at the coal.
Oh, and if we ever should use natural gas for power plants fuel, and we should until we have the other clean alternative on line. There is enough natural gas in Kansas alone, to furnish all of our required electrical power and much more than we'd ever need for the next 5,000+ years.
We don't have to go to the Arctic to drill for methane, but we'd better stop buring coal or the Arctic's methane is gonna burst out. It may already be too late, ___ I dunna know, who does know?
Oh yeah WOLF, BOSTON drivers! There are no crazy houses in Boston, they don't need any. They are all crazy up there, so they just live in their own homes and root for the crazy Red Sox. They're mostly Irish, and those people are still drunkard barbarians who can't tell the truth and honestly believe in elves and fairies. I married one of em, and she's crazy too.
I do hope this thread is buried by mid-morning.
Oh-oh, I guessed wrong. Oh well, those barbarians in Boston can't read anyway.
Kem: heh... in need of foot-in-mouth removal services? ;)
Hide me.
Both feet