EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- After Boston, Eyes-Wide Open Hope?
- Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free
Popular content
Today's Top News
Under the Icy North Lurks a ‘Carbon Bomb’
Tropical deforestation is a climate change crisis, but scientists fear for boreal wilderness, too
OTTAWA - North of Canada's capital, underneath an endless expanse of spruce, pine, and birch, ticks what some scientists are calling a carbon bomb: Peat.
A lake in the boreal forest north of Ottawa. Peat in the forest has been absorbing and storing carbon for thousands of years. (Fred Chartrand/ The Canadian Press for The Boston Globe) A thick layer of the black spongy soil, the remnants of ancient forests, wraps the globe's northern tier. Deeper than 15 feet in places, the peat layer extends over more than 6 million square miles across Russia, Scandinavia, China, Canada, and the United States.
Carbon that those forests absorbed from the air over thousands of years is stored in the peat and suspended in waterlogged bogs or permafrost. When it is disturbed or drained - as is happening in some areas - the peat can start to decompose and dry out, unleashing greenhouse gases. In North America alone, the peat and the trees growing in it hold as much carbon as would be emitted worldwide by 26 years of burning fossil fuels at current rates.
"It's like a great big stew of carbon percolating away for centuries,'' said Janet Sumner, executive director of the Wildlands League in Ontario, a conservation group pushing to preserve the northern, or boreal, forests from development. "If we don't protect the boreal, it will mean more emissions and climate change.''
While a critical deal is being brokered at the Copenhagen climate talks this week to protect threatened tropical forests, a growing number of scientists and environmentalists say the world's boreal forests need to be conserved too. A group of international scientists are planning to deliver a letter to Northern heads of state tomorrow urging them to formally recognize the importance of the boreal forest and find ways to finance its protection. And they say Canada, with 1.4 billion acres of intact forest and a majority of the world's peat lands, is the place to start.
The pace of boreal deforestation from mining, dams, oil and gas drilling, and road building is glacial compared with the destruction of tropical forests. Still, scientists say development is beginning to accelerate and it needs protection before warming temperatures lure even more industries north.
Mining and similar operations can cause the release of carbon from peat because the land is often drained, exposing the material to oxygen, which is essential for decomposition. Poor logging practices, road building, and other development can alter water flows and expose peat as well, drying it out and making it vulnerable to fire. Dried peat burns so well it is used as a cheap fuel in parts of the world.
Many point to Indonesia - one of the few tropical forests with underlying peat - as a cautionary tale: Deforestation and draining is causing the peat to burn and pump enormous amounts of carbon dioxide into the air.
To fly over the northern forest is to experience ancient, nearly-unbroken vastness. Swamp-like - it has been described as a kind of giant Everglades of the North - tiny aboriginal communities, logging roads, and clear-cuts stand out in its southern expanse. In the more frozen north, only icy lakes and rivers interrupt the thousands of miles of tree cover. Caribou and wolves roam underneath the evergreens, and every summer, millions of birds arrive to breed, including the white-throated sparrow and many species of ducks that winter in New England.
The boreal forest - with its hues of muted green, gray, and brown - once blanketed New England as well, but warming temperatures since the last Ice Age have transformed the forest, although some peat lands and boreal tree and wildlife species remain in northern Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
Unlike most of the tropics, where decaying plant matter decomposes quickly, the boreal forest accumulates dead sedges, mosses, grasses, shrubs, and trees in bogs or in permafrost, permanently frozen soil that can store it for thousands of years. About 30 percent of the carbon is stored in the trees - the rest is in the peat.
"For a long time, we failed to see the soil for the trees,'' said Larry Innes, director of the Canadian Boreal Initiative and adviser to the Pew Environment Group, a funding and advocacy group. Innes talked as he piloted his small plane over hundreds of tiny peat islands capped with spruce trees in lightly iced lakes about 150 miles north of Ottawa. Fluctuating water levels in a reservoir for a hydroelectric dam had eroded peat from the shorelines, allowing some of its carbon to be released and leaving sand behind. Enormous clear-cuts - miles across - opened the landscape nearby.
While the northern forest's beauty is undeniable, it is tropical forests, with their towering tree canopies and enormous number of colorful and charismatic species that have riveted the world. And, scientists say, there is good reason for that: Agriculture and development are causing massive deforestation, totaling more than 20 million acres a year by some estimates, and the forests are being further degraded by illegal and shoddy logging practices and fire.
Because it is more valuable to cut trees than to preserve them in these areas, Copenhagen negotiators are trying to make it financially attractive to conserve trees in developing countries. The Kyoto Protocol, the climate treaty that expires in 2012, largely ignored forests as critical tools in fighting global warming, though deforestation - and the resulting loss of carbon-absorbing capacity - accounts for about 15 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.
But the boreal forest - holding twice as much carbon per acre as tropical forests - also needs a place at the table, scientists say. In Canada, deforestation - defined as permanently cleared land - is estimated at about 126,000 acres a year, although scientists say development and industrial uses alter far more of the forest. That figure also excludes logging. In Alberta, with its enormous mining effort to squeeze oil from tarry sands, only about 40 percent of its once vast forest is still considered intact, according to Global Forest Watch Canada, a research group.
In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the leading scientific advisory group on global warming, recommended that at least half of Canada's forest be protected from further disturbances, both for its carbon storage and wildlife habitats.
While the Canadian government is facing deep criticism for backtracking on pledges to reduce greenhouse gases, the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba have promised to protect enormous swaths of forest from future mining and development - roughly half of Quebec's and Ontario's forest, which is largely publicly owned but can be leased to industry.
But paying for it will be challenging and there is no clear mechanism to do so. In Copenhagen, negotiators from developing countries and the United Nations are trying to win financial commitments from rich countries to protect tropical forests, or create a system where polluting industries pay to protect a swath of trees that would absorb the equivalent amount of heat-trapping gases they emit.
"It is only fair that developed countries pay'' to protect both tropical and boreal forests "because they have created the climate change problem,'' said Chris Henschel, senior conservation manager of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, but he said they should protect the boreal forests "without any payment from a Copenhagen mechanism.''
Yet the advocates for the boreal forest say it is vulnerable because northern regions are heating up faster than more temperate areas, which could cause the peat to thaw and release its carbon. No one knows how quickly emissions will occur if that happens.
"It is under threat. . . . It is the last great intact place on earth for natural resources,'' said Jeff Wells, director of science and policy for the Boreal Songbird Initiative, a conservation organization. "We need to ensure it can withstand the impact as best it can.''
- Posted in
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...

17 Comments so far
Show AllI am not sure what the costs are that are required to avoid developing boreal forests in Canada. Certainly some people will not get rich since they will be unable to exploit the resource--are we supposed to pay them? And there must be pluses: tourism, for example, if forests are not cut. And the protection of water and soils should count for something.
Also, I am not sure what is meant by permanent deforestation--126000 acres per year, we are told. Would that be paved areas? It doesn't sound like much, given the size of Canada. Of course, even temporary deforestation is a problem as far as carbon sequestration is concerned since trees grow so slowly in the north that comparatively little carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere, at least compared to tropical forests.
What this serves to show me is that there will be climate change ~ despite any or all of our efforts. Sure, we can stop cutting down the forests and that would preserve the carbon storage...but it makes me wonder what will happen when natural events (lightning strikes, wildfires, etc) occur. Don't get me wrong ~ I am entirely in favor of doing everything I possibly can to conserve our resources. I think the part that irritated me about this article was the following:
"It is only fair that developed countries pay" to protect both tropical and boreal forests "because they have created the climate change problem," said Chris Henschel. And then couple that with the statement "In Alberta, with its enormous mining effort to squeeze oil from tarry sands, only about 40 percent of its once vast forest is still considered intact..." So does that mean that Canada is willing to pay to protect the forests, or that they believe that others should pay them?
This piece is disturbing in many different ways.
Don't forget to add the possible release of methane hydrates as the worlds oceans continue to warm, and before you know it things will be getting as hot as a Tiger Woods weekend away from home...
Now re-nicknamed as "Cheetah" Woods.
Yes, there will be climate change. But let's keep working the best we can at saving ourselves. I say this for this reason. I, for one, would like to be able to look at myself in the mirror( or pool of water) now and in the future, knowing I did everything I could. But do I think we will stop this locomotive from going over the cliff?
Science like this and more, like about the dying oceans, need to be broadcast on the news, every day... That might help. But no, what do we get? Mostly shit. Tiger Woods and company and all kinds of uselessness.
This idea that news has to put up both sides, with out covering facts,thoroughly and not informing people of them, is so so sad. There are ways to explain these scientific concepts to people with out their eyes glazing over. Yes, there are some channels which have shows about these things, Discovery etc, but the point is that many do not watch these and the main point of it being covered on the daily news, puts it up front and center, giving it the prominence in peoples lives that it deserves.
But we do not have this... Why? Because it's corporate media, that's why. Corporate chosen bullshit to shove down people's throats. WE CAN DO BETTER-WE HAVE TO DO MORE- WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING AND FAST. If you ask me, we need to just stop. Stop expecting life to be somedream land and get back to living a basic, rustic, from the earth existance. I really do think that's the only solution.
Solar, wind, are good to use, but we waited to long for it to be an effective replacement. Someday, maybe far into the future, other generations can begin again with these. By then maybe some of the atmosphere will have cleared enough so that mankind can begin to manufacture these and spread them around for people to use, something along those lines. But we have put this problem off and now we need drastic action. THE TIPPING POINTS ARE AROUND THE CORNER.
Inertia being what it is, I think we are too late to slow this train.
There is absolutely no reason not to use renewables now.
Foolish is the one who thinks this has never happened before, but curious is the one who realizes that it has never happened with 7,000,000,000 people on board.
Even the 'powers that be' will have to endure what is coming to survive.
why do you think the rich want to get to the moon base and on to Mars?
If only they would, and the sooner the better.
In nature, the power to deceive is a powerful way to for the organism to get what it wants: food, mates, territory. Homo sapiens is so good at it, we've even deceived ourselves to the point of self destruction.
Through the delusions of Religion, "Clean Coal", and "Renewable Resources" we think we can keep staring at the boob tube and everything will be alright. But there is no big Skygod to make everything O.K. There is no such thing as Clean Coal or Safe Nuclear Energy. We clear ancient rain forest and stick some seedlings in it's place we and call it "Renewed". We are just fooling ourselves.
Coal fly ash gets everybody. It all has mercury and radioactive uranium in it and it gets carried all over the world. It's destroying the oceans since they are turning to acid. A new coal plant comes on line in China every week now.
My thinning middle-class generation may live out it's life O.K and not starve or suffocate before life expectancy. But the prospects for the next generation doing the same are bleak.
The only good news, is that more and more people are distrusting the MSM and getting their news instead off the net. The net is the biggest bastion of free speech ever generated. This means that Net Neutrality is our most important ally if we are to have any kind of chance of drowning out the main stream media and avoiding corporate-assisted suicide.
The Electric Frontiers Foundation is a good bunch. http://www.eff.org/
Check them out.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Carbon bombs don't "lurk", they "smolder".
The more deadly Methane "bomb" of the melting Siberian Tundra is going off as we post.
The more deadly Methane "bomb" of the melting Siberian Tundra is going off as we post.
All the greenhouse bombs are important: land-based methane releases, Arctic continental shelf methane releases, boreal forest carbon, third world countries burning up every stick of wood in the country for charcoal, ocean acidification cutting off photosynthesis, the arctic changing from white to dark seawater for more solar absorption. They're all more or less going off and accelerating now. The explosion part of the bombs comes as bigger hurricane storm surges, more tornadoes, bigger floods, monster fires from droughts and from tree species deaths.
The trees need protection from people that don't know what they are or how they live. Maybe people need protection from themselves.
Again, I say we need to stop using electricity, or so much of it. I don't mean just reduce by a few %points. I've mentioned before, maybe just hospitals should be using electicity. All the rest of us, could go back to living life as it was before electricity and fossil fuels. Renewables could fuel the hospitals, they would produce enough electricity for that. But my point is renewables are the answer, but only if we stop EXPECTING TO USE SO MUCH ELECTRICITY. What ever we do as far as home improvement, better applilances etc, that will not reduce our consumption enough to stop using coal and oil....