How Upland Trees Combat Methane Emissions

July 28, 2024 / activist360

Footpath though Epping Forest, in Epping Upland, Essex. Credit: geograph.org.uk.

A new study, “Global Atmospheric Methane Uptake by Upland Tree Woody Surfaces,” reveals a previously under-appreciated ally in our environmental arsenal: upland trees. Known for their ability to sequester carbon dioxide, trees are now also recognized for their significant role in absorbing atmospheric methane, a potent greenhouse gas. This new understanding helps our approach to forest conservation and climate change mitigation.

What are Upland Trees?

Upland trees are defined as trees that thrive in well-drained soils, typically found in areas where excess water from rain can quickly drain away, preventing waterlogged conditions. Unlike their counterparts in wetlands, upland trees are not subjected to prolonged periods of standing water, which significantly influences their ecological roles and physiological functions.

The Role of Upland Trees in Methane Absorption

These Trees have a unique symbiotic relationship that enables them to absorb methane from the atmosphere than they emit. The well-drained soils acts as an enabler for the net sink of atmospheric methane. Unlike their wetland counterparts that release methane, upland trees utilize methanotrophic bacteria that live on their bark and within their tissues.

Methanotrophy: Nature’s Methane Filter

Methanotrophy, the process through which these bacteria metabolize methane, turns tree bark into an effective filter for this harmful greenhouse gas. The study notes that the higher parts of the tree, away from the methane-producing soil, exhibit a stronger uptake, suggesting that the trees’ own structure facilitates this environmental benefit.

Implications for Global Methane Budgets and Climate Strategies

The findings of this study have implications for our global methane budgets and strategies aimed at mitigating climate change. By quantifying the role of trees in methane dynamics, the research provides a piece of the puzzle in understanding the global methane cycle. This could lead to improved climate models and more effective strategies for managing forest ecosystems.

Enhancing Climate Benefits through Forest Conservation

The dual role of upland forests in sequestering carbon and absorbing methane underscores the added climate benefits of forest conservation and reforestation efforts. Protecting these ecosystems could be more beneficial than previously understood, offering a natural solution to reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Call-to-Action: Integrate the Role of Upland Trees in Methane Absorption Into Conservation Policies

This pioneering study invites policymakers, environmentalists, and the global community to rethink current strategies for climate change mitigation. Integrating the role of upland trees in methane absorption into conservation policies could enhance the effectiveness of these efforts, providing a cost-effective way to combat global warming. As we continue to uncover the multifaceted roles of forests in climate regulation, it becomes clear that preserving our natural environments is more crucial than ever.

Embracing the insights from this research could catalyze a shift in how we perceive and manage our forest resources, turning upland areas into valuable allies in the fight against climate change. With enhanced policies and a renewed focus on these ecosystems, we can harness the full potential of our forests to safeguard our planet for future generations.

World Makes Haste Too Slowly on Cutting Energy Use

October 18, 2020 / activist360 / Leave a comment

The annual report card on the global energy industry says progress towards lower energy use must be much faster.

By Kieran Cooke, Climate News Network (CC BY-ND 4.0).

*A rich source of methane: Gas hydrate beneath a rock in the Gulf of Mexico. Image: By US Geological Survey (public domain), via Wikimedia Commons*

The world is dragging its feet on efforts to tackle the climate crisis by reducing its energy use, according to a global watchdog.

In its World Energy Outlook 2020, the lnternational Energy Agency (IEA) says that while emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2, the main climate-changing greenhouse gas), are falling, the reduction needs to be far steeper to make any meaningful impact.

“Despite a record drop in global emissions this year, the world is far from doing enough to put them into decisive decline”, says Fatih Birol, the IEA’s executive director.

The Agency says energy demand is set to drop by 5% in 2020, with an overall decline of 7% in emissions of CO2 from the global energy sector. This means that annual emissions of CO2 are back to where they were a decade ago, the report says.

Oil demand this year is likely to be down by 8%, while coal use will fall by 7%.

Solar projects now offer some of the lowest-cost electricity ever seen.”

That’s the headline good news: the bad news is that emissions of methane – among the most potent of greenhouse gases – are rising, says the report.

Total global investment in the energy sector is also falling dramatically, and is set to be down 18% year on year.

That means that despite the rise of renewable energy, particularly of solar power, governments, utilities and corporations around the world are still not spending enough to bring about a major transition in energy use – and to meet the challenge of catastrophic climate change.

“Only an acceleration in structural changes to the way the world produces and consumes energy can break the emissions trend for good”, says the IEA.

Problem grids

While hydropower is still the leading source of renewable power, solar is described as the new king of electricity.

“With sharp cost reductions over the past decade, solar PV [solar photovoltaic energy] is consistently cheaper than new coal- or gas-fired power plants in most countries, and solar projects now offer some of the lowest-cost electricity ever seen.”

A major problem is that as solar and wind projects are installed and expanded, other parts of the energy sector also need to be developed, particularly infrastructure associated with electricity grids.

In many parts of the world energy utilities are in severe financial straits and have little or no money to maintain or invest in achieving more efficiencies and in infrastructure.

“Electricity grids could prove to be the weak link in the transformation of the power sector, with implications for the reliability and security of electricity supply”, says the IEA.

Covid-19’s effects

The report says it’s not just the energy industry that has to change. “To reach net-zero emissions, governments, energy companies, investors and citizens all need to be on board – and will all have unprecedented contributions to make.”

The Covid crisis is a major factor in assessing the global energy outlook.

The pandemic, says the IEA, has caused more disruption in the energy sector than any other event in recent history, with impacts for years to come.

“It is too soon to say whether today’s crisis represents a setback for efforts to bring about a more secure and sustainable energy system, or a catalyst that accelerates the pace of change”, the report says. —Climate News Network, LONDON, 16 October, 2020

Restoring Forests Can Reduce Greenhouse Gases

August 21, 2020 / activist360 / Leave a comment

*Balangoda-Hatton Road of Sri Lanka, ways through natural forest. It is misty most of the year during the evening. Image by Kanthaja. (CC BY-SA 4.0)*

In a way, money does grow on trees. So it could pay to help nature restore forests and reduce greenhouse gases.

August 20, 2020 by Tim Radford, Climate News Network (CC BY-ND 4.0)

LONDON, 20 August, 2020 – There is one straightforward way to reduce greenhouse gases: by taking better care of the world’s natural forests.

European and US scientists think they may have settled a complex argument about how to restore a natural forest so that it absorbs more carbon. Don’t just leave nature to regenerate in the way she knows best. Get into the woodland and manage, and plant.

It will cost more money, but it will sequester more carbon: potentially enough to make economic good sense.

Researchers from 13 universities and research institutions report in the journal Science that they carefully mapped and then studied a stretch of tropical forest in Sabah, in Malaysian Borneo: a forest that had been heavily logged more than 30 years ago, and converted to plantation, and then finally protected from further damage. The mapping techniques recorded where, and how much, above-ground carbon was concentrated, across thousands of hectares.

Faster Recovery

The researchers report that those reaches of forest left to regenerate without human help recovered by as much as 2.9 tonnes of above-ground carbon per hectare each year. But those areas of forest that were helped a little, by what the scientists call “active restoration”, did even better.

Humans entered the regenerating forests and cut back the lianas – the climbing plants that flourish in degraded forests and compete with saplings – to help seedlings flourish. They also weeded where appropriate and enriched the mix of new plants with native seedlings.

Where this happened, the forest recovered 50% faster and carbon storage above-ground per hectare was measured at between 2.9 tonnes per hectare and 4.4 tonnes.

The lesson to be drawn is that where a natural forest may be thought fully restored after 60 years, active restoration could make it happen in 40 years.

Restoration helps previously over-used forests not only to recover carbon, but also to become ecologically sound and diverse again”
—Christopher Philipson, Swiss Federal Technology Institute

The research demonstrates two things. The first is that forests can and will restore themselves: opportunistic plants will colonise open space and provide cover for those species best adapted to long-term survival in that climate and habitat. Nature will decide what conservationists call “the climax vegetation” of any natural forest. The second is that nature can indeed benefit from selective human help.

“This active restoration encourages naturally diverse forest, and is therefore much more beneficial for biodiversity than monocultures or plantation forests,” said Christopher Philipson, of the Swiss Federal Technology Institute known as ETH Zurich.

“In this way restoration helps previously over-used forests not only to recover carbon, but also to become ecologically sound and diverse again.”

There will be arguments about the finding. One is that what might be a good solution in south-east Asia might not be the best answer for the Congo or parts of the Amazon: as humans degrade the forest, they may also affect the local climate in ways that favour some native species rather than others. That is, it might never be possible to restore a forest to what it had been before the forester’s axe arrived.

Restoration’s Pricetag

There is a second argument: restoration work costs money. How much economic sense it makes depends on what value scientists, politicians and economists put on the carbon that is sequestered as a consequence, and what price humanity pays for that same carbon in the form of additional greenhouse gas that will raise global temperatures, alter rainfall patterns and trigger potentially catastrophic climate change.

What worth do forests have to local populations, and what is the value set on the world’s wildernesses as global natural capital?

“Not long ago we treated degraded tropical forests as lost causes,” said a co-author, Greg Asner of Arizona State University.

“Our new findings, combined with those of other researchers around the world, strongly suggest that restoring tropical forests is a viable and highly scalable solution to regaining lost carbon stocks on land.” – Climate News Network