Print Window Close Window The Boreal Forest and Climate Change The oceans are warming. Polar ice is melting. And the warming trend is accelerating. Human activities over the past hundred years—and especially the last 25 – are increasing atmospheric carbon levels at an alarming rate. So-called “greenhouse gases”-- including carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and methane--tend to trap solar radiation, preventing the planet from normal cooling. Fossil fuel consumption releases these gases in vast quantities. But what role do forests play in the world’s carbon balance? Biomass – the total mass of organic matter in an ecosystem – is largely composed of carbon, and plants “inhale” carbon dioxide; thus, plant growth of all kinds tends to help mitigate the greenhouse effect, while deforestation tends to worsen it. The world’s boreal forests have been touted as one of the most important “carbon sinks” on the planet. In part, this is due to sheer size and relative intactness; the boreal forest circles the northern part of the globe, and covers over 5 million square miles. In addition, because the boreal region is cold and sometimes quite dry, decomposition is very slow, and carbon remains sequestered in dead plant tissues for many years. Ironically, however, while the boreal forest can help mitigate global warming, it may also be one of the first ecosystems to suffer from its effects. Global weather patterns cause changing climate to be felt most acutely near the poles, where a shift is already becoming obvious. This could upset the balance of plant and animal species that can thrive in the boreal forest. At The Sixth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in The Hague (November 13-24, 2000), there was a great deal of discussion of the role of forests in moderating or preventing climate change. Certainly, our awareness of the role boreal forest play gives us one more reason for protecting our northern forests. Unfortunately, however, it is too simple to assume that such protection can alleviate our other responsibilities. In fact, American presumptiveness regarding forest carbon sinks was the single most important reason why consensus was not reached at the Hague. The United States is the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases, and the world’s largest consumer of fossil fuels. In 1990, America emitted approximately 1.3 million metric tons of carbon. This figure rose to about 1.5 by 1997, and is forecast to rise to 2 million metric tons of carbon by 2020. As a wealthy nation, we have many resources at our disposal; we can impose stricter regulations on our factories, we can conduct extensive research into alternative energies, we can set aside land for conservation purposes. But we have not been living up to this potential. The U.S delegates at the conference showed up with a proposal that suggested credits for forests – not just forests reforested or afforested since 1990, as allowed for in the original Kyoto protocol – but 30 percent of all American forests. Other conference participants, as well as environmentalists worldwide, saw this as merely a means to weasel out of emission-reduction obligations. America does have more forested land than any European nation, but does this make us less culpable for our fossil-fuel emissions? At a scheduled press conference, Michael McCarthy of the London Independent asked, “Is it really the position of the United States that at least one third of the entire forest system of the country has either been afforested, reforested or deforested in the last ten years? Because if it is not your position, I cannot see how your proposal can be legal under the Protocol.” What is wrong with trading forests for emissions? First of all, as pointed out by Neil Sampson in the Autumn, 2000 issue of American Forests, a study performed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found many different definitions of "forest." Some were based on tree canopy cover or density; others were administrative. None were well suited to administration of the Kyoto Protocol. For example, it would be possible--when forest is defined as land with 10 percent tree canopy cover--to degrade a forest from 100 percent to 10 percent tree canopy cover without triggering any emissions calculation based on deforestation. In the reverse situation a good manager could take a degraded forest and restore it without getting credit for those actions. Then there is the problem of what other values a forest has, apart from its value as a carbon sink. If forests become bargaining chips that high-profit industries can trade for the “right” to pollute, this won’t necessarily protect natural, wild forests. Many old-growth forests, because they have reached a biological peak, are no longer growing (gaining biomass) as fast as young forests. Replacing old-growth with rapid-rotation tree farms might earn more carbon points, but it would wreak havoc on ecosystems. As any biologist can attest, planting trees is not the same thing as creating a forest. A single-species crop of non-native trees would do nothing to ensure habitat for insects, birds, and mammals; nor would it protect traditional human uses. The boreal forest is indeed helping to store and absorb carbon, and as such, it plays a vital role in the maintenance of a precarious atmospheric balance. Human activity is upsetting that balance. While we need to recognize the important positive role of the forest, we cannot entirely rely on it to solve our problems. Instead, we need to halt pollution at the source, and protect our intact forest ecosystems. Perhaps then, photosynthesis within the world’s vast boreal forests can slowly erase the harm we’ve already done. |