Protecting climate with forests
Creators
- 1. Department of Biology, Nicholas School of the Environment, and Center on Global Change, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0338 (United States)
- 2. Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697 (United States)
- 3. Global Carbon Project, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, GPO Box 3023, Canberra, ACT 2601 (Australia)
- 4. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708 (United States)
- 5. Department of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 (United States)
- 6. Earth and Sun Systems Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80305 (United States)
- 7. Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution, Stanford, CA 94305 (United States)
- 8. Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 (United States)
- 9. Department of Biological Sciences and Merriam-Powell Center for Environmental Research, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011 (United States)
- 10. Grupo de Estudios Ambientales-IMASL, Universidad Nacional de San Luis and CONICET, San Luis 5700 (Argentina)
- 11. School of Natural Sciences, University of California, Merced, CA 95344 (United States)
Description
Policies for climate mitigation on land rarely acknowledge biophysical factors, such as reflectivity, evaporation, and surface roughness. Yet such factors can alter temperatures much more than carbon sequestration does, and often in a conflicting way. We outline a framework for examining biophysical factors in mitigation policies and provide some best-practice recommendations based on that framework. Tropical projects-avoided deforestation, forest restoration, and afforestation-provide the greatest climate value, because carbon storage and biophysics align to cool the Earth. In contrast, the climate benefits of carbon storage are often counteracted in boreal and other snow-covered regions, where darker trees trap more heat than snow does. Managers can increase the climate benefit of some forest projects by using more reflective and deciduous species and through urban forestry projects that reduce energy use. Ignoring biophysical interactions could result in millions of dollars being invested in some mitigation projects that provide little climate benefit or, worse, are counter-productive.
Availability note (English)
Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/3/4/044006Additional details
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1088/1748-9326/3/4/044006;
- PII
- S1748-9326(08)91574-3;
Publishing Information
- Journal Title
- Environmental Research Letters
- Journal Volume
- 3
- Journal Issue
- 4
- Journal Page Range
- [5 p.]
- ISSN
- 1748-9326
INIS
- Country of Publication
- United Kingdom
- Country of Input or Organization
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
- INIS RN
- 41038902
- Subject category
- S54: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES;
- Descriptors DEI
- CARBON; CLIMATES; DEFORESTATION; EVAPORATION; FORESTS; MITIGATION; RECOMMENDATIONS; REFLECTIVITY; ROUGHNESS; SNOW; STORAGE
- Descriptors DEC
- ATMOSPHERIC PRECIPITATIONS; ELEMENTS; NONMETALS; OPTICAL PROPERTIES; PHASE TRANSFORMATIONS; PHYSICAL PROPERTIES; SURFACE PROPERTIES