Search

The world's forests store large amounts of carbon (C), and growing forests can reduce atmospheric CO2 by storing C in their biomass. This has provided the impetus for world-wide tree planting initiatives to offset fossil-fuel emissions. However, forests interact with their environment in complex and multifaceted ways that must be considered for a balanced assessment of the value of planting trees. First, one needs to consider the potential reversibility of C sequestration in trees through either harvesting or tree death from natural factors. If carbon storage is only temporary, future temperatures will actually be higher than without tree plantings, but cumulative warming will be reduced, contributing both positively and negatively to future climate-change impacts. Alternatively, forests could be used for bioenergy or wood products to replace fossil-fuel use which would obviate the need to consider the possible reversibility of any benefits. Forests also affect the Earth's energy balance through either absorbing or reflecting incoming solar radiation. As forests generally absorb more incoming radiation than bare ground or grasslands, this constitutes an important warming effect that substantially reduces the benefit of C storage, especially in snow-covered regions. Forests also affect other local ecosystem services, such as conserving biodiversity, modifying water and nutrient cycles, and preventing erosion that could be either beneficial or harmful depending on specific circumstances. Considering all these factors, tree plantings may be beneficial or detrimental for mitigating climate-change impacts, but the range of possibilities makes generalisations difficult. Their net benefit depends on many factors that differ between specific circumstances. One can, therefore, neither uncritically endorse tree planting everywhere, nor condemn it as counter-productive. Our aim is to provide key information to enable appropriate assessments to be made under specific circumstan

he world's forests store large amounts of carbon (C), and growing forests can reduce atmospheric CO2 by storing C in their biomass. This has provided the impetus for world-wide tree planting initiatives to offset fossil-fuel emissions. However, forests interact with their environment in complex and multifaceted ways that must be considered for a balanced assessment of the value of planting trees. First, one needs to consider the potential reversibility of C sequestration in trees through either harvesting or tree death from natural factors. If carbon storage is only temporary, future temperatures will actually be higher than without tree plantings, but cumulative warming will be reduced, contributing both positively and negatively to future climate-change impacts. Alternatively, forests could be used for bioenergy or wood products to replace fossil-fuel use which would obviate the need to consider the possible reversibility of any benefits. Forests also affect the Earth's energy balance through either absorbing or reflecting incoming solar radiation. As forests generally absorb more incoming radiation than bare ground or grasslands, this constitutes an important warming effect that substantially reduces the benefit of C storage, especially in snow-covered regions. Forests also affect other local ecosystem services, such as conserving biodiversity, modifying water and nutrient cycles, and preventing erosion that could be either beneficial or harmful depending on specific circumstances. Considering all these factors, tree plantings may be beneficial or detrimental for mitigating climate-change impacts, but the range of possibilities makes generalisations difficult. Their net benefit depends on many factors that differ between specific circumstances. One can, therefore, neither uncritically endorse tree planting everywhere, nor condemn it as counter-productive. Our aim is to provide key information to enable appropriate assessments to be made under specific circumstanc

Biofuel systems may represent a promising strategy to combat climate change by replacing fossil fuels in electricity generation and transportation. First-generation biofuels from sugar and starch crops for ethanol (a gasoline substitute) and from oilseed crops for biodiesel (a petroleum diesel substitute) have come under increasing levels of scrutiny due to the uncertainty associated with the estimation of climate change impacts of biofuels, such as due to indirect effects on land use. This analysis estimates the magnitude of some uncertainty sources: i) crop/feedstock, ii) life cycle assessment (LCA) modelling approach, iii) land-use change (LUC), and iv) greenhouse gas (GHG) metrics. The metrics used for characterising the different GHGs (global warming potential-GWP and global temperature change potential-GTP at different time horizons) appeared not to play a significant role in explaining the variance in the carbon footprint of biofuels, as opposed to the crop/feedstock used, the inclusion/exclusion of LUC considerations, and the LCA modelling approach (p<0.001). The estimated climate footprint of biofuels is dependent on the latter three parameters and, thus, is context-specific. It is recommended that these parameters be dealt with in a manner consistent with the goal and scope of the study. In particular, it is essential to interpret the results of the carbon footprint of biofuel systems in light of the choices made in each of these sources of uncertainty, and sensitivity analysis is recommended to overcome their influence on the result., QC 20230308