Forests can give us breathing room on Kyoto rules
Copyright 2000, The Houston Chronicle
November 15, 2000
By THOMAS M. BONNICKSEN; Bonnicksen is a professor of forest science at Texas A&M University.
IF anything should make skeptics consider the possibility that there is something new or promising about the treaty to curb global warming, it is the growing recognition that the world's forests and agricultural land hold the key to any final agreement for stabilizing the climate. The focus on forests and farmland could have salutary results for Texas.
Until now, international talks aimed at carrying out the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on global warming have centered on cutting emissions from power plants and motor vehicles. However, the United States is proposing treaty negotiations this week that the natural capacity of America's forests and farmland to absorb carbon dioxide should give the nation substantial credit in meeting its requirements under the Kyoto treaty.
Experts calculate that the so-called carbon-sink effect of America's forests and farmland could cut by as much as half the carbon dioxide reductions needed to comply with the treaty. That would greatly reduce pressure on American companies, since it promises to keep the cost of fighting global warming down, especially in Texas and other energy-rich states that produce and burn large amounts of oil, coal and natural gas.
Scientists have known for decades that trees and other plants absorb carbon dioxide as they grow. However, the carbon-sink strategy grows out of recent evidence that forests soak up much more carbon than previously thought. Earlier studies had neglected to include the huge amounts of carbon stored in peat and other organic matter in soils - now estimated to account for two-thirds of the total sequestered.
These are not small numbers. According to government projections, U.S. emissions will probably exceed 2.1 billion tons of carbon by 2008. The Kyoto treaty requires the United States to reduce that to 1.5 billion tons. If the United States gets credit for the carbon-storing capabilities of forests and farmland the way they are currently managed, they are worth roughly 300 million tons a year.
However, an all-out effort to improve the health of U.S. forests and plant more trees on marginal land could more than double the carbon sink to 600 million tons. In other words, better forestry could enable the United States to meet its treaty commitment instead of weighing draconian mandates such as shutting down coal plants and jacking up gasoline taxes.
Converting fallow land to forests would be quite cost-effective compared to some regulatory proposals to cut greenhouse emissions. Under the Federal Conservation Reserve Program, an estimated 4 million to 5 million acres of marginal crop and pastureland once used for farming has been converted to timberland. With appropriate incentives to landowners, more than 100 million acres of marginal land considered biologically suitable for trees (an area the size of California) could be reforested. More trees also mean healthier air and less need for air conditioning, if trees are planted near buildings.
Another way to increase carbon storage is to improve forest health and productivity. A combination of logging, thinning and careful use of prescribed fires to remove underbrush helps protect forests from wildfires, especially in high-risk areas where trees have been weakened by disease and insects. Since wildfires emit huge amounts of carbon dioxide, a vigorous national program aimed at making forests healthier must be a top priority.
It's too bad that national environmental groups are too caught up in anti-logging sentiment to recognize the value of better forest management.
Make no mistake; this is not to imply that all logging is beneficial to the environment. The U.S. forest products industry could send a message around the world to preserve tropical rain forests by helping to sustain and restore dwindling ancient forests in this country. Such efforts by industry could blunt the argument of developing nations that the United States is more interested in preserving their natural resources than it is its own.
Climate change affects us all. Instead of being discounted, forests are an essential part of the world community's efforts to combat global warming. We can succeed if our country, spurred by the Kyoto treaty, embarks on a course of wise, sustainable action to make better use of trees.