A more holistic response to climate change.

Global Warming and Climate change have been hot topics for many years. At the heart of the issue is how to ensure that this little blue planet remains inhabitable for future generations.

The response till now has been focussed on reducing emissions of green house gasses. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was established to “The ultimate objective of the Convention is to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced) interference with the climate system.”

On the UNFCCC website, under Mitigation the focus is limited exclusively to reducing emissions. Burn less fossil fuels, use less aviation and maritime transport. All of this must counter development and depress economies. This is a recipe for disaster since Asia and Africa’s developing nations cannot afford to stop using coal and Oil. America and most First World economies are so dependent on oil that stopping emissions is practical impossible.

Prevailing wisdom suggests sinking money into the renewables sectors with Solar and Wind. This is not the silver bullet that can slay the climate change werewolf. Solar is great but wouldn’t you know it, it only works while the sun is shining. Unfortunately the peak consumption is usually just after sundown. Wind is great, as long as the wind is blowing. But where are we left when the wind stops blowing after sunset?

A world without a reliable source of electricity is a giant leap into the past. We, the consumers, are very intolerant of an unstable electricity supply. The folk in South Africa dealing with power outages for hours and days and some times even months on end will attest to that. In the 21^st century, to be left without power over night would spell disaster for civilisation. The population may explode, the TV industry would crumble forcing unemployment up. We may have to find real work for the folk in the reality TV industry. 

Industry too would be severely affected by power failures. Consider a rainy overcast day in the middle of winter. The full production from the wind farm is required to keep the population from freezing. That leaves little reserve for the aluminium/aluminum plant to keep functioning. If the power fails, the plant may have to completely replace machinery. A single brown out could cost an aluminium smelter millions. We are not able to maintain our current living conditions under these restrictions.

The best and most reliable means of producing electricity in large parts of the world remains coal fired power stations. Investment in Natural Gas power plants continues to grow, but the mining of natural gas has the environmental lobby up in arms. My personal favourite is nuclear power, however the events with the Tsunami at Fukushima appear to have been the death knell for Nuclear power.

The result, to take environmental concerns to heart, without being forced back into the iron age we cannot simply concentrate on reducing emissions. We need to be very focussed on removing CO2 from the atmosphere, not simply trying to put CO2 there at a reduced rate.

So carry on using less electricity, installing solar and use more fuel efficient cars, hybrid and electric, that is all good, but simply too slow. We all need to focus on getting CO2 out of the atmosphere. The question is how?

My Grade 3 child knows that plants absorb CO2 and release O2 during photosynthesis. This is a wonderful technology completely unencumbered by patents. Trees are particularly good at this, and a single tree can remove about 12 kg of CO2 each year. So perhaps we should start cultivating forests to counteract our voracious appetite for energy?

It would appear that the all told, our average CO2 emissions per person is 4.9 ton each year. The average for America is 17.6 ton, 16 for Australia, 8.9 for South Africa.  Countries like India 1.7 ton and Brazil at 2.2 ton are at the bottom end of the scale.

This is total CO2 equivalent taking industry transport and energy into account.

If you are interested in calculating your carbon footprint, here is an online carbon footprint calculator.

For the 4.9 ton figure, we require at least 408 trees per person. For the high 17.6 ton figure we require 1’467 trees per person. Obviously different varieties of trees will require different spaces, but as an average let us say that we can fit 700 trees per acre. That means we should each have between 1 and 2 acres of forest. As the population is approaching 7 billion we will require 14 billion acres of forest.That equates to 57 million square kilometres of forest.

The current forests of the world occupy 39 million square kilometres and this is declining in sub Saharan Africa and Latin America. The difference is almost 18 million square kilometres of forest or a shortfall of 46%. 

The beauty of this process is the benefits will be evident within two to five years rather than 20 to 50. Not only that but trees will minimise rainwater runoff, lower surface temperatures, provide shade and generally have a very positive influence on our well being.

Trying to fix our planet with a single strategy is not going to have the maximum impact. This needs to be beaten on several fronts, and I would like to see agriculture and forestry take up the clarion call.

Please let me know what you think. I would love to hear from you.

References: 

http://www.arborenvironmentalalliance.com/carbon-tree-facts.asp

Google Public Data Explorer - World Development Indicators.
image credit - https://www.facebook.com/ScienceIsSeriouslyAwesome.