Tag: carbon sequestration

bookmark_borderReferences for “Carbon Offsets: Planting Trees is Greenwashing”

Posted on by admin

By Daniel Brouse
June 21, 2024

Carbon Offsets and Sequestration: Planting Trees is Greenwashing — Brouse (2023)

To support the statement “Giving carbon offsets for planting trees and allowing for the continued use of fossil fuels is greenwashing and accelerates the pace of climate change,” here are some references:

  1. Carbon Offsets and Greenwashing:
    • Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). “Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?” Environmental Education Research. This paper discusses the concept of greenwashing and the ineffectiveness of certain carbon offset schemes.
    • Gillenwater, M. (2012). “What is Additionality? Part 1: A Long Standing Problem.” Greenhouse Gas Management Institute. This paper critiques the concept of additionality in carbon offset projects, which is crucial for understanding greenwashing.
  2. Ineffectiveness of Tree Planting as Offsets:
    • Bastin, J.-F., et al. (2019). “The global tree restoration potential.” Science. This study discusses the limitations and potential of tree planting for carbon sequestration.
    • Houghton, R. A. (2013). “The emissions of carbon from deforestation and degradation in the tropics: past trends and future potential.” Carbon Management. This paper highlights the challenges and limited impact of reforestation projects.
  3. Fossil Fuels and Climate Change:
    • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2021). “Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.” This report provides comprehensive evidence on the impact of fossil fuels on climate change.
    • International Energy Agency (IEA). (2021). “Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector.” This report emphasizes the need to reduce fossil fuel usage to meet climate targets.
  4. Accelerating Climate Change:
    • Anderson, K., & Peters, G. (2016). “The trouble with negative emissions.” Science. This article discusses the reliance on future technologies, like carbon offsets, and their impact on current fossil fuel use and climate change acceleration.
    • Harvey, F. (2021). “Climate crisis: the massive impact of global warming on the Arctic.” The Guardian. This article explores how ongoing fossil fuel use exacerbates climate change impacts, particularly in sensitive regions like the Arctic.

These references provide a foundation for understanding how carbon offsets, particularly through tree planting, can be seen as greenwashing when they allow for the continued use of fossil fuels, thus accelerating climate change.

The fossil fuel industry uses carbon offsets as a strategy to maintain and even expand the use of fossil fuels while attempting to address concerns about climate change. Here’s how this works:

  1. Promoting Carbon Offsets: The fossil fuel industry invests in or purchases carbon offsets, which are credits representing reductions in greenhouse gas emissions achieved by others. These offsets can come from various projects such as reforestation, renewable energy, or methane capture.
  2. Continuing Emissions: By purchasing carbon offsets, fossil fuel companies claim to neutralize their own emissions. This allows them to argue that they can continue extracting, refining, and burning fossil fuels without increasing their net carbon footprint.
  3. Public Relations: The industry uses carbon offsets as part of their public relations strategy to portray themselves as environmentally responsible. This helps to counter criticism and regulatory pressure related to their contributions to climate change.
  4. Regulatory Compliance: In some regions, carbon offsets are part of cap-and-trade systems or carbon pricing mechanisms. By using offsets, fossil fuel companies can meet regulatory requirements without reducing their actual fossil fuel production and consumption.
  5. Delaying Transition: By relying on carbon offsets, the fossil fuel industry can delay transitioning to renewable energy sources. Offsets can be cheaper and less disruptive to their current business models compared to investing heavily in clean energy technologies.
  6. Economic Benefits: Investing in carbon offset projects can also bring economic benefits to fossil fuel companies. For instance, they might invest in projects that align with their other business interests or use offsets to enter new markets.

In summary, the fossil fuel industry uses carbon offsets to give the appearance of reducing their environmental impact while continuing to produce and use fossil fuels. This approach helps them meet regulatory requirements, maintain public support, and delay the transition to a low-carbon economy.

THE REAL PROBLEM

The exact amount of O2 contributed and CO2 absorbed is a complicated equation on a daily or yearly basis. Trees both absorb and emit CO2. However, this calculation is relatively meaningless because CO2 has an average lifespan in the atmosphere of 100 years. In contrast, 99% of a tree’s carbon has an average cycle of 7 years. Essentially, 0% of the CO2 causing climate change is stored in a tree. The importance of trees and forests lies in their role within the soil ecosystem. Trees act as caretakers for the CO2 stored in the soil.

For a frightening example, look at the forest fires in Canada. These fires are more intense and frequent due to human CO2 emissions. Last year, Canada’s largest contributor to CO2 emissions was wildfires. While this may not be a significant factor in the long term, as that CO2 would have returned to the atmosphere within 50 years anyway, it creates a feedback loop that accelerates climate change.

But it gets worse. The real feedback loop problem is the permafrost. Forest fires and a warming climate have ignited the permafrost, causing ‘zombie fires’ that burned all winter under the snow and continue to burn this year. Millions of years of CO2 are stored in the permafrost. While we do not know exactly how much carbon is stored in nature, it is reasonable to assume that temperatures could be pushed from 3 degrees to 6 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Humans cannot thrive above a rise of 1.5 degrees. Much of the Earth will be uninhabitable if the temperature rises an additional 6 degrees Celsius. If humans also add 3 degrees Celsius, the temperature and humidity will approach a wet-bulb temperature that will not sustain human life.

CANADIAN WILDFIRE CASE STUDY
For a frightening example, look at the forest fires in Canada. These fires are more intense and frequent due to human CO2 emissions. Last year, Canada’s largest contributor to CO2 emissions was wildfires. While this may not be a significant factor in the long term, as that CO2 would have returned to the atmosphere within 50 years anyway, it creates a feedback loop that accelerates climate change.

But it gets worse. The real feedback loop problem is the permafrost. Forest fires and a warming climate have ignited the permafrost, causing ‘zombie fires’ that burned all winter under the snow and continue to burn this year. Millions of years of CO2 are stored in the permafrost. While we do not know exactly how much carbon is stored in nature, it is reasonable to assume that temperatures could be pushed from 3 degrees to 6 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Humans cannot thrive above a rise of 1.5 degrees. Much of the Earth will be uninhabitable if the temperature rises an additional 6 degrees Celsius. If humans also add 3 degrees Celsius, the temperature and humidity will approach a wet-bulb temperature that will not sustain human life.

Also see: Soil Degradation and Desertification

The Human Induced Climate Change Experiment

bookmark_borderRio Negro Climate Change Case Study

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse
November 11, 2023

What do you know about the Rio Negro as it relates to climate change and carbon sinks? The Rio Negro gets its name from its color. The black water is caused by highly acidic and carbon rich water. One scientist that lives on the river called it similar to Coca-cola. In 2023, the Rio Negro recorded record low levels.

Most of the carbon discharged into the water helps the carbon to eventually sink in the ocean as a literal carbon sink. The lack of rain and drought conditions result in more vegetation dying and contribute to a feedback loop — more plants die from less rain… and there is less rain to wash the excess carbon to the bottom of the ocean… resulting in more global warming… resulting in more dead vegetation.

A study of Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) in South American rivers found, “Small and steep catchments hosting organic rich forest soils and peatlands were the most sensitive and showed the highest and fastest DOC release if evaluated on a per unit area basis. Here, rain events caused a rapid exponential increase in DOC release….”

The study Effects of natural light and depth on rates of photo-oxidation of dissolved organic carbon in a major black-water river, the Rio Negro, Brazil found under natural sunlight during the dry seasons rates of complete photo-oxidation and changes in absorbance indices decayed exponentially. The deeper the water the less CO2 created.

The Amazon river was also at record lows during 2023. The drought conditions in the Amazon rain forest are unusual. We are watching the Rio Negro and Amazon Rivers as a case study for the slowing and/or collapse of the AMOC. The tipping point for the collapse of AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) was thought to be centuries away, at the earliest. In July of 2023, the study Warning of a forthcoming collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation was published in the journal Nature Communications. “Here we provide statistical significance and data-driven estimators for the time of tipping. We estimate a collapse of the AMOC to occur around mid-century (2025-2095) under the current scenario of future emissions.” The collapse is likely to cause faster sea level rise on the east coast of the US, more severe storms in Europe, and increasing drought in the Sahel in Africa. “From the study of past climate, we know changes in the AMOC have been some of the most abrupt and impactful events in the history of climate,” said Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf, at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and world leading oceanographer. During the last Ice Age, winter temperatures changed by up to 10C within three years in some places. “We are dealing with a system that in some aspects is highly non-linear, so fiddling with it is very dangerous, because you may well trigger some surprises,” he said. “I wish I knew where this critical tipping point is, but that is unfortunately just what we don’t know. We should avoid disrupting the AMOC at all costs. It is one more reason why we should stop global warming as soon as possible.” A feedback loop created by the AMOC tipping point would cause a disruption of weather systems and circulation. The result would be the loss of naturally occurring carbon sinks.

Conclusion
The carbon sequestration from dissolved organic carbon is only one of the many carbon sinks in the Amazon. It is likely Amazon droughts will become more frequent and intense resulting in decarbonization at an exponential rate. The collapse of the AMOC will hasten the collapse of the Amazon. The collapse of the Amazon will hasten the collapse of the AMOC.

A case study for: Toppled Tipping Points: The Domino Effect Brouse and Mukherjee (2023)

Climate Change: How Long Is “Ever”? Brouse (2023)

Climate Change: The End of Times Brouse and Mukherjee (2023)

The Reign of Violent Rain Brouse and Mukherjee (2023)

Climate Change: Rate of Acceleration Brouse and Mukherjee (2023)

bookmark_borderThe Hemp Myth, Carbon Sinks and the Environment

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse and Sidd Mukherjee

Q: Is hemp a good solution for carbon sequestration (carbon sinks) and/or beneficial to the environment?

A: No, not really. In general, hemp only acts as a carbon sink while it is growing and left unharvested. The harvesting usually negates any net-negative carbon sink. (ie more CO2 is released in the harvesting than is being sequestered.) In addition, production of oil, pulp, fibers, or other products usually results in a large carbon footprint. Hemp is not known to be more efficient in the production of anything. It’s also important to note, plant based oils and alcohols result in more low level ozone than petroleum, not to mention, any carbon that is combusted is converted to CO2. Ozone is killing many trees and humans (Death By Ozone, 2016).

Q: Remember the awful hole in the ozone layer in the 80-90’s? Don’t we want more ozone?

A: No. Ozone is a volatile gas and changes form rapidly. In general, there are 2 types of ozone — Tropospheric and Stratospheric. Tropospheric is low level ozone and deadly to life on earth. Stratospheric is in the upper level atmosphere (stratosphere) that protects life on earth (The Ozone Know Zone, 2005).

Q: Won’t the carbon be sequestered in the fiber and stay there until it rots (and hemp is resistant to rotting)?

A: Saying the carbon will stay in the fiber is partially correct… it will also stay in the leaves and the roots. The leaves and roots will decay faster. But, as for the fibers, to harvest them takes more carbon than the carbon that is sequestered. In all cases of plants as carbon sinks, it does nothing to solve the problem of the CO2 in the atmosphere that was released by fossil fuels. Plants are just a temporary store for their own carbon. Trees absorb and release about the same amount of carbon over a 100-year cycle (with many shorter time cycles for the leaves — about 1-2 years.) Comparatively, hemp’s cycle is only a few years. Another important factor in calculating the length of time of a carbon sink with plants is that plants also breath: “Plants release up to 30 per cent more CO2 than previously thought.” During daylight and night there is the process of plant respiration in which plants breath in O2 and breath out CO2. This is different than during daylight hours when a separate process called photosynthesis takes in carbon dioxide and releases oxygen. Plants release up to 30 per cent more CO2 than previously thought, 2017)

Q: Would it is better to have tarmac than grow hemp? Even though hemp can replace petroleum-based plastic with biodegradable products?

A: No, not at all. We should plant as many plants with the longest sink-cycle (trees). Most importantly we should stop releasing CO2 that has been sequestered for millions of years. Then, we should figure how to re-sequester CO2 for millions of years.

Hemp has far more benefits and significantly less costs than petroleum products; however, agriculture in general has many costs (in fact, the invention of flooded rice paddy agriculture thousands of years ago in China was one of the first major human causes of climate change.” The origins of human-influenced climate change may be traced back 5,000 years“, 2004) Monoculture of hemp, corn, and other bio-fuels release all the CO2, create more ozone and require vast areas of land. Having a single crop produced in large scale has a devastating effect on biodiversity. Bio-plastics and other petroleum substitutes create the same sort of environmental problems. They don’t instantly bio-degrade. They initially breakdown into micro-bio-plastics.

The little live creatures on this planet have evolved for a couple billion years to eat what plants make — like carbohydrates. So, they eat carbohydrates much faster than they can eat hydrocarbons from fossil fuels. (But they are working on it, we already see evolution in that direction.)

Unfortunately, there are no good carbon sinks known to Man (other than petroleum / hydrocarbons.) The best solution is to stop human Green House Gas emissions. A study published in the Journal Nature, The contribution of insects to global forest deadwood decomposition found, “Worldwide, dead and decaying wood releases roughly 10.9 gigatons of carbon every year. This is roughly 115% of annual fossil fuel emissions.”

“We found both the rate of decomposition and the contribution of insects are highly dependent on the climate, and will increase as temperatures rise,” study co-author David Lindenmayer said.

At present, bio derived packaging is to be preferred to fossil derived packaging since the former made out of carbohydrate will break down faster than fossil derived hydrocarbon. More important, the bio derived packaging is only returning to the atmosphere recently obtained CO2, since the plants from where the packaging came would decay anyway. But, if fossil plastic decays, that’s dumping into the atmosphere fossil C which was buried hundreds of millions of years ago. Maybe it’s a good thing the little bugs haven’t yet found a widespread, efficient way to eat fossil plastic.

Relative to petroleum, plants are much more beneficial. Hydrocarbons have a much greater cost to the environment. Relative to trees, hemp is far more costly; however, the real solution is to cut down on packaging and consumption.

The Human Induced Climate Change Experiment