reforestation

The more optimistic global warming scientists believe we have a good 10 years to deal with global warming. After that, all bets are off. Some even say all bets are off right now, but I think we still have time. But either way, the time to act is 20 years ago...or, since we were to goddamned stupid to do that, how about right now.

My main efforts this particular year have been the preservation of forests, reforestation, and preservation of wetlands because these three things will be absolutely critical for our abilities to deal with both global warming per se (due to their carbon sequestration abilities) and in dealing with the CONSEQUENCES of global warming, including flooding, soil erosion, etc.

So, in the spirit of this particular focus, this comes from something I wrote long ago, but is still very relevant and bears repetition. We ALL need to pay attention to these things because if we don't, we are screwed, our children are screwed and our grandchildren are screwed. Beyond that I cannot predict.

As I read Jared Diamond’s excellent book Collapse a couple of years ago, I was struck by the fact that among all the various environmental issues that led to major economic and social problems, deforestation stood out as a major factor in almost every case examined, from Easter Island to modern Montana. Throughout history, and continuing today, deforestation has been one of the single most common reasons for the agricultural and economic collapse of civilizations and nations. The simple explanation for this is that forests represent not only a major resource whose depletion affects not just the logging industry, but also construction and transportation industries as well as, in most places, heating and cooking. But deeper than this simple explanation is a much more fundamental one. Forests are a major determinant of rainfall patterns, water runoff patterns and soil erosion patterns. Deforestation almost invariably reduces rainfall regionally. Deforestation leads to much faster water runoff leading to disastrous rainy season floods followed by dry season droughts in areas where prior to deforestation water runoff was better held by forests, preventing floods and mitigating the dry season. And deforestation, both by removing extensive root systems that hold soil in place and because of it’s limiting rapid water runoff, leads to greatly increased soil erosion. In areas of the world where deforestation has occurred, agriculture declines due to water scarcity, rainy season floods, and massive soil depletion. More distant problems are the loss of reliable watercourses due to the floods and erosion, often rendering hydroelectric power and irrigation impossible, and the destruction of downstream delta fisheries that depend on the nutrients washed downstream by a healthy river/soil ecosystem. Thus forestry, agriculture, infrastructure and fisheries suffer severely after the deforestation of an area and this alone has led to many economic crashes in many parts of the world through history.

My wife, as I have often mentioned, is a climate scientist. And sometimes she hears some great stuff at seminars, hearing the facts straight from the horse's mouth. A couple of times she passed on stuff I REALLY wanted to blog but was a little confidential. You should have heard what the NASA administrators were trying to tell the scientists during the whole censorship scandal. Pretty scary stuff. But not something I can pass on.

Something she passed on to me recently, though, really got me thinking and doesn't involve any inside secrets as far as I know.

Some scientists have been advocating some pretty radical ideas to deal with Global Warming. One such idea is to lace our atmosphere with sulphate particles to increase the albedo of the atmosphere. This idea seems pretty crazy: possibly acidifying our atmosphere at who knows what cost to take a chance that it will reflect back enough solar energy to reduce warming. Apparently another such idea is even more crazy: increase the albedo of the ocean by covering large areas with white styrofoam. Hmmmm...

But back to sulfate particles. Apparently, one problem here is that no one actually, until recently, actually did the calculations to see if it would work or if it would cause massive acid rain. Well, according to data submitted for publication, calculations show that it COULD work and that the amount necessary to make a difference shouldn't have a large effect on acid rain. So, that actually is kind of promising. But...and here is where things get sticky when dealing with such ideas: the cost would be in the trillions (on a ROUGH calculation) AND no one knows what the dynamics would be. In other words, how long the sulfate particles would stay in place and how they would be distributed globally are completely unknown. I suspect that lack of understanding of the dynamics would include not being sure that LOCALIZED acid rain problems might not happen if concentrations became unusually high in spcific locations. A similar situation arose with the chemicals that caused the ozone holes: they reached exceptionally high concentrations at the polar regions and the specific dynamics of those locations made them particularly potent. We don't know what would happen with the sulfates in terms of the dynamics of the situation.